Week 4 - Assignment: Evaluate a Case in Public Personnel Management and Week 5 - Assignment: Recommend an Employee-Friendly Policy

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/shared/Course%20Interactives/SB/PUB-7017/week_04_guide_successful_case_study/interaction.html

2/19/22, 12:35 PM PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312) – PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 3/5

Battaglio, R. (2015). Public human

resource management: Strategies and

practices in the 21st century. London:

SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Link

Herrera, J., & Miller, D. M. (2018). An

emergent taxonomy of public

personnel management: Exploring the

task environment of human resource

managers…
Link

Kearney, R. C., & Coggburn, J. D.

(2016). Public human resource

management: Problems and prospects.

Los Angeles: CQ Press.
Link

Seunghoo Lim, Tae Kyu Wang, & Soo-

Young Lee. (2017). Shedding New Light

on Strategic Human Resource

Management: The Impact of Human

Resource…
Link

Week 4 – Assignment: Evaluate a Case in Public

Personnel Management
Assignment

Due February 27 at 11:59 PM

This week, you have the task of analyzing a case study entitled, Louisiana and Vision

2020. In your evaluation, avoid summarizing the case. Instead, analyze the case critically

and assess how it pertains to this week’s readings. Refer to the Guide to a Successful Case

Study Analysis (see slides above) for additional guidance. Remember, excellent analyses

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/viewContent/1622096/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/viewContent/1622097/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/viewContent/1622098/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/viewContent/1622099/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/viewContent/1622065/View

2/19/22, 12:35 PM PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312) – PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 4/5

are a combination of critical and analytical thoughts connected to greater themes

presented in the readings – and this is not an easy task.

Be sure to include the following personal reflections about the readings elements in your

assignment:

Provide a brief description of the questions/challenges you have regarding this

week’s course readings.

Explain why the case is noteworthy.

Explain how it pertains to the assigned readings (i.e., complements, contradicts,

extends the readings).

Identify the implications for you as the newly hired Director of Personnel

Administration for Public Organization X.

Explain how these points or issues integrate with the material covered in the class

thus far and explain their relevance to you.

As you complete your analysis, keep the following questions in mind:

How might you coordinate such efforts across agencies, industries, and sectors?

What state agencies might be tasked with implementing the workforce-training

benchmarks?

What roles might secondary and postsecondary education have in advancing

toward the workforce-training benchmarks? How might community and technical

colleges contribute to achieving these benchmarks?

What benefits might you champion as ensuing from the achievement of workforce-

training goals for the state? What, if any, other benchmarks might be affected by

achieving a more educated and better-trained workforce in the state?

Do not include the following in your analysis:

A summary of the readings

A detailed description of the case

Any editorials

Length: 5-7 pages, not including title and reference pages

References: Include a minimum of 5 scholarly resources.

Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts

presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this

topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure

to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

2/19/22, 12:35 PM PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312) – PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 5/5

Upload your document, and then click the Submit to Dropbox button.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018791965

Public Personnel Management
2018, Vol. 47(4) 445 –471

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0091026018791965

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

An Emergent Taxonomy
of Public Personnel
Management: Exploring the
Task Environment of Human
Resource Managers in Spanish
Local Government

Justo Herrera1 and Daniel M. Miller2

Abstract
This study presents a taxonomy for public personnel management based on emergent
profiles of local human resource managers in Spain. The analysis focuses on the
task environments of managers defined by three salient constructs from strategic
human resources management research. Specifically, this study looks at the level of
participation of human resource managers in strategic-level policy-making processes,
vertical and horizontal policy integration, and the flexibility of human resource
managers in interpreting and implementing key functions of personnel management
(i.e., recruitment, hiring, and remuneration). The results yield five distinct profiles
that describe different approaches of human resource management. The five
profiles include Technical Administrative (TA); Technical Functional (TF); Managerial
Administrative (MA); Managerial Functional (MF); and Strategic Executive (SE). The
profiles are not a linear typology of human resource management practices. However,
they do fit within a larger theoretical framework that captures central constructs of
strategic human resource management (SHRM).

Keywords
HRM, local government, strategic HRM, public administration, public management

1Universitat de Valencia, València, Spain
2ChangingSystems LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA

Corresponding Author:
Daniel M. Miller, ChangingSystems LLC, 404 Arrowhead Dr., Greensboro, NC 27410, USA.
Email: [email protected]

791965PPMXXX10.1177/0091026018791965Public Personnel ManagementHerrera and Miller
research-article2018

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

mailto:[email protected]

446 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

Introduction

Given the past two decades of global economic downturn, governmental agencies are
facing pressures to become more efficient and effective through reduced cost and
increased productivity. A critically important, yet costly element of every organization
is personnel. In both public and private sectors, personnel management is an area that
often garners a great deal of attention for enhancing efficiency and effectiveness
(Klingner, Nalbandian, & Llorens, 2010).

In the public sector, governmental functions range from relatively predictable
bureaucratic operations such as waste management to highly complex and adaptive
operations such as crisis response to human and/or natural disasters. Of the many gov-
ernment functions, personnel management impacts every division and agency.
Personnel management often spans a wide variety of functional units within an orga-
nization. Thus, personnel management functions (e.g., supervision, recruitment, train-
ing, remuneration, and evaluation) coexist with general organizational strategic and
operational aims and functions. Ideally, personnel management systems support the
well-being of employees and contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the
organization.

Innovative approaches to human resource management (HRM) that were previ-
ously confined to the private sector are finding a place in public personnel manage-
ment (Klingner, Nalbandian, & Llorens, 2010). In recent decades, some governments
have responded to pressures for increased efficiency and effectiveness by adopting
practices that have shown to be effective in the private sector. The response has
included streamlining processes, out-sourcing programs and services, and moving
away from bureaucratic features (e.g., top-down decision making, rigid processes,
divisionalized operations, etc.) in favor of more strategic, inclusive, integrated, and
flexible practices attributed to the New Public Management movement (Bryson,
Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2014; Klingner, 2012).

The dynamic nature of the public sector (e.g., context, structure, shifts in political
leadership and ideology, reallocation of resources, etc.) requires researchers and
practitioners to continue to look for dynamic ways to think about and research public
personnel management (Jordan & Battaglio, 2013). As public personnel manage-
ment develops in complexity, there is a need to continue to explore and develop new
ways to describe research and practice in this increasingly diverse and dynamic
landscape.

Human resource managers are at the nexus of these undulations in the public sector.
Some of the central questions that managers may encounter include the following:
Does a given policy make sense? Is the policy effective? Does the policy run at odds
with other functions/policies internal and external to the agency? Can the manager
shape/influence the policy process at the strategic level? Can the manager shape/influ-
ence policy procedures and implementation? This study presents a taxonomy that
builds on existing work to describe and understand some of these fundamental ques-
tions facing managers.

Herrera and Miller 447

Among public agencies, there are differences in approaches to public personnel
management. Some agencies have adopted some aspects of “newer” and “different”
approaches, while others have largely relied on classical and traditional models of
HRM. This leaves a landscape of public personnel management that is far from uni-
form and predictable in terms of form and function. Nevertheless, policy making,
policy implementation, and policy integration are salient features that provide a robust
way to describe and understand variations among approaches to public personnel
management.

Researchers have developed frameworks and models to capture various approaches
to HRM practice in both public and private sectors. This article uses a taxonomy
approach for modeling HRM in the public sector. The purpose of a taxonomy is to
organize or structure knowledge and/or information. When developing a taxonomy,
there is a tension between over simplifying and overly complicating models (Bobko &
Russell, 1991). If a taxonomy is too narrowly focused or context specific, it loses its
ability to be applied more generally; on the contrary, if a taxonomy is too complex (aka
kitchen sink), it can become too intricate and unwieldy for practical application in
research or in the field.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to develop a general taxonomy that has the ability to
describe various forms of public personnel management. To avoid oversimplification
or overcomplication, three core aspects of personnel management form the basis of the
proposed taxonomy: policy making, policy implementation, policy integration.
Specifically, the study presents a taxonomy based on the following constructs:

1. Participation: participation by human resource managers in strategic-level
policy making;

2. Autonomy: flexibility of managers to implement human resource policy; and
3. Integration: vertical and horizontal integration of human resource policy within

the broader government policy framework.

Significance of the Study

In his review of HRM theory and research, Perry (2010) notes the contributions of
both highly focused, contextualized research and general theories which more
broadly characterize veins of the literature. However, according to Perry (2010), the
field of HRM needs more works that represent the “middle range” theory to advance
HRM.

Following Perry’s charge, this study distills HRM down to three salient features
and uses them as the basis for developing a middle range theory—a taxonomy. The
value of the taxonomy put forth by this study is its potential to capture and describe
complex aspects of HRM while using a relatively simple framework.

448 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

Framing Public Personnel Management

HRM theory and research has its roots in the field of organizational behavior. So, it
should be expected that perspectives in organizational behavior have influenced how
researchers and practitioners approached HRM. Three general types of models are
often used as advanced organizers for categorizing different views of the structure and
dynamics of organizations. The three forms have many descriptors, but generally
speaking, they are mechanistic, human-centered, and emergent models.

In a public administration context, the literature includes several taxonomies that
describe various types of HRM. The taxonomies are most often built on central con-
cepts grounded in general HRM and the field of organizational behavior (e.g., power,
decision making, structure, roles, motivation, etc.; Watson, 2007).

For example, Delery and Doty (1996) categorize models of HRM into three general
groups: universalistic, contingency, and configurational. Universalistic models gener-
ally view organizations as closed systems, and the underlying assumption is that there
is a set of HRM practices which “enable a firm to achieve its goals” (Wright &
McMahan, 1992, p. 298). Contingency models emphasize that the “fit” between over-
all organizational strategy and internal HR practices determines organizational perfor-
mance. Configurational models are similar to contingency models; however,
configurational models suggest that internal and external variables (including HR
policy) impact business performance. Thus, from the configurational perspective, the
HRM systems are ideally internally coherent (i.e., each HRM function is aligned with
the managerial roles and responsibilities).

In Selden’s (2005) study of county governments in the United States, she suggests
a typology for HRM that includes three fundamental forms of HRM: administrative,
operational, and strategic approaches. The administrative form of HRM practice
involves the day-to-day functions of HRM professionals. Administrative practices are
characterized by the use of technical skills which apply policies to execute routine
procedures. The administrative category is comparable with a traditional bureaucratic
or Theory X (McGregor, 1960) view of organizations. Operational practices involve
activities of professionals focused on design and managing the implementation of
policies and procedures. The operational category views human resource managers as
professionals with knowledge skills and abilities to contribute to the operations/func-
tioning of the organization. The operational practices reflect a more humanistic,
Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) point of view. The strategic practices involve upper level
(e.g., executive, legislative, etc.) planning, policy making, and decision making. In
this framework, ideally each of these forms of HRM practice is well integrated, pro-
viding for effective and efficient HRM (Dickmann & Müller-Camen, 2006; Schuler &
Jackson, 2007; Selden, 2005; Walker, 2013).

Denhardt and Denhardt (2015) describe public personnel management as having
evolved overtime from Old Public Administration toward New Public Management.
They describe Old Public Administration as reflective of traditional models of bureau-
cracy, rational decision making, and control. On the contrary, while the more “evolved”
orientation of New Public Management features more flexible and inclusive practices

Herrera and Miller 449

around policy making, implementation, and evaluation, emphasizing an orientation
toward developing policy and practices meant to fulfill public needs. Denhardt and
Denhardt also suggest yet another form of public personnel management in the form
of “New Public Service.” They describe New Public Service as a distinct approach
that builds on elements of the humanistic view of New Public Management yet goes
further by using highly inclusive strategies to involve stakeholders in processes of
dialogue with the purpose of co-constructing (i.e., defining) public needs, priorities,
and strategies policy, implementation, and evaluation.

New Public Service has an orientation that resembles thought and practice in post-
modern perspectives of organizational behavior. The inclusive democratization of the
New Public Service approach mirrors the philosophical orientation of political scien-
tists and activists such as Paulo Freire (1973). While New Public Service offers a
vision of public personnel management, there is room for more cultural, anthropologi-
cal, and inclusive participatory methods of inquiry; however, current research on
public personnel management remains heavily focused on the New Public Management
approach.

Policy Making, Implementation, and Integration: Where Are the
Managers?

Each of these general models presents three general views of public personnel man-
agement, and within each, there are implications for the role of the human resource
manager in the areas of policy making, implementation, and integration. For example,
strategic human resource management (SHRM) can be broadly characterized as efforts
that include human resource managers in (a) the process of setting the strategic direc-
tions of the agency (i.e., strategic decision making); (b) consideration of impacts and
inputs from a human resources perspective during the strategic-level policy-making
processes; (c) increasing the level of integration (configurational approach) among
functional departments throughout the organization; and (d) granting authority and
discretion to human resource managers to adapt policy to meet the conditions during
implementation (Delery & Doty, 1996; Dickmann & Müller-Camen, 2006; Schuler &
Jackson, 2007; Selden, 2005; Walker, 2013; Watson, 2007).

In addition to SHRM, other models suggest that adaptability and flexibility have an
impact on organizational effectiveness (Dessein & Santos, 2006). Kathleen Monks
(1992) adds the concept of “innovation” as an important conceptual dimension to HRM

Table 1. General Public Personnel Management Frameworks.

Delery and Doty (1996) Universalistic Contingency Configurational
Selden (2005) Administrative Operational Strategic
Denhardt and Denhardt

(2015)
Old Public

Administration
New Public

Management
New Public Service

450 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

models of practice. She defines innovation as the ability for human resource personnel
specialists to alter (adapt) policy to increase overall effectiveness. Monks highlights the
need for autonomy given to human resource personnel to interpret and implement poli-
cies and procedures such as hiring and remuneration to fit the context and needs of
particular governmental agencies. Such freedom can be more generally viewed as man-
agerial discretion (Wangrow, Schepker, & Barker, 2015) or executive behavior.

In a dynamic organization, autonomous/executive behaviors can be invaluable if it
is accompanied by a clear understanding and commitment to the overall strategic goals
and operations of the organization. However, without such understanding and commit-
ment of overall strategy, autonomous behavior can easily result in inefficient and inef-
fective outcomes such as confusion and suboptimization (Hitch, 1953).

Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Mills, and Walton (1984) suggest that managers need to
play a role in the integration and alignment of human resource policies within broader
policy frameworks: (a) Managers have more responsibility to ensure the alignment of
organizational strategy and HR policies, and (b) HRM departments have the mission
of setting policies that develop and implement activities in ways that make them more
mutually reinforcing.

Power, Politics, and Influence in Public Personnel Management

Power in the form of authority and influence is an important component of the task envi-
ronment of a human resource manager. It is equally important to consider the distinction
between public and private sector sources and uses of power. In the public sector, power,
politics, influence, and accountability may look quite different. For example, according
to Klingner and Lynn (2005), three main groups share responsibility for public HRM:
political leaders, personnel directors, and specialists. Political leaders are often respon-
sible for authorizing personnel systems, establishing agency objectives, and playing a
role in municipal policy making. However, personnel directors and specialists are often
on the frontline of HRM and in an ideal position to design and implement personnel
systems, or directly help those who do (Klingner and Lynn, 2005).

Nalbandian (1994) and Klingner, Nalbandian and Llorens (2010) focus their research
on the differences between political leaders in representative democracies (appointed by
elected officials) and administrative executives (professional bureaucrats). The nature of
authority is distinct in these two different forms of HRM. Political authority has a broad
capacity to manage professionals, while professional authority is often more technical
and skilled. The professional (bureaucratic) authority often remains in place when
changes occur in political leadership. Therefore, according to Nalbandian (1994) and
Klingner, Nalbandian and Llorens (2010), the professional bureaucrat has the potential
for gaining greater power and deeper knowledge over time due to political turnover.

Power and politics have the potential to determine who gets to participate in policy-
making processes and the amount of discretion a manager has in implementing policy.
Thus, depending on the values of the people who hold influence (e.g., political leaders,
top agency officials, or human resource managers themselves), managers may or may

Herrera and Miller 451

not have access to strategic policy-making processes or granted the authority to use
discretion when implementing policy.

The Influence of New Public Management in Public Personnel
Management

New Public Management has had a significant influence on the public administration
around the world. For example, Verheijen (1998) characterizes approaches to public
administration vis-à-vis private sector models and privatization using three categories.
The first category includes countries such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, or
Austria. Each of these countries has undertaken relatively dramatic shifts in the public
sector by adopting management practices very similar to or the same as what one
would expect to find in the private sector. The second category is characterized by a
more measured and balanced adoption of private sector management tools. Rather
than complete overhauls of traditional public sector practices, countries such as Ireland
and the Netherlands blend key elements of traditional public and private administra-
tion. The third category includes countries that have incrementally employed private
sector solutions to public management. Verheijen (1998) include France and Spain in
this category.

According to Verheijen (1998), Spain and France have similar profiles in their
ongoing development of public management. However, no country can be absolutely
placed in a given category. For example, in both France and Spain, managers at the
local level tend to have more freedom, so that there are some administrations that have
used more innovative private sector techniques, while adhere more closely to classic
bureaucratic practices.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for the study focuses on three dimensions of the task environ-
ment of the human resource manager: participation in policy making, the autonomy of
managers to adapt and implement human resource policy, and human resource policy inte-
gration. These dimensions are salient areas of the literature and have the potential to be
useful in research and practice. Figure 1 illustrates the continua of these three dimensions.

1. Manager Participation in Strategic Policy-making

Low High

2. Manager Autonomy for Policy Implementation

Rigid Adaptive

3. Vertical and Horizontal Policy Integration

Low High

Figure 1. Three dimensions of manager policy task environment.

452 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

According to Sheehan (2005), the level at which policies are made can impact the
effectiveness and efficiency of HRM practices. Sheehan further suggests that the par-
ticipation of managers in policy making increases the effectiveness of HRM. Dyer
(1999) further explains that human resource managers who participate in high-level
decisions will have a clearer understanding of how HR fits within and supports the
organization’s overall mission and strategy.

Increasingly, models of organizational behavior are examining how adaptive and
agile behavior among managers and personnel can help organizations to respond to
complex and changing contexts (Lavelle, 2006). Whether governments are faced with
restructuring and reform or responding to crises, adaptation and agility are alternatives
to relying on rigid or predetermined bureaucratic policies and procedures.

In our theoretical framework, manager autonomy (discretion) is thought of as adap-
tive behavior. On the other end of the continuum, a bureaucratic view of public person-
nel management is reflected by strict adherence to policy. Depending on the level of
policy integration and an organizational unit’s commitment to enacting the strategic
goals of the organization as a whole, compliant or adaptive behavior can have a posi-
tive or negative impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the entire organization.
For example, if policy integration is low, strict compliance to subunit policies may
conflict with the strategic aims of the organization. On the contrary, if policy integra-
tion is high and subunits strictly comply with policy, there is the presumption that the
practices of the subunit will be in alignment with the strategic goals of the organization
and, therefore, improve the organization’s effectiveness.

Another potential benefit of manager participation in strategic policy making is
increasing the extent to which human resource policies are aligned and consistent with
the strategic-level policies of the organization, that is, policy integration. Policy inte-
gration can be viewed in two basic ways, vertical and horizontal. Vertical integration
is focused on the consistency between policies of subdivisions of an organization and
the broad strategic goals of the organization as a whole, while horizontal integration is
focused on the consistency of policies among subunits of the organization. According
to several researchers, vertical and horizontal integration of human resource policies
are critical to effective and efficient operations of the organization as a whole
(Fombrun, Tichy, & Devanna, 1984; Miles & Snow, 1984; Schuler & Jackson, 1987).

Low levels of policy integration can have the impact of organizational units operat-
ing in relative isolation, which can result in suboptimization (organizational subunits
behaving in ways that serve the goals of the unit at the expense of serving the strategic
goals of the organization as a whole; Van Thiel & Leeuw, 2002). Conversely, when
policies are highly integrated, the operations of organizational subunits have a greater
potential to complement and create synergies throughout governmental operations. In
the case of extremely high-level integration, the line between different organizational
operations is said to be embedded into the fabric of the overall operations of the orga-
nization (Arthur, 1992, 1994; Baird & Meshoulam, 1988; Ichniowski & Shaw, 1997;
Miles & Snow, 1984; Richard & Johnson, 2001; Youndt, Scott, Dean, & Lepak, 1996).
However, it is conceivable that too much integration could have negative effects such
as suppressing the climate for innovation or creating overly interdependent systems
(i.e., over engineering).

Herrera and Miller 453

Candel and Biesbroek (2016) have offered important additional considerations for
policy integration. In addition to the impacts on collaboration and coordination, they
raise the critically important issue of the process of moving toward integrated policy.
In their discussion of the process, they critique existing theory and research that
neglects to focus on the process of involving subsystems (e.g., subunits, departments,
stakeholders) in the progression toward policy integration. This consideration relates
back to the first construct of participation by HR managers in the strategic policy-
making process.

Table 2 summarizes how the dynamics of high and low levels of each of the three
dimensions are related to theory discussed previously. The second column in Table 2
broadly associates each dimension with theoretical frameworks from existing

Table 2. HR Managers Situated in Theory.

Dimension Frameworks Related constructs Role of manager

1. Participation in strategic policy making
Low Bureaucracy,

Universalistic, Rational
Theory

Top down, centralized,
prescriptive, divisional, one
size fits all, noblesse oblige,
closed system.

Recipient of policy,
monitor, positional
power, enforcer,
reactor.

High SHRM, Systems
Theory, New Public
Management, New
Public Service

Inclusive, collaborative,
systems approach, buy-in,
cross-functional, dialogue,
synergistic.

Collaborator,
prospector,
empowered/valued,
input, contributor,
expert.

2. Policy implementation
Rigid Bureaucratic, Rational,

Theory X
Static, role/rule bound,

administrative, predictable
environment, dependency,
centralized responsiveness

Prescriber, controller,
monitor, reactor,
administrator.

Flexible New Public Management,
Adaptive/Agile Systems,
Complex Adaptive
Systems, Professionalism,
Theory Y

Empowered professional,
responsive, management/
administrative discretion,
trust, autonomy, frontline
responsiveness.

Interpret policy,
assessor of task
environment,
problem solver,
prospector,
professional.

3. Policy integration
Low Ad hoc policy framework,

loosely coupled,
arbitrary

Loosely coupled,
divisionalized,
suboptimization, potential
for policy conflict.

Navigator, conflict
resolver, interpreter

High Configurational,
Contingency, SHRM

Matrix, system-wide
awareness, embedded
communication systems,
coordinated policy and
workflow.

Engineer, negotiator,
analyzer.

Note. SHRM = strategic human resource management.

454 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

literature; the third column identifies some general theoretical constructs associated
with each dimension; and the fourth column presents implications for the role of the
HR manager.

In summary, the theoretical framework for this study is built upon three salient
themes that, according to previous research, have important implications for public
personnel management. Together, these themes create a task environment that is used
(a) to explore whether multiple configurations (profiles) emerge for public personnel
management, and if so, (b) to present and interpret any distinctive characteristics among
these forms of HRM. These areas of the manager task environment are not meant to be
exhaustive, but instead capture themes and constructs that continue to inform funda-
mental understandings of HRM research. Given the robust presence of these themes in
HRM research, it is expected that by using these themes to classify and describe differ-
ent approaches to HRM, a resulting taxonomy will be more generalizable.

Methods and Procedures

This section contains the methods and procedures for developing the taxonomy. The
study used data collected from human resource managers in Spanish local govern-
ments. Although there is great variation in the management of public employees among
local governments in Spain, all local governments are situated within the broader
Spanish government. Given the setting, a brief description of the context of the Spanish
public followed by the specific methods and procedures are used for the study.

Context of Spanish Municipalities

The public sector in Spain involves three tiers of government: General Administration
of the State (national), Autonomous Communities (regional), and Local (cities, towns,
and villages). The national government has power over the entirety of the country,
including the authority to delegate tasks to the other two levels. The State has legal
authority to be involved in regulations at the lower tiers of government, but the State
also has exclusive responsibilities and authorities in matters such as national defense,
the justice system, international relations, public finance, labor legislation, civil, mer-
cantile, and penal.

The second tier of government in Spain includes each of the 17 Autonomous
Communities in which the State is divided. At this level, the Communities assume
responsibility for matters of public works, agriculture, education, and health. In some
instances, Communities are delegated authority and act as extensions of the State and
allowed to generate specific policy and implement duties of some State-level functions
consistent with State policy.

The third tier of Spanish government is local municipalities. The focus of this study
is on human resource managers at this level. Municipalities are responsible for activi-
ties such as urban planning, potable water supply, culture and sports, parks and gar-
dens, policing, and social care for local citizens. Similar to the extension of
responsibilities of the State to the Autonomous Communities, local-level governments

Herrera and Miller 455

can be delegated responsibilities from both the State and Community tiers. An impor-
tant difference between the local level and the Community and State levels is that there
is no legislative power at the local level; however, local governments can develop
regulations and self-organize so long as they fall within the policy framework of the
Community and State.

Population

The total number of municipalities in Spain during the data collection (2007-2008)
was 8,116. In all, 4,929 of these were small villages with no administrative structure
(i.e., no human resource managers). Given that the focus of this study is on human
resource managers, these municipalities were not included in the population for study.
Thus, the total population for this study includes 3,185 municipalities.

Data Collection

The data used for this exploratory study were gathered for a previous study of
Spanish municipalities over the span of 2007-2008. The data set contains variables
that resemble and, therefore, had the potential to proxy the theoretical constructs
that comprise the proposed theoretical framework. The data were collected prior to
the full impact of the global financial crisis in both public and private sectors,
which resulted in dramatic changes in public policy in Spain, directly impacting
public personnel management (e.g., drastic reductions in public personnel, public
agency finance, and restructuring). Thus, the data used for the study were not col-
lected under particularly extreme or unusual circumstances that would have made
the data anomalous.

Survey Instrument

The data used in this study are a subset of responses to a questionnaire that was
distributed as part of a larger research project in 2008. The questionnaire for the
original study collected self-reported data from human resource managers on four
topics related to the local government: (a) characteristics of municipalities, (b)
human resources management practices, (c) systems of evaluation, and (d) per-
formance and evaluation. The data used in this study included a single demo-
graphic item (size of municipality population) and seven items related to HRM
practices.

Of the 61 items from the original questionnaire, seven were identified that appeared
to reflect the constructs that inform the underlying theoretical framework of this study.
Two items reflect the involvement of managers in strategic-level policy making; three
items reflect the range between strict adherence versus the autonomy of human
resource personnel to interpret and implement human resource policy; and two items
reflect the level of integration of human resource policy with other governmental pol-
icy. The questionnaire asked the respondents to rate each item on a 5-point Likert-type

456 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

scale with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree for each state-
ment (see Table 3).

The size of municipalities was among the data available to the researchers. It was
of particular interest due to the relationship often found in research that connects orga-
nization size with the structure and dynamics of organizations (e.g., decision making,
divisional/departmental structures, executive layers, hierarchy, etc.). However, the
item on the questionnaire that indicates the size of the municipalities is a categorical
measure that is not a continuous nor evenly distributed variable. The questionnaire
was designed for government reporting and, therefore, used the legal criterion set forth
by FEMP (Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces) to group municipali-
ties. The result is a measure of municipality size based on the number of citizens:
1,000 to 5,000; 5,000 to 20,000; 20,000 to 50,000; >50,000. However, in spite of
these shortcomings, the variable is examined using descriptive analyses.

Sampling Strategy

The sampling strategy for the original survey targeted local public human resource
managers across Spain. Given the large number of municipalities in Spain and the
skewed number of municipal governments relative to their respective number of citi-
zens (i.e., small municipalities in Spain greatly outnumber large municipalities), a
random sample of every municipality was not used for data collection. Due to cost
constraints, reaching out all of the “small” municipalities (1,000-5,000 citizens) was
not possible. In addition, to insure the inclusion of large municipalities, a more pur-
poseful approach was used in an attempt to include large municipalities, which would

Table 3. Proxies for Participation, Autonomy, and Integration.

Construct Questionnaire items

1. Participation in Strategic
Policy Making

Item 1. The head of human resources is involved
in the strategic-level policy-making process of the
municipality.

Item 2. When the head of human resources participates
in strategic-level policy-making, they provide input on
how the policies impact human resource issues.

2. Autonomy of HR Policy
Implementation

Item 3. Human resource policies are established as a
part of overall strategic-level governmental policies.

Item 4. General human resource policies are used to
establish policies that address specific issues.

3. Vertical and Horizontal
Policy Integration

Item 5. Remuneration is flexible and used to motivate
employee performance.

Item 6. Human resource policies are established as a
part of overall strategic-level governmental policies.

Item 7. General human resource policies are used to
establish policies that address specific issues.

Herrera and Miller 457

be underrepresented in the sample had it been a purely randomized sampling approach.
With these considerations in mind, a stratified sampling strategy was used. For munic-
ipalities with 1,000 to 5,000 residents, half of the nearly 2,000 municipalities were
invited to participate. The procedure for selecting these municipalities involved
obtaining an alphabetized list of these municipalities and selecting every other munici-
pality for inclusion in the study. The questionnaire was distributed to all municipalities
having a population greater than 5,000 (1,214 localities). Given these two conditions,
the sampling pool consisted of 2,293 residents.

Data Analyses: The Process of Looking for an Emergent Taxonomy

There were two phases for developing the taxonomy of data analysis for the study.
The first phase examined the construct validity of the items used from the question-
naire to represent the three theoretical constructs of participation, autonomy, and
integration. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to analyze whether there
was support that the items from the questionnaire were measuring separate and dis-
tinct constructs.

The second phase looked for statistical clusters of managers when all seven items
were considered simultaneously. This part of the analysis involved performing a
k-means cluster analysis to observe whether distinct combinations of the three con-
structs emerged as clusters and, therefore, representing unique, yet emergent profiles
of approaches to public personnel management. In other words, this phase of analysis
did not assume an a priori set of categories/typologies of public personnel manage-
ment. Instead, this phase focused on grouping managers into statistically distinct
groups (profiles) that would later serve as profiles for constructing a general taxonomy
of public personnel management.

The decision to use a k-means cluster analysis was largely based on the purpose of
the study, which was to have groupings of management practice emerge from the data,
rather than imposing a priori categories and constructs. K-means clustering techniques
typically use Euclidean distance as the means to identify a predetermined number (i.e.,
k) of centroids from the data set. After the centroids are identified, additional data are
added to the analysis by grouping observations with its nearest centroid. As data are
added, centroids are recalculated through this iterative process. Ultimately, the analy-
sis reaches a point of “data convergence” where the data centroids are distinct (math-
ematically distant) from each other and the added data have been clustered into groups
mathematically close to the finally established centroids (Bahr, Bielby, & House,
2011; Rupp, 2013).

After the groups were established through statistical clustering, weighted mean
scores on the three dimensions of the task environment were then calculated for each
distinct grouping of managers. This allowed for the analysis and description of each
“profile” using constructs from the literature and the theoretical framework undergird-
ing this study. The resulting profiles of public personnel management (PPM) were
then incorporated into a larger taxonomic scheme. The development of the larger PPM
taxonomy relied on plotting the weighted mean scores for each profile on a two-axis

458 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

grid of manager behavior, where x is participation in policy making and y is autonomy
to adapt policy.

As mentioned above, the primary analysis was followed by examining how the
various profiles might look vis-à-vis the size of municipalities. Given that the
population data were not continuous or normally distributed, the method of
exploring municipality size was limited to observing of the frequency/percentage
of each type of cluster (profile) in each of the different size categories of
municipalities.

Results

Response Rate

Of the 2,293 questionnaires that were distributed, 366 questionnaires were returned,
328 of those had complete data for the seven items used in this study, which resulted
in overall response rate of 15.9% and 14.3%, after removing cases with missing data.
The response rate of 14.3% has a confidence interval of .051 at 95% confidence level
with a relative standard error of 5.01. The implications for the low response rate on the
findings are discussed in a later section of this article.

Of the total sample, 98 of the respondent were from small municipalities. One hun-
dred eighty-five were from medium size municipalities and 45 were from large munic-
ipalities. Again, these size categories do not represent continuous or ordinal variable.

Construct Validity: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Our theoretical model suggests that there are three latent factors (constructs)—Factor 1
(F1): Participation in Strategic Policy Making (Questionnaire Items 1 and 2); Factor 2
(F2): Integration of Policy (Questionnaire Items 3 and 4); and Factor (F3): Autonomy of
Policy Implementation (Questionnaire Items 5, 6, and 7). The model was estimated

Table 4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Participation, Autonomy, and Integration.

Item

Factor loadings of potential constructs

Participation (PRT) Autonomy (AUTO) Integration (INT)

1 0.718
2 0.741
3 0.402
4 0.552
5 0.387
6 0.585
7 0.741

Note. Factor loadings <.30 suppressed.
Using Maximum Likelihood Estimation (N = 325)

Herrera and Miller 459

using a maximum likelihood method. Table 4 shows the factor loadings (from the stan-
dardized values). Table 5 shows the estimated covariance among the three factors.

The overall goodness of fit of the model was tested by the observing the correlation
matrix between the items, the goodness of fit index (comparative fit index [CFI]), and
the square root of the average of the squared residuals (root mean square error of
approximation [RMSEA]). The value χ2 = 18.27 indicates that the model should not
be rejected at a significance level of ⩽5%. Furthermore, the CFI index (.980) and
RMSEA (.045) reveal that the degree of fit is high. Based on the results of factor analy-
sis and the goodness of fit tests, there is support for the model that includes three dis-
tinct constructs.

Grouping Managers Using Cluster Analysis

Recall that the purpose of the cluster analysis is to group managers into statistically
distinct groups. This process of grouping the managers is not based on theoretical
assumptions or themes from HRM research; instead, it is an approach that relies on a
statistical “sorting” of managers into groups based on the statistical similarity of their
responses to all seven survey items. These statistically distinctive groups are then ana-
lyzed and described as “profiles” that compose an emergent taxonomy. It is during the
analysis phase when the three dimensions of the task environment are unpacked to
describe and situate the profiles into the larger taxonomy.

In our analysis, we explored using different k values (3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). After review-
ing the results of each iteration of cluster analysis (i.e., k = 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7), the results
of the analysis where k = 5 were determined to be of particular interest. At k = 5, the
results appeared to provide the best way to avoid an oversimplified (too few clusters) or
overcomplicated (too many clusters) taxonomy. In other words, at k = 5, the taxonomy
has a greater number of categories than the three constructs (factors) of our conceptual
building blocks, yet at k = 5, the number of possible clusters remains low enough to be
used as advanced organizers for interpreting distinct (statistically) profiles of manager
practice.

The n of managers in Clusters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are 94, 67, 50, 69, and 48, respectively.
The n for Cluster 1 is notably larger than the other groups. The 94 managers included in
this cluster make up nearly 29% of the total number of participants in the study. Cluster 1
has, on average, 62% more managers than any other clusters and nearly double the num-
ber of Cluster 5. However, there is a relative even distribution of managers among the

Table 5. Estimated Covariance Between the Three Latent Factors.

Covariance of factors Estimated value

F1 (PRT) and F2 (AUTO) 0.786
F1 (PRT) and F3 (INT) 0.684
F2 (AUTO) and F3 (INT) 0.618

Note. PRT = participation. AUTO = autonomy. INT = policy integration.

460 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

remaining four clusters. When k = 6 and k = 7 were used, the n for Cluster 1 was similar
when using the value of k = 5; however, the remaining clusters became much smaller.
Given that n was a consistent value when using k = 5, 6, or 7, we decided to follow the
principle of parsimony and settle on the value of k = 5 to further the analysis.

In the previous phases of the analysis, the presence of three distinct constructs were
supported through factor analysis and the k-means cluster analysis resulted in five
distinct groups of managers. Each of these groups manifest the three constructs in a
unique way; thus, each group provides a unique profile for the human resource manag-
ers in this study. In the following sections, mean scores for strategic participation,
policy integration, and autonomy are examined to interpret and describe each of the
five emergent profiles.

Making Sense of Profiles

Manager Behavior: Policy Making and Autonomy

The participation in strategic-level activities and autonomy in implementing policy
focus on behavioral aspects of human resource professionals. This section is a starting
point for describing the profiles based on the mean of the measures of participation in
policy making and autonomy from each of the emergent manager clusters. Figure 2
plots the mean scores for managers’ role: (a) participation in strategic policy making
and (b) level of autonomy in carrying out their work.

On the dimension of participation, Profiles 1 and 2 fell below the standard devia-
tion of mean responses. Profiles 3, 4, and 5 are above the mean; however, only Profile
5 is greater than one standard deviation (1.36) beyond the mean on the dimension of
participation in strategic-level policy making. With respect to the dimension of auton-
omy, Profiles 1 and 3 fall below the mean, which means that in these profiles, manag-
ers tend to adhere to policy. Profiles 2, 4, and 5 are above the mean. However, Profile

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Profile 2

Profile 1

Profile 3

Profile 5

Profile 4

Participation

A
u

to
n

o
m

Mean

Standard Deviation

Figure 2. Plotted managerial profiles (Autonomy × Participation).

Herrera and Miller 461

5 mean is above one standard deviation above the larger sample mean, suggesting that
managers in Profile 5 are more autonomous in their application of policy.

Profile Descriptors

Each profile was assigned a descriptor to reflect characteristic manager behavior in
strategic-level policy making and autonomy. The descriptor for the profiles rely on
terms that are drawn from the literature that reflect the associated behavior. The term
“technical” characterizes low levels of participation in strategic policy-making pro-
cesses. The terms “managerial” and “strategic,” respectively, represent increasing lev-
els of participation in strategic-level policy making. On the dimension of adaptation,
the term “administrative” characterizes strict applications of policy that is conceptu-
ally consistent with behavior in a highly bureaucratic environment (e.g., Old Public
Administration), while the terms “functional” and “executive” reflect increasing lev-
els of adaptive behavior, respectively (e.g., New Public Management). The profiles

descriptors are Technical Administrative (TA: Profile 1); Technical Functional (TF:
Profile 2); Managerial Administrative (MA: Profile 3); Managerial Functional (MF:
Profile 4); and Strategic Executive (SE: Profile 5). Table 6 summarizes the profiles
with respect to participation and autonomy.

To further the analysis of the profiles, policy integration is added to the analysis of
each of the profiles below.

Profile 1: TA. Managers in this group report relatively low levels of participation in
strategic policy-making processes. The TA group seems to reflect the exclusion of
managers from the strategic apex of the policy-making process. Thus, these groups of
managers reflect a middle management role. Policy making is not the responsibility

Table 6. Summary of Profiles Based on Policy Making and Autonomy Descriptors.

1. Technical Administrative Managers oversee mandatory routine functions that
stabilize the organization and are not subject to frequent
change in their roles.

2. Technical Functional Managers are conduits for information between upper
level and foundational management. They are able to
make policy suggestions upward and pass on policy
decisions to staff.

3. Managerial Administrative Managers are present during strategic policy but have
limited input in creating policy; instead their function is
to oversee the implementation of formalized policy.

4. Managerial Functional Managers may have department-level control with the
ability to create policy as well as distribute resources
that both reflect policy changes and implementation.

5. Strategic Executive Managers have maximum input and ability to create policy
and shape how policy is implemented.

462 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

of the managers. Instead, policy is generated at the strategic apex (Mintzberg, 1989)
of the organization, which excludes the participation of HR managers. The policy-
making process in the traditional bureaucratic form of organization that is often iso-
lated (i.e., not integrated into the overall organizational policy framework) and the
role/behavior of managers are relatively constrained.

TA managers would most likely oversee routine tasks or processes. These manag-
ers would oversee personnel whose functions change relatively infrequently; how-
ever, they are responsible for the important mandatory routines that keep a department
stable.

Profile 2: TF. Managers in this group report modest levels of participation in strategic-
level policy-making processes. However, the level of policy integration reported by
managers is quite high relative to the other groups. The high level of self-reported
integration does not appear to come from managers being involved, but rather from
another source in the organization. Yet, in this group, managers’ report a relatively
high level of adaptive behavior suggesting that they have the autonomy to adapt poli-
cies to specific needs as they arise.

Profile 3: MA. Mangers in the MA group report a higher level of participation in
policy-making processes than the previous groups. In addition, the level of policy
integration is quite high. However, managers report the lowest level of adaptive
behavior of all five profiles. This does not conform with the pattern of the other
profiles, where level of adaptation increases when participation and integration
increases. A further analysis of this anomalous result is discussing in more detail
following the profile summaries.

Profile 4: MF. In the MF group, there is a relatively high level of strategic participation,
though policy integration is the second lowest among the five profiles. The level of
autonomy is moderately high. Even though policy integration is relatively low, these

Technical
Administrative

Technical
Functional

Managerial
Administrative

Managerial
Functional

Strategic
Executive

Participation Autonomy Integration

Figure 3. Profiles of manager behaviors and policy integration.

Herrera and Miller 463

managers have knowledge and participate in strategic levels of the organization and
have the flexibility to adapt policy to that strategic vision.

Profile 5: SE. SE managers report high levels of participation, policy integration, and
adaptive implementation of policy. When looking at Figure 3, the SE approach appears
to represent an idealized form of SHRM. Managers are highly involved in strategic
policy making; they report very high levels of both vertical and horizontal policy inte-
gration, and managers indicate that they adapt the implementation of personnel man-
agement policies.

Unpacking the Nonlinearity of Profiles

A casual look at Figures 2 and 3 reveals that the profiles do not progress in a linear fashion.
The mean scores for participation, autonomy, and integration do not rise or fall in any obvi-
ous or predictable manner. The MA management profile stands out in particular. It seems to
mark a point of departure from the first two profiles and the two that follow. TA and
Technical Function, the two profiles that precede MA, indicate levels of strategic involve-
ment that are lower than their respective levels of autonomy. However, the MA group shows
a dramatic reversal where the level of participation is quite high, yet autonomy is very low.
In fact, MA has the lowest level of reported autonomy among all of the profiles. The flip in
participation being reported higher than autonomy continues in the MF and SE profiles, but
the difference is much less pronounced.

One approach to examining this outlier is to look more closely at responses to indi-
vidual items that make up the constructs of strategic participation. Two items from the
questionnaire observe participation in strategic-level policy making; however, each rep-
resents a different form of participation. The first item simply asks whether the manager
is present during strategic policy making. However, the second item asks managers to
assess the level of their input related to human resources during this policy-making pro-
cess. Figure 4 illustrates that across all of the profiles, both types of participation (i.e.,
Item 1 [presence] and Item 2 [input]) are reported at similar levels, except for the MA
approach.

In the MA approach, people report a high level of being present during the
policy-making processes; however, they also report less input in the concerns of
human resources in policy-making process. Although the level of input in the MA
approach is higher than in the Technical Administration and TF approaches, the
MA approach shows a greater difference between the presence (Item 1) and input
(Item 2) in the policy-making process. So, the disparity between “being present”
and “having input” at the strategic level could be impact autonomy. If the form of
participation impacts behavior, there are different ways to interpret such a dynamic.
Although purely speculative, it is reasonable to conclude that even though the
manager may be in the mid of strategic processes, the role of the manager in the
MA group is “to be seen, not heard,” or perhaps does not possess the expertise or
capacity.

464 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

Table 7. Number of Managers Grouped by Profile and Size of Locality.

Profile Small Medium Large

Technical Administrative (n = 94) 22 55 17
Technical Functional (n = 50) 5 36 9
Managerial Administrative (n = 67) 15 38 14
Managerial Functional (n = 69) 26 38 5
Strategic Executive (n = 48) 30 18 0

Analysis of Profiles by Size of Municipality (Population)

This phase of the analysis looked at the size of the population of municipalities in
relation to the five profiles. As noted in the “Methods and Procedures” section, the
data on the size of municipalities are categorical and originated from FEMP. Thus,
the analysis relating to size is limited to basic descriptive statistics. Even so, there
are some interesting results when looking at the frequencies and percentages of
each profile when the sample is grouped by the Spanish government categories of
municipality size.

One such result is that the raw number of SE managers in the small municipality

category (30) is greater than any of the other four profiles. Another interesting result is
that there are no (zero) managers from the SE group represented in the large munici-
pality category (see Table 7).

When comparing the distributions of the histograms from one size category to
another, it is noteworthy that the small group has a low number of managers in the
TF group, the medium group is relatively flat (relatively evenly distributed among

Technical
Administrative

Technical
Functional

Managerial
Administrative

Managerial
Functional

Strategic
Executive

Presence Input

Figure 4. Strategic policy making participation: Presence and input.

Herrera and Miller 465

profiles), and the large grouping appears to have a downward trend (see Figure 5).
As these categories are not available for inferential or correlational analyses, there
is no way to conclude or make claims about the impact of size on the form of person-
nel management.

Discussion

In this section, aspects of the profiles that emerged from the study are discussed vis-à-
vis previous descriptions of HRM research.

Of the emerging profiles, Technical Administration is most closely associated with
traditional ways of thinking about organizations and their employees reflected by the
Old Public Management paradigm (i.e., universalistic, administrative, and mechanis-
tic). The TA approach implies that there is uniformity among all organizations and
suggests a “one size fits all” solution to HRM. In addition, given the lack of participa-
tion by HR managers in strategic policy making and limited autonomy, this perspec-
tive does not appear to embrace the notion that the various functional units are
interdependent and mutually influential that need to be coordinated through involving
managers as strategic partners and professionals.

The TF profile goes a bit further toward the contingency category in that there is the
implied notion that policy may need to be adapted to fit with conditions as they emerge.
This profile moves away from the Old Public Administration view toward elements of
New Public Management. That is, managers are considered professionals who are
operationally competent and capable of adapting policy when needed, but not neces-
sarily considered capable of generating policy.

The MA profile seems to represent a retreat back toward Old Public Management.
Even though the participation in strategic policy making is high, the level of input is

10%

20%

30%

40%

Small (n = 98) Medium (n = 185) Large (n = 45)

TA TF MA MF SE

Figure 5. Percentage of profile types by municipality size.
Note. TA = Technical Administrative; TF = Technical Functional; MA = Managerial Administrative;
MF = Managerial Functional; SE = Strategic Executive.

466 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

low, and the low level of autonomy makes this profile seem like a display (window
dressing) of SHRM and New Public Management without managers playing a sub-
stantive role at the strategic level. The function of manager is more administrative than
professional in this profile.

The MF profile captures the SHRM and New Public Management approach
than the MA profile. The manager participates in strategic-level decisions, (strate-
gic) the manager has autonomy to adjust (contingency, operational), and the
human resource policy is integrated into the overall policy framework of the
municipality.

The final profile, SE, has the highest level of strategic participation, autonomy, and
policy integration. This profile suggests that the human resource manager is fully inte-
grated into the strategic and operational aspects of the municipality. As stated above,
this profile represents an idealized version of New Public Management.

Conclusion

This study yielded five profiles that provide useful ways to conceptualize, describe,
and further investigate the nature of HRM in the public sector. In its pursuit of devel-
oping a taxonomy, the study led with the assumption that approaches to HRM vary in
their form and function. While some efforts classify human resource practices along a
developmental or evolutionary trajectory (e.g., historical or organizational growth),
this taxonomy does not explicitly demonstrate such progressions. Instead, it acknowl-
edges traditional and newer concepts of organizational and human behavior and incor-
porates them into a framework that is integrated along central themes from research.

Although continuous data on the size of municipalities were not available for this
study, there are provocative questions that arise when considering how the structure of
agencies can have influence on the role and behavior of human resource managers. For
example, it is interesting to consider that none of the managers in large municipalities
identified characteristics of SE approaches. Instead, the smaller municipalities had the
largest proportion of managers in the SE profile.

Literature in organizational behavior suggests that the size of organizations impacts
the formalization of roles, responsibilities, and tasks (i.e., structure) within organiza-
tions. As organizations increase in size, structures often become more divisionalized by
separating specialized function areas of the organization. As the number of divisions
increase, coordination and collaboration in policy making and operations become more
challenging and complex (Greiner, 1972). This has implications for manager participa-
tion in strategic policy making, integration and consistency of policy, and the flexibility
of managers to adapt. If divisions are not cohesive and focused on the same set of stra-
tegic goals, different interests can create political struggles for power and resources.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that governance structures that serve smaller pop-
ulations have more intimate relations among the various actors in government resulting
in more integration of government functions and, therefore, closer involvement with
strategic levels of decision making, policy making, and governing functions. In

Herrera and Miller 467

addition, human resource managers’ roles in the overall government varies (i.e., elected,
appointed, or professional) and may also impact HRM. Given this, it could be con-
cluded that managers’ approaches to HRM is influenced by the size and/or nature of
governance structures as well as the role of the HR manager.

Limitations

Three main limitations of the study are related to the data. First, the data used for this
study were not collected with the purpose of precisely measuring the three constructs
that compose the theoretical framework of this study. Second, the response rate to the
survey was very low, which raises the issue of external validity. Third, the data regard-
ing the size of municipalities were not in a form that would allow for correlational or
other inferential statistical analyses.

While the data analysis supported the presence of three distinct constructs, a more
precise and intentional effort to measure these constructs would enhance the validity
of the findings. Related to the measurement of the three constructs, the primary source
of data is self-reports of human resource managers; thus, there this no ability to trian-
gulate their perceptions with the perceptions of their peer colleagues, supervisors, and/
or subordinates. In addition, a confirmatory factor analysis was used for the first part
of the analysis based on the sense of robustness of the three constructs in theory and
research. In hindsight, however, it makes sense to conduct an exploratory factor analy-
sis to see if the constructs would emerge on their own.

Another limitation is the lack of clarity on the locus of control or authority for
managerial participation and flexibility. There is an absence of a measure that
indicates if managers were in the position to make a decision to opt into or opt out
of strategic policy making. The presence of such a measure may yield more useful
insight whether managers have the authority to participate in policy making or
modify the implementation of policy. It is possible that the personality or charac-
teristic of the manager, the nature/characteristic of the organization, the organiza-
tional leadership (power structure), or some combination of each could impact
participation and flexibility. Additional items could help shed light on these
questions.

Implication for Further Research

Many of the limitations of this study can be addressed in future research by developing
a more robust strategy for data collection. This would include efforts to improve the
sampling strategy to increase the response rate, incorporate random sampling, which
would ideally yield a more normally distributed data set. With respect to the survey
instrument itself, a new questionnaire that specifically targets the theoretical con-
structs could improve the precision of measuring the three constructs. The form of the
items of the new questionnaire should focus on collecting data that is in a form (e.g.,
continuous) that allows for more sophisticated statistical analysis, and additional items

468 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

should be added to the questionnaire to measure contextual variables that could be
related to different profiles (e.g., antecedent, outcomes, mediating and moderating
variables, etc.).

In the case of contextual variables (e.g., antecedents), additional variables could be
included such as the number of public personnel, variation among public personnel func-
tions (e.g., administrative, professional, executive), variation among governmental func-
tions (e.g., health, safety, finance, education, etc.), population density, and HRM
leadership (e.g., elected, appointed, etc.).

In the case of outcomes, further research could focus on developing an understand-
ing of the relationship between different profiles and variables such as psychosocial
aspects of personnel (e.g., satisfaction, motivation, skill development, teamwork, etc.)
and measures of productivity (i.e., efficiency and effectiveness) at the level of indi-
viduals, departments, agencies, and municipalities in general (Guest, 1997; Poister,
2003; Posthuma, Campion, & Masimova, 2013).

The addition of specific variables should be intentional in an effort to advance
and build upon existing theoretical frameworks and empirical research. For exam-
ple, an intentional approach to expanding social cognitive theory could involve
exploring possible relationships among variable of participation in strategic policy
making, discretion in policy implementation, and manager self-efficacy.

As noted in the introduction of this article, human resource managers are at the
nexus of dynamic changes occurring in the public sector. Policy-making, policy imple-
mentation, and policy alignment are critical factors that create the context for manag-
ers to perform their duties. The ability of managers to participate and provide input in
strategic activities of the government likely impacts the quality and consistency of
human resource policies and the effectiveness and efficiency of managers and employ-
ees and the organization as a whole.

The results of this exploratory study provide a basis for furthering research in
approaches to public personnel management. The constructs of participation,
autonomy, and integration appear to be robust and informative ways to character-
ize and observe dynamics of the task environment of a human resource manager.
The five profiles that emerged from this study offer distinct, yet related forms of
HRM that are grounded on existing theory and research in this area of study. The
five profiles offer an enhanced level of complexity for examining public personnel
management by building on central themes of existing HRM models.

Although we offer a taxonomy, it is not likely for a human resource manager or an
agency to be exclusively oriented and/or operating within a single framework in prac-
tice. It is also not evident that one model of practice is superior to another in compar-
ing practice and productivity. This taxonomy simply offers another vantage point
from which to continue research and practice in public personnel management.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Herrera and Miller 469

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References

Arthur, J. B. (1992). The link between business strategy and industrial relations systems in
American steel mills. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 488-506.

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 670-687.

Bahr, P. R., Bielby, R., & House, E. (2011). The use of cluster analysis in typological Research
on community college students. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(S1), 67-81.

Baird, L., & Meshoulam, I. (1988). Managing two fits of strategic human resource management.
Academy of Management Review, 13, 116-128.

Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P. R., Mills, Q. D., & Walton, R. E. (1984). Managing human
assets. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bobko, P., & Russell, C. (1991). A review of the role of taxonomies in human resources man-
agement. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 293-316.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond
traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration
Review, 74, 445-456.

Candel, J. J. L., & Biesbroek, R. (2016). Toward a processual understanding of policy integra-
tion. Policy Sciences, 3, 211-231.

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource man-
agement: Test of universalistic, contingency and configurational performance predictors.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802-835.

Denhardt, J., & Denhardt, R. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration
Review, 75(5), 664–672.

Dessein, W., & Santos, T. (2006). Adaptive organization. Journal of Political Economy, 114,
956-995.

Dickmann, M., & Müller-Camen, M. (2006). A typology of international human resource
management strategies and processes. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17, 580-601.

Dyer, W. G. (1999). Training human resource champions for the twenty-first century. Human
Resource Management, 38, 119-124.

Fombrun, C. J., Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1984). Strategic human resource manage-
ment. New York, NY: Wiley.

Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business

Review, 50(4), 37-46.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research

agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263-276.
Hitch, C. J. (1953). Sub-optimization in operations problems. Journal of Operations and

Research Society of America, 1, 87-99.
Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. (1997). The effects of human resource management on productiv-

ity: A study of steel finishing lines. American Economic Review, 87(3), 291-314.
Jordan, T. R., & Battaglio, B. (2013). Are we there yet? The state of public human resource

management research. Public Personnel Management, 43(1), 25-57.

470 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

Klingner, D. E. (2012). Building public HRM capacity in fragile and transitional states: Linking
theory, research, practice, and teaching. In N. Riccucci (Ed.), Public personnel manage-
ment: Current concerns, future challenges (5th Ed., pp. 14-27). New York, NY: Longman
Publishing Group.

Klingner, D. E., & Lynn, D. (2005). Beyond civil service: The politics of the emergent para-
digms. In S. Condrey (Ed.), The handbook of resource management (2nd ed., pp. 5637-7457).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Klingner, D. E., Nalbandian, J., & Llorens, J. (2010). Public personnel management: Contexts
and strategies (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lavelle, J. (2006). It’s all about context and implementation: Some thoughts prompted by:
Unlocking the human potential for public sector performance—The United Nations World
Public Sector Report. Public Personnel Management, 35, 217-228.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing strategic human resource systems. Organizational

Dynamics, 13(1), 36-52.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). The structuring of organizations. In D. Asch, C. Bowman (Eds.), Readings

in strategic management. London: Palgrave.
Monks, K. (1992). Models of personnel management: A means of understanding the diversity of

personnel practices. Human Resource Management Journal, 3(2), 29-41.
Nalbandian, J. (1994). Reflections of a “pracademic” on the logic of politics and administration.

Public Administration Review, 54, 531-536.
Perry, J. L. (2010). A strategic agenda for public human resource management research. Review

of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 20-43.
Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., & Masimova, M. (2013). A high performance work practices

taxonomy: Integrating the literature and directing future research. Journal of Management,
39, 1184-1220.

Richard, O. C., & Johnson, N. B. (2001). Strategic human resource management effective-
ness and firm performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management 12(2),
299-310.

Rupp, A. A. (2013). Clustering and classification. In T. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
quantitative methods (pp. 517-550). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource
management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 207-219.

Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (2007). Strategic human resource management (2nd ed.).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Selden, S. (2005). Human resource management in American counties, 2002. Public Personnel
Management, 34, 59-84.

Sheehan, C. (2005). A model for HRM strategic integration. Personnel Review, 34, 192-209.
Van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public

Performance & Management Review, 25, 267-281.
Verheijen, T. (1998). Aims, structure and methodology of the study. In T. Verheijen & D.

Coombes (Eds.), Innovations in public management: Perspectives from East and West
Europe (pp. 3-38). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Walker, R. M. (2013). Strategic management and performance in public organizations: Findings
from the Miles and Snow framework. Public Administration Review, 73, 675-685.

Wangrow, D. B., Schepker, D. J., & Barker, V. L. (2015). Managerial discretion: An empiri-
cal review and focus on future research directions. Journal of Management 41(1), 99-135.

Herrera and Miller 471

Watson, T. (2007). Organization theory and HRM. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of human resource management (pp. 108-127). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.

Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource
management. Journal of Management, 18, 295-320.

Youndt, M. A., Scott, S. A., Dean, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource manage-
ment, manufacturing strategy and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
836-857.

Author Biographies

Justo Herrera is a professor of the Department of Management at the University of Valencia
(Spain). His research and teaching interest are HRM in Public Administration and Non-profit
organizations. Dr. Herrera is the General Manager of Human and Economic Resources of the
Health Department of the Community of Valencian Government.

Daniel M. Miller is a principal consultant for Changing Systems, LLC. He has held academic
positions and conducted research in the areas of leadership, organizational behavior and human
resource management. He continues to work in the field as an academic, trainer and
consultant.

Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Chapter 3 The Death and Life of Productivity Management in
Government

Albert Hyde San Francisco State University
Frederik Uys University of Stellenbosch, South Africa

Introduction: Why Doesn’t Productivity Matter to Public Sector
Human Resource Management?

“As society makes demands beyond the private sector’s ability to fulfill, government responds with two
tools—regulation or money. But both approaches are incurring greater frustrations. We are coming to
realize that we have a more finite resource base than previously suspected. Public expenditure may
simply bid up the price rather than improve the results.

Thus we understand why it is that as government grows more expensive, not only public sector, but also
total national productivity may decline. This effect is not inevitable; government is not necessarily less
productive than other sectors of the economy. In fact, government often plays a catalytic role, enhancing
the productivity of business. But unless government incorporates a productivity consciousness in all of
its activity, it will tend to grow stagnant as it grows larger.”

—George Gilder, National Commission on Productivity and Work Quality, 1975, Public Productivity
(1), 6.Review, 1

Writing for the inaugural issue of a new public sector journal in 1975 devoted to government productivity
management, George Gilder warned of an impending era where the economy of the United States could be
significantly threatened in terms of its competitiveness, growth, and ultimately its standard of living. Gilder
was greatly concerned, as were many economists, business executives, and political leaders at that time, with
the emergence of a new period of stagnation in productivity in the U.S. Coming out of the Second World War
with minimal damages to its industrial infrastructure, the U.S. would become the dominant economy of the
world. This was fueled by average annual rates of national productivity growth of 2.8% from the late 1940s
to early 1970s. So when productivity rates fell by more than half to 1.1% in the 1970s (and, more
significantly, the U.S. lagged behind emerging reindustrialized competitors Japan and Germany), and despite
much national consternation could still improve to only 1.4% in the 1980s, various commissions were formed
to find solutions to the “productivity crises.”

In the center of all this was the public sector. The post–World War II period in the United States is
historically regarded as a new plateau for the public sector because government was bigger at all levels.
Federal, state, and local governments would account for 25% of national gross domestic product and
government organizations were larger; employing some 2.4 million federal, 1.5 million state, and 4.8 million
local government workers1 (Shafritz and Hyde 2012: 80). Those levels beginning in the 1970s were now
being seen in the context of larger U.S. economic change and global competiveness.

Victor Fuchs in his definitive economic assessment of the post–World War II era noted that this period
marked the emergence of the world’s first service economy. U.S. employment would increase from 57
million jobs to nearly 75 million jobs by 1967, and the vast majority of the new jobs added to the economy
would be in the service industry. Government’s now nearly 9 million workers were a significant part of a
now larger American workforce where more than half provided services as opposed to producing things.

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

Pr
es
s.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht

la
w.

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 2/19/2022 5:33 PM via NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY
AN: 1945908 ; Richard C. Kearney, Jerrell D. Coggburn.; Public Human Resource Management : Problems and Prospects
Account: s1229530

Among many implications, Fuchs noted two other key points: First, he noted that unlike the industrial
production sector where quality of labor inputs was at best stable or declining, the quality of the labor inputs
(education and skill levels) was increasing. Second, he pointed to several service industry examples and
noted that while overall productivity levels showed modest annual increases, measurements of productivity,
quality, and technology demanded more analysis to understand service sector differences and would require
more robust measurement techniques (Fuchs 1968: 3–4). In a truly classic case, he compared beauty shops to
barbershops (sorry, that is what they were called in the 1960s) and found beauty shops a benchmark of
service growth, high quality and variety of services offered, and high productivity (and low idle time) while
the barbershop was at best a hold-over place of stable technology, minimal range of service, and low
productivity (Fuchs 1968: 6).

The student of public sector human resource management (HRM) in the modern era may well wonder what
this old historical crisis about economic growth and productivity, barbershops, and the rising services
industry has to do with current HRM theory and practice. After all, not many HRM books devote much
attention to productivity or how it is defined and measured, much less how it can be applied to sustain
performance or drive innovation. But the larger point is that for over 25 years—from 1967 to
1994—productivity was systematically measured in most of the federal government agencies and test
measured across a good sample of state and local governments. Public management in the last third of the
20th century expended some credible effort in gauging labor inputs, output, and costs while grappling with
how to measure the quality and value of government effort.

An understanding of the basics of productivity management (i.e., goals, objectives, metrics, and
applications), why productivity programs were abandoned, and how productivity management integrates
technology and information resources goes beyond simple lessons learned. This chapter has three learning
objectives for public sector human resource managers and students:

First, how government organizations work is still important. In a current era where high performance
and outcomes-focus dominate, the tendency is to just look at results and ignore the means. But
government agencies and their partners and contractors need to focus on the means the ends—inand
part because they are also high-reliability organizations and because resources are going to be more
limited as government budgets tighten to meet rising debt limitations. If government is to be
“competitive” in an all but certain era of growing resource scarcity and chronic fiscal stress, it must be
able to demonstrate some sense of “productivity consciousness.” Further, if government expenditure is
going to come under increased scrutiny and fiscal pressure, it would help to have “productivity
growth” re-established in public management so that it can demonstrate the return on investment for
both its workforce and the intermediate outputs it uses through contractors and suppliers.
Second, in this new century an increasingly loud and polarizing political debate about the role, size,
debt levels, and effectiveness of government programs now includes questions and challenges about
the compensation levels, work value, and performance levels of public sector workers. The latter is the
essence of productivity, which might contribute essential information and objective analysis to balance
the often overheated rhetoric dominating current discussions.
Third, the development of much more sophisticated productivity methodologies that include capital
intensity, labor composition, R&D levels, and multifactor productivity that show the effects of
technology, efficiency, resource reallocation, and other capital-labor interactions. This offers public
sector human resource managers new perspectives on innovations, quality, and service growth. A
better understanding and potential application of current productivity metrics offer an opportunity to
reassess the value proposition of government effort and its service work ethic. They also can shed light
on the value of different strategies for workforce composition and work disposition; for example, are
part-time or contract employees as productive as full-time employees, and are employees who telework
as productive as employees who come to offices every day?

For a beginning, this chapter returns to the 1960s, a period in the United States where confidence in
government was high and government agencies were expanding their roles and tackling a range of new socialCo

py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

and economic problems. Overlapping interests of congressional members and political and business leaders
about slowing national productivity rates and economic anxieties over rising inflation and unemployment
rates would ultimately result in the establishment of a productivity measurement program for the federal
government. By the early 1970s the newly reformed Office of Management Budget would take the lead in
establishing a statistical reporting system that began with data that would cover about half of the federal
civilian workforce for a base year in 1967 and reach almost nearly 70% by 1994 (Fisk and Forte 1997:
19–20).

How to Measure Productivity in Government and Why?

Measuring productivity is essential to any serious economy. Any nation that desires to be competitive,
provide an adequate standard of living for its citizens, and generate some level of wealth transfer for its future
generations begins with a goal of meeting a level of productivity growth that will cover its birth and
immigration rates and provide for its elderly citizens—conventionally about 2%. Productivity growth is also
traditionally correlated with compensation and employment. Throughout most of the 20th century, rates of
productivity change were “procyclical”—meaning productivity rates increased during periods of economic
growth and expansion but tended to contract during business downturns (McGratten and Prescott 2012).

Following the Second World War, productivity growth in the U.S. was solid and substantial, outstripping
most of the international competition. When the great productivity slowdown hit the U.S. in the 1970s, the
discussion of what government should do to foster productivity largely focused on what were perceived
failings in government economic and regulatory policies that were seen as hampering private sector
productivity growth. Critics of government pointed to deficit spending, byzantine tax systems, regulatory
interventions in markets, and lack of effective public investment in research & development (R&D) and
education. Some of these criticisms—or “unnecessary burdens” as they were called in a 1984 White House
Conference—are “the usual suspects,” so to speak (White House Conference 1984: 4). However, underlying
this reexamination of private and public sector poor performance was the recognition that the United States
was in the midst of a major transition to a new economy—one based primarily on services and
information—and that the old industrial management and workforce control systems and strategies were no
longer adequate.

In the early 1970s, congressional interest led directly to creating a formal productivity measurement program
in the federal government (Fisk and Forte 1997: 19). While the politics and institutional arrangements that
surrounded the program to be launched by the Office of Management Budget, the Office of Personnel
Management (then the Civil Service Commission), and the Government Accountability Office (then named
the General Accounting Office) with measurement via the Bureau of Labor Statistics is interesting, the focus
here is on the who, what, and how of measurement.

Once baselines were created with the measurement system, the program (usually acronymed FPMP for the
Federal Productivity Measurement Program) would include about half of the civilian federal workforce at the
start and reach about two-thirds of the workforce by the mid-1970s (Fisk and Forte 1997: 20). There were
some major missing agencies, such as the intelligence agencies, the State Department, and large portions of
the Defense Department. But even among these excepted agencies, some support functions were included for
measurement (logistics and administrative support for Defense, contractors for NASA, etc.).

Determining what would be measured was seen as the real challenge. Agencies had to designate some form
of final output. The primary focus was on some form of physical count—such as volume of mail for the Post
Office, or number of inspections, claims or invoices paid, student days taught, licenses processed, health care
visits, and so on. To be fair, this challenge to identify outputs was neither a formidable nor a new
phenomenon for government. The prevailing budgeting system for the federal (and many state governments)
coming out of the midcentury was performance budgeting, which included extensive program work output
measurements both as efficiency indicators and the basis for using work measurement to establish staffing
levels for programs. Performance budgeting was a precursor for productivity management; as one earlyC

op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

budgeting textbook noted, “The contentions for the new productivity field in the 1970s are very reminiscent
of the earlier claims for performance budgeting. Performance budgeting sought to establish management’s
right and responsibility to ascertain how much work was being accomplished, at what cost, and for what
results as measured against specified performance standards. In the 1970s the questions are still the same,
only it seems they are being asked by different people” (Hyde 1978: 78).

Under the FPMP, agencies established different program output measurements and integrated them into a
final organizational output index. Box 3.1 outlines the calculation elements that are part of conventional
productivity measurement.

Source: Federal Productivity Measurement Program (FPMP) (1972–1994).

Labor was measured by counting the total number of employee years, compensation levels for each employee
year, and a unit labor cost. The resulting calculation is then indexed at 100 for the first measurement year for
the FPMP, as illustrated in which shows changing rates of federal productivity versus the privateFigure 3.1
sector over the period. Federal productivity actually rose by a respectable rate of 1.5% annually from 1967 to
1982 before slowing to a.6% annual rate during the “productivity slowdown” era from 1982 to 1994. The
1.5% rate slightly exceeded private sector productivity of 1.4% but trailed the private sector rate of 1.3% in
the next period.

In commenting on what this quarter century of productivity output data shows, some major qualifications
must be noted. First, the labor input in the federal productivity calculation (shown in ) was anTable 3.1
aggregate workforce input number. It did not include submeasures of capital, equipment, technology, or other
factors that could affect outputs. Second, while the cost of labor input numbers did include full wage numbers
(salary, benefits, incentives, etc.), qualitative submeasures of skill levels or qualifications were not included.
Third, labor functions were measured in the FPMP but with an aim of showing productivity comparisons
across different functions. FPMP provided average annual productivity rates for 24 federal occupational
groups, with two functions showing negative productivity index rates: electric power utility personnel and
medical services. These are also the two functions with the highest unit labor costs compared with the
function (Finance) with the highest productivity, which had the lowest unit labor costs; this points to the
sensitivity of the FPMP to wage factors.

Figure 3.1 FPMP Annual Rates of Change—Labor Productivity in Federal Government vs. U.S. Private
Sector Rates, 1967–1994

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

Source: U.S. Monthly Labor Review, May 1997, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor
Productivity Database (data.bls.gov/time series/PRS85006092).

In productivity management terms, this effort by the FPMP certainly qualified as a good start. It
demonstrated that federal productivity levels were certainly in line with the national experience and in the
same league as the private sector. While the data qualifications weren’t trivial, there was a decent foundation
to make assessments about federal productivity contributions in macroeconomic terms and solid trend data
for agencies to review unit productivity performance levels.

However, in 1994, the FPMP was a victim of a major round of federal budget cuts and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics suspended the measurement side of the program. Thereafter, no systematic productivity
measurement would be undertaken at the federal level except for the U.S. Postal Service. It is certainly safe
to say that few managerial tears were shed on the loss of the federal productivity program. And, as will be
noted, the dismantling of the FPMP did not leave a vacuum. Following the National Performance Review at
the outset of the Clinton-Gore administration in 1993, total quality management2 was essentially the
successor to productivity management. Quality management was a better or perhaps more comfortable fit for
most federal agencies, with its blend of participatory management groups and measurement methodologies
that appealed to a predominantly white collar workforce and to labor groups that championed
labor-management partnerships.

Before assessing the federal productivity management effort, productivity efforts at the state and local level
should also be mentioned. While no systematic effort was made to report on subnational public productivity
levels, there was interest in testing measurement strategies and methodologies. BLS—as their exemplary
1998 final study attests—selected ten different state and local services to develop and report productivity
statistics on. While the big three (police, fire, and education) were excluded from the study—the range of
services studied made quite clear that calculating productivity was both feasible and methodologically
defensible. These early investigations grappled with how to determine output measurements for services
ranging from more blue collar–oriented activities in enterprises (utilities and transit services) to mostly white
collar (parole and corrections to employment and social services). BLS also chose three services where
numerous private sector systems existed for comparison. —taken from the 1998 study—highlightsTable 3.1
the comparisons.

In the three state and local services in which public and private sector comparisons were made, public sector

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

productivity tracked and compared favorably. But it should be noted that these three services were among the
least personnel intensive. The service area with the lowest productivity rates was local jails, although the
longer-term counterpart of state prisons had better productivity rates even though labor inputs were about the
same. BLS’s assessment of the corrections area (jails and prisons) is all the more interesting because it
developed means to account for overcrowding. Further they pointed to the recidivism issue—which they
weren’t able to factor in a meaningful way—which would clearly alter the output measurement. Another
interesting distinction drawn in this productivity study was how mass transit productivity rates showed
improvement when the output metric was vehicle revenue miles as opposed to number of trips.

One final contribution—worth further reflection—was BLS’s estimates of rates of labor intensity for
government services. Although this was soon to change with the full arrival of the computer and Internet
technology era starting around 1995, (which calculated for one baseline year, 1992) shows laborFigure 3.2
compensation as the percentage of total operating expenditures for different government functions. Human
resource managers, of course, would appropriately point to functions like police, fire, and education and
conclude that when over 80% of the operating budget is human resources, the quality and skill levels of those
resources are paramount. Productivity management advocates would certainly concur but add that tracking
the labor productivity rates of these invaluable assets is also critical.

Table 3.1
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998, Measuring State and Local Government Productivity: 9.

While the agency productivity output and labor costs measurements were the primary quantitative emphasis,
BLS also attempted more qualitative evaluations. Agency managers were surveyed about their explanation
for shifts in productivity that perhaps foretold of the perceived value of FPMP as an important human
resources managerial tool. Fisk and Forte in their closing assessment of the FPMP note that most agencies
explained major shifts in productivity levels as driven by workload volatility and technology. In the 1970s
unforeseen political, financial, or environmental events were identified as the primary driving forces that

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

would cause an agency to ramp up or scale down work efforts and staffing levels, which would then shifted
productivity levels. Later, in the 1980s agency comments pointed to major changes in office automation and
computing as major driving forces (Fisk and Forte 1997: 27). In other words, productivity measurement
wasn’t seen as having much of an effect other than to register the impacts of external factors.

Figure 3.2 Personnel Compensation as Percentage of Total Operating Expenditures for Select State and
Local Government Functions, 1991–1992

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998, Measuring State and Local Government Productivity: 23.

Another political development may have also shaped this managerial disinclination toward productivity
measurement. In 1985 the Reagan administration promulgated an executive order as part of his newly
re-elected administration’s federal management improvement program. Entitled the President’s Productivity
Improvement Program, the 23 designated primary federal agencies under OMB’s direct purview were to
institute formal programs that would establish a productivity office and publish a productivity improvement
plan with a formal measurement system. On the first page on the executive order draft, OMB announced that
a 20% improvement goal by 1992 for all agencies would be set. Further in the document, OMB proclaimed
that these implemented productivity goals would “be translated into projected cost savings” (Wright 1984).

Federal agency managers certainly understood and both resented and resisted this type of “productivity
math”—where productivity gains were “pre-ordered” to be used to decrease agency budgets as opposed to
increasing service quality, investing in agency capabilities, or supporting innovation efforts. NASA, having
launched a major contractor and agency effort around productivity improvement a year earlier, was typical of
agency response—notifying OMB that under this program they were essentially being penalized for their
efforts and therefore were disinclined to participate (NASA-JSC 1985). As the Reagan administration’s
political capital was diverted to other more pressing matters (the Iran-Contra affair, etc.), the OMB initiative
was set aside and quietly left to expire at the end of Reagan’s second term.

There is a long history of “lapsed” public sector management efforts driven by executive mandate to reduce
agency budget levels whether at the federal or state government level. Politically, programs launched from
auspices of one executive are almost always let go when a new administration takes over. However, thisCo

py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

instance entails the additional peril of using productivity measurement primarily as a budget tool for
cost-cutting as opposed to a management reinvestment tool for service quality improvement, upgrading
infrastructure or technology, or enhancing public service commitment. The latter is what makes productivity
management an important management tool—its use in ensuring that economies and industries innovate and
grow, and don’t stagnate.

Old Lessons Learned—New Questions Needed

As mentioned, budget cutbacks in the first two years of the Clinton administration would result in termination
of the federal productivity measurement effort. In addition to changing budget priorities, new management
initiatives (some call them fads) like total quality management, and lack of political support from agency
managers with long memories about the ill-fated OMB 1985 productivity program, the productivity
environment itself was changing. For the student of human resources management to make sense out of the
change in the 1990s and in order to draw appropriate lessons for the future, five factors need to be examined.

First and foremost, national productivity improved dramatically, emerging out of its two-decade slumber.
Driven primarily by new technology and capital investment, private sector productivity annual growth rates
reached 2.1% in the mid-1990s and over 2.5% by 2000, as illustrates. Debates among economistsFigure 3.3
about Robert Solow’s famous query in 1987—“You can see the computer age everywhere but in the
productivity statistics”—now shifted from what the problem was to what was now driving the solution and
whether it would last (Brynjolfsson 1993). In the late 1990s, after productivity soared nationally and federal
government budgets reached surplus levels for the first time in seemingly decades, interest in productivity
plummeted.

It also should be noted that productivity measurement also changed in an effort to capture the increasing
complexity of the now ascendant digital revolution. Coming out of the productivity slowdown period, there
remained great concern that a services-dominated economy would hamper productivity and economic growth
(Baumol, Batey Blackman, and Wolff 1989). Remarkably, economists looking at productivity trends in a
so-called stagnant sector found—as a Brookings symposium of leading economists noted—“services now
lead the way.” The consensus estimate was that service industries contributed over 73% of labor productivity
growth in the 1990–2000 period and 76% of U.S. total productivity growth (Triplett and Bosworth 2004: 2).

Obviously U.S. productivity growth improved dramatically, as shows. Not quite as obvious wasFigure 3.2
why, given the new domination of services in the U.S. economy. During the 1990s the American economy
added more than 19 million jobs while manufacturing goods production sectors were basically flat. This
doesn’t mean that manufacturing productivity decreased. Quite the opposite: Since 2000, U.S. manufacturing
jobs have declined by over 30% while manufacturing output has increased by almost 50% (de Rugy 2011).
Basically, the U.S. manufacturing labor force has dropped to under 12 million workers who are now
producing the equivalent total output as the previous 17 million workforce.

Figure 3.3 U.S. National Rates of Average Productivity Growth, 1947–2011, Private Sector Nonfarm
business (excludes all levels of government)

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011).

U.S. Manufacturing: Output vs. Jobs Since 1975

To many economists and management analysts, it was clear that something else was in play. It became
increasingly obvious that the impact of “other dimensions” of productivity had not been adequately measured
before. To be fair, organizational purchases of capital—even computers and other technology
investments—were part of the productivity equation that included the total costs of labor and capital
equipment. As economists debated both if and when the investments made by the U.S. in both the private and
public sector would materialize up to the mid-1990s productivity turnaround, pressure mounted to augment
the methodology for measuring productivity. The resulting metric called stillmulti-factor productivity
produced an output ratio per labor hour, but it was expanded to include labor-capital interactions to estimate
what contributions were made by technology, other efficiency actions, and resource reallocations.

Currently—if one looks at the 2011 multifactor productivity trends from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
of U.S. national averages (excluding government services)—the following larger view is possible (Figure 3.4
). The introduction of multifactor productivity not only enlarged the organization view of capital and labor
resources, it also provided a means for assessing different strategies for human resource investments. Capital
intensity also included a separate breakout for the contribution of information processing equipment and
software. So, for example, a state government’s motor vehicle registration and licensing department could
reassess how to align its technology support, capital equipment ratios, workforce mix of service employees
and contractors, and Internet services provision to achieve the most optimal productivity levels.

Figure 3.4 National Productivity Growth Rates for Private Nonfarm Business Sector, 1987–2011

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 9, 2012 Office of Productivity and Technology.

A second factor entailed internal shifts in public sector workforces. The movement towards a super-majority
white collar workforce had been underway for some time. Government agencies at all levels contracted out
support functions and blue collar jobs, accelerating this trend. By the mid-1990s, the federal workforce was
below 15% blue-collar positions; by 2010 the percentage went below 10%. But much more importantly,
government workforces were becoming more highly compensated as average grade levels increased.
Productivity measurements capture this of course when labor costs are attached to labor hours. So when
viewing the FPMP statistics in , both the effects of annual salary increases given across the board toTable 3.1
the workforce and rising costs from promotions and labor compositions are in play.

Figure 3.5 shows a 50-year decadal perspective of how the federal workforce has shifted from a 50%–25%
split between the lowest six grades and the highest five grades, By the end of the FPMP, the split was 30%
for lowest grades and 45% for the top five for white collar workers. In 2014, the top five grades accounted
for just under 62% of the federal workforce. Of course, those grade increases reflect higher education levels,
greater skill qualifications, longer tenure, and an older force. But similarly, productivity measurement using
today’s methodologies are capable of measuring impacts of labor composition and if in place might have
been useful in assessing the impacts of these shifts. For example, one factor often mentioned in looking at
current workforce dynamics in government is contract management. Instead of framing the question in terms
of staffing—that is, aligning employee grade levels with the level and award amounts of contracting—the
productivity question might produce a different assessment of the optimal mix of organizational and
contractual staffing.

Figure 3.5 Grade Level Change in the Federal Government in the Civilian White Collar Workforce by
Decade, 1962–2014

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

Source: Compiled by the authors using federal employment data from (2002, 2012,www.fedscope.opm
2014), the 1962, 1972 Civil Service Commission Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics Report, and the
1982 and1992 Office of Personnel Management Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics Reports.

So externally the national productivity picture brightened, and internally the labor structure of many
government organizations shifted toward a high quality in terms of human factors workforce. Two other
factors emerged in the 1990s that pushed the demise of productivity management. The advent of quality
management, already mentioned, in effect superseded productivity. Quality management in the public sector
also got some help from a major effort in the American service industry to embrace the principles of quality
management. Telecommunications, banking, insurance, and even health care organizations began to develop
their own versions of quality with a distinct service focus. These industries all had major counterparts in the
public sector at federal, state, and local levels (along with being suppliers, contractors, and partners), and they
strongly encouraged benchmarking and sharing of best practices with government agencies. Many of these
service industry corporations helped fund studies on quality practices among state and local governments and
set up advisory committees to help launch government-wide efforts.

At the federal level, when the September 1993 National Performance Review report was issued, quality
management was not a primary reference point. However the report’s second chapter—“Putting Customers
First”—was quality management 101 from top to bottom. The administration issued Executive Order 12862
embedding all of these quality expectations into agency management requirements. All federal agencies
dealing with the public were required to identify their customers, set quality standards for service, survey
their customers, and act to make government services “equal to the best in business.” Unlike the
aforementioned formal productivity programs where improvements might be translated into cost savings and
staffing reductions, quality improvements were reinvestments in the agency’s performance.

Quality management also was highly compatible with the aims and natural interests of a highly skilled
workforce. Quality management called for very high levels of workforce participation or what was generally
called “empowerment.” Workers at all levels were expected (and trained) to join together in any number of
variations of quality groups or project efforts to analyze quality problems (improvement teams) or to devise
new solutions (process redesign teams). Most of these teams operated outside of the classic formal
hierarchical and representation structures of government bureaucracy. Many of the efforts included
contractors, partners, and even client and customer groups.

Essentially, the core dimensions of quality management—internal process measurements, external customer
focus, employee participation, and contractor involvement—were all highly compatible with the public
management premises and goals embodied in the Reinventing Government movement. For much of the

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

http://www.fedscope.opm

decade, quality management was seen as a preferred framework for organizational change that emphasizes
work groups and processes with a customer focus that was superior to more formal organizations focused on
work through functional specializations. But formal quality management would face a similar fate as
productivity with the presidential election change in 2000. One of the first acts of the Bush administration
was to issue an executive order ending labor-management partnerships. While the executive order neither
prevented government agencies from labor consultations nor promoting quality program aspects, the
management emphasis at the federal level shifted to competitive government, technology innovations, new
personnel systems, and new budget priorities.

A fourth factor—the emergence of performance results management—also played a pivotal role in
productivity’s demise as both management change strategy and methodology for assessing performance.
Following passage of the Government Performance Results Act in 1993, federal agencies went through a
five-year trial period putting in a budgeting system that asked agencies to prepare five-year strategic plans
with performance goals based on outcomes. Indeed, reliance on outputs—the core numerator in productivity
metrics—was seen as a problem with underperformance. Both the Office of Management and Budget and the
GAO (then the General Accounting Office—soon to be renamed the Government Accountability Office)
championed this new direction.

There were few dissenters. It was difficult to argue with the strong current of performance management—or,
as an assessment of the demise of FPMN by the research staff at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank
quoted one Beltway expert, “I don’t care how fast a government worker goes through a pile of paper until I
know whether the pile of paper needs going through in the first place . . . . productivity numbers tell me
nothing until I have a measure of the benefit” (Wirtz 2000: 6). So the federal emphasis (and many state
governments likewise pursued performance results budgeting variations) was on measuring the effects—or
social outcomes—of government programs. Productivity was equated with more simplistic efficiency while
performance was to be best understood in terms of measuring effectiveness.

This is a pivotal issue that productivity management has always recognized but been unable to reconcile. One
of the most influential early management theorists in productivity—Michael Packer3—addressed this in an
MIT white paper in 1982 aptly titled “What’s Wrong with Organizational Productivity Analysis?” Packer
sorted through the different measurement issues highlighting the degrees of difficulty and reliability in
various service industry and government organizations, especially those with substantial R&D efforts,
intelligence roles, or those that produce more intangible outputs. He also noted all the objections that
managers would have about measurement and data analysis methods, especially if the numbers were going to
be used to make comparisons to other private sector entities. But his point was that managers weren’t going
to be impressed by simply knowing how the organization’s current productivity rates were trending. Packer
urged that organizational productivity data be used to interpret the range management flexibilities and
potential scale of improvement and innovation in the same vein that business enterprises use market research
and economics (Packer 1982: 9–10).

Packer’s concerns are still valid today. If human resource managers want to understand how much progress is
being made in pursuit of organizational goals and concurrently how effective the use of human, capital,
technology, and information resources is, they will need analytical tools for measuring productivity.
Productivity analytical tools go beyond simply adopting a vocabulary of management efficiency used to
proclaim that new initiatives (the movement to cloud computing in government comes readily to mind) will
make the workforce more productive.

But perhaps a case example is needed to illustrate this point. Federal agencies today are striving to comply
with requirements to allow teleworking in their agencies. Most use surveys of workers in their teleworking
programs that show higher job satisfaction, more time spent doing task work, and less time doing
administrative work. A study at the Patent and Trademarks Office found teleworking employees processed
more patent applications per year than their in-office counterparts, according to the Commerce Department
Office of Inspector General. That makes them more or equally productive, except that the Inspector General
noted that teleworkers didn’t process applications at a greater rate; they simply reviewed patents for more

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

hours than their office-bound counterparts (U.S. Dept. of Commerce 2012). Of course, the program is
successful on a number of other fronts, but in terms of Packer’s organizational productivity analysis
framework challenge, the questions still remain: How productive is teleworking and how do you know?

This basic human resource management question deserves more than subjective answers. In another detailed
assessment of teleworking using national government employee survey data, Mahler provides a sterling
examination of the benefits of teleworking programs and questions whether there may be a rift between those
who are and those who are not allowed to participate. The survey results point to strong agreement that those
who telework report higher levels of job satisfaction and improved personnel productivity (Mahler 2012:
413). But how do they know, since there are no basic quantitative measurements of organizational, unit, or
much less individual productivity in place? No disparagement of teleworking or any other form of flexible
work arrangements using new technologies is intended; the point is simply to reinforce the need for
organizational productivity measurement, especially in government services.

There remains an unranked fifth factor that, despite a great amount of activity that occurred and continues to
be made, is of less certain significance. This would include organizational change management strategies
based on participatory management in the workplace. When these “change strategies” have been charted in
the private sector, results in terms of productivity management are mixed.

Some change management strategies have pursued linking compensation to productivity. Results here have
generally followed Blinder’s conclusion that changing the way workers are treated increases productivity
more than changing compensation practices (Blinder 1990: 13). A 1999 NBER–MIT metastudy on
productivity improvement concluded that progressive human resource policies and practices produced little
net organizational productivity benefits, as increased labor costs tended to offset increases in productivity
improvements, where they were measured (Lester 1999) or even resulted in lower performance and
diminished organizational reputation (Keating et al. 1999).

Other multiple organizational case reviews are more positive, as Black and Lynch have noted in a 2004
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco research note. They found that those organizations supporting
workplace innovations—specifically work teams, more flexible job definitions, and up-skilling of the
workforce—tended to be more productive than traditional organizations (Black and Lynch 2004: 2), These
efforts also have multiple objectives—to support workforce retention, enhance morale, and promote
engagement and commitment to organizational values. Of course, in government agencies where productivity
is no longer measured, these are the only managerial objectives that remain.

A Concluding Note and a Postscript

This chapter, despite its odd title, began with three objectives and a hope. The objectives were to recast
productivity measurement methods and management strategies to promote better understanding of several
key debates about whether governments are competitive, workforces are compensated appropriately, and
organizations are using their resources optimally.

It’s already clear that the national debate about the size and role of government is most likely to be argued on
political grounds. Whatever the shape of the 2016 federal budget, discretionary program spending or the
remaining programs after entitlements and interest requirements are destined to be further crowded in the
coming decade. This was apparent back in 2006 when McKinsey published a study calling for a renewal of
the federal productivity program so that federal productivity could be part of what they called “performance
transparency” (Danker et al. 2006). That the study was basically ignored, even by the largely pro-business
Bush administration, proves once again that sector productivity comparisons are neither compelling nor
convincing.

However, the organizational productivity challenge is going to be of increasing interest. As the public-private
pay comparability debate continues, human resource managers are going to face increasing pressure (andC

op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

media scrutiny) to explain how staffing, productivity, and compensation levels are linked. Debates about the
necessary numbers of police, teachers, nurses, and other public work functions are going to go deeper than
arguing trends in crime rates, test scores, and health care outcomes. Many government functions are already
on the defensive about why well-intentioned efforts are not always translating into improved outcomes.
Governments may find that to obtain additional resources to achieve better results, they will have to
demonstrate that their good intentions are matched by high productivity levels and optimal use of resources.
This will become even more apparent as technology alters every aspect of work from content to methods to
work skill competencies.

Public managers may well want to revisit the current quality of performance paradigm in which being
responsive and delivering services that meet citizen preferences seems to be all that matters. The means (i.e.,
productivity) in which organizations determine that the right things are being done using the right mix of
resources most efficiently is also essential. Again, this is going to be even more critical as technology and
connectivity transform the production and service processes. Public services, especially those that are human
interaction intensive, are not going away. However, productivity measurement can provide human resource
managers with critical information about how to use technology shifts in support of the next stages of public
service innovation. Hopefully, the need for organizational productivity metrics and opportunity for using
multifactor productivity analysis in the public sector will bring productivity management back to the
forefront of human resources management.

Finally, it is altogether fitting and indeed ironic, that there is a renewed debate about national productivity
levels. In this new decade since 2010, U.S. productivity growth rates have slumped dramatically, to dismal
levels, even below the terrible 1970s (Blinder 2014):

While economists have been somewhat surprised by this and there is disagreement about the causes, this time
there is consensus about the long-term consequences and potential negative effects. Governments will also
find that they are part of the debate about what to do. Robert Solow, of the “computers and productivity”
linkage mentioned earlier, noted in a recent interview that what is most different now is the recognition that
what drives productivity growth most is management differences. Paraphrasing Solow, it’s not how capital
intensive or technological advances that matter most. It’s “failure in management decisions”—the inability or
unwillingness to rethink and reallocate tasks within organizations to compete successfully (Solow 2014). Of
course, that reallocation of tasks to an organization’s workforce is the essence of human resources
management and a reminder of why productivity measurement matters.

Notes

1. The 9 million total government workers in the 1970s compares with 14 million total full-time government
workers (there are also over 5 million part-time employees) according to the last available census of
government in 2012. About 90% of that growth has been in state and local government (U.S. Census 2014).

2. Although the literature on quality management in the public sector is extensive—beginning with quality
circles in the 1980s merging into full blown total quality management programs in the 1990s, an Executive
Order mandating customer service quality standards and reviews—that goes beyond the scope and space
allotted for this review.

3. Michael Packer died in the World Trade Center in New York City during the September 11 terrorist

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

attacks; he was delivering a keynote address at a conference there.

References
, , and . . , Baumol William J. Sue Anne Batey Blackman Edward Wolff 1989 Productivity and American

. : .Leadership Cambridge, MA MIT Press

, and . . , Black Sandra A. Lisa M. Lynch 2004 Workplace Practices and the New Economy. Federal Reserve
, .Bank of San Francisco, CSIP Notes Number 2-4-10 April

. . : ., Blinder Alan S. 1990 Paying for Productivity Washington, DC Brookings Institution Press, 13

. . , ., Blinder Alan S. 2014 The Unsettling Mystery of Productivity Wall Street Journal November 24

. . . , Brynjolfsson Erik 1993 The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology: Review and Assessment
, .Communications of the ACM December

, , , and , . , Danker Tony Thomas Dohrmann Nancy Killefer Lenny Mendonca L. 2006 How Can American
, .Government Meet Its Productivity Challenge? McKinsey & Company July

, , and . . , Dertouzos Michael L. Richard K. Lester Robert M. Solow 1989 Made in America: Regaining the
. : .Productive Edge (MIT Commission on Industrial Economy) Cambridge, MA MIT Press

. . . , De Rugy Veronique 2011 U.S. Manufacturing: Outputs vs. Jobs since 1975 Mercatus Center White Paper,
, .George Mason University January

. . , Fisk Donald M. 1985 The Federal Productivity Measurement System: The Process and Selected Statistics
, ( ).Management Science and Policy Analysis Journal-Letter 2 3

, and . . . , Fisk Donald Darlene Forte 1997 The Federal Productivity Measurement Program: Final Results
, .Monthly Labor Review , May 19–28

. . : , Fuchs Victor. 1968 The Service Economy New York National Bureau of Economic Research/Columbia
, .University Press 1968

. . . , Gilder George 1975 Public Sector Productivity National Commission on Productivity and Work Quality
, ( ), – , .Public Productivity Review 1 1 4 8 6

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

. . In . , Hyde Albert C. 1978 Performance Budgeting Government Budgeting: Theory, Process, Politics Oak
: , – .Park, IL Moore Publishing 77 81

, et al. . , , Keating Elizabeth K. 1999 Overcoming the Improvement Paradox.” European Management Journal
( ), – .17 2 120 134

. . : ., Lester Richard K. 1999 The Productive Edge New York Norton

. . . , Mahler Julianne 2012 The Telework Divide: Managerial and Personnel Challenges of Telework Review of
, ( ), – .Public Personnel Administration 32 4 407 418

, and . . , McGratten Ellen R. Edward C. Prescott 2012 The Labor Productivity Puzzle. Federal Reserve Bank of
, Working Paper 694, .Minneapolis May

. . NASA-JSC 1985 An Assessment of NASA’s Productivity Management Program—Johnson Space Center.
, .University of Houston Clear City Consulting Report, ed. Albert C. Hyde July

. . . : National Academy of Sciences 1979 Measurement and Interpretation of Productivity Washington, DC
.NAS

. , Packer Michael B. 1982 What’s Wrong with Organizational Productivity Analysis? MIT Laboratory for
, .Manufacturing and Productivity, Paper LMP-MRP-81–15 July

, and . . , ed. : ., Shafritz Jay M. Albert C. Hyde 2012 Classics of public administration 7th Boston Wadsworth

. . . , ., Solow Robert 2014 Prospects for Growth: An Interview McKinsey Quarterly September

, and (Eds.). . , Triplett Jack E. Barry Bosworth 2004 Productivity in the U.S. Services Sector: New Sources of
. : .Economic Growth Washington, DC Brookings Institution Press

. . U.S. Census 2014 2012 Census of Governments: Employment Summary Report, G12-CG-EMP, edited by
, .Lisa Jessie and Mary Tarleton March 6

. . U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General 2012 The Patent Hoteling Program Is
. . .Succeeding as a Business Strategy Report OIG-12-018-A February

. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Measuring State and Local Government Productivity:C
op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

. Bulletin 2495. .Examples from Eleven Studies June

. . .White House Conference on Productivity Productivity Growth: A Better Life for America April

. . . ., Wirtz Ronald 2000 Icebergs and Government Productivity. Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank June
Available at https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/icebergs-and-government

. Accessed on .-productivity , November 7 2012

. . , Wright Joseph R. Jr. 1984 Memorandum on Productivity Improvement Program Office of Management and
, .Budget September 27

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/icebergs-and-government-productivity

Week 5 – Assignment: Recommend an Employee-Friendly Policy

Instructions

Length: 4-6 pages, not including title and reference pages

If you choose to record your lecture, upload it to your professor using CaptureSpace. An average speech tends to be 100 to 150 words per minute.

Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards where appropriate. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

Baskar, S. (2016). The influence of HR policy dimensions on the job satisfaction of employees of public sector banks: A study on Indian Overseas

Jacobson, W. S., & Lambright, K. T. (2018). The Development of County HR Policies: The Perspectives of Counties in Two States. Public Personnel

Kearney, R. C., & Coggburn, J. D. (2016). Public human resource management: Problems and prospects. Los Angeles: CQ Press

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017704440

Public Personnel Management
2017, Vol. 46(2) 91 –117

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091026017704440

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Shedding New Light on
Strategic Human Resource
Management: The Impact
of Human Resource
Management Practices and
Human Resources on the
Perception of Federal Agency
Mission Accomplishment

Seunghoo Lim1, Tae Kyu Wang2, and Soo-Young Lee3

Abstract
We assess the resource-based view in the study of strategic human resource
management in public agencies. We mainly examine the impact of both human
resource management (HRM) practices and actual human resources on the
perception of federal agency mission accomplishment. We show that all types of goal-
aligned and performance-based HRM practices (including rewards, training, appraisal,
and recruitment) positively affect perceived agency mission accomplishment. In
addition, certain types of human resources (including the percentage of career senior
executive service members and organizational size) contribute to perceived agency
mission accomplishment although others (including the percentage of professionals
and noncareer senior executive service members) make negative contributions.
Strategic knowledge, regarding an organization’s valuable, rare, inimitable, and
nontradable resources—in both HRM practices and human resources—can help
improve perceived federal agency mission accomplishment.

1International University of Japan, Minamiuonuma, Japan
2Catholic Kwandong University, Korea
3Seoul National University, Korea

Corresponding Author:
Soo-Young Lee, Graduate School of Public Administration, Seoul National University, 599 Gwanakro,
Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea.
Email: [email protected]

704440PPMXXX10.1177/0091026017704440Public Personnel ManagementLim et al.
research-article2017

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

mailto:[email protected]

92 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Keywords
strategic human resource management (SHRM), resource-based view (RBV), federal
agency mission accomplishment

Introduction

Public service agencies have attempted to respond to challenges posed in the informa-
tion age by aggregating professional workers with knowledge and expertise. Thus, the
U.S. federal agencies have tried to introduce a variety of governmental reform policies
including human resources reform policies; however, it is not easy to conclude that
these reforms achieved their purpose in terms of the citizens’ expectations about high
performance in government. In these circumstances, one possible alternative is to
strengthen strategic human resource management (SHRM), which helps public agen-
cies maintain their competitive advantage by emphasizing human capital and enhanc-
ing organizational performance. The SHRM model differs significantly from the
traditional model, which is more likely to neglect human resources embedded in pub-
lic agencies and focus on specific personnel administration practices without consider-
ing strategic interests (Daley, 2002). The shift to SHRM has been accelerated in public
agencies to exploit sustained competitive advantages and to enhance performance
through the contribution of both valuable, rare, inimitable, and nontradable (VRIN)
human resources and goal-aligned and performance-based human resources manage-
ment (HRM) practices.

An extensive body of literature in the public sector has investigated public person-
nel management issues in SHRM perspectives. For example, Mesch, Perry, and Wise
(1995) compared the influences of bureaucratic HRM and SHRM on federal employ-
ees’ job satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. Daley, Vasu, and Weinstein
(2002) analyzed the perception of North Carolina county public officers on SHRM. In
a similar vein, Daley and Vasu (2005) investigated the impacts of SHRM practices on
the county’s social welfare reform performance in North Carolina. In addition, Kim
(2010) examined the relationship between SHRM practices and perceived organiza-
tional performance using data from public servants in Georgia and Illinois. Recently,
Jacobson and Sowa (2015) studied the degree to which municipal governments have
implemented SHRM practices in Colorado and North Carolina.

However, most previous studies have addressed SHRM issues in state or local gov-
ernments, not in the federal government. In addition, the relationship between imple-
menting a strategic HRM and organizational performance in the federal agencies has
not been systematically and empirically studied. Therefore, we intend to investigate
the relationship between SHRM and organizational performance in the federal govern-
ment. In addition, this study aims to answer the following research question in that
almost all previous studies in the public sector have concentrated on perceptions of
SHRM practices rather than the actual human resources1:

Research Question 1: What kinds of differential impacts do distinct HRM prac-
tices (e.g., individual perceptions of reward, training, appraisal, and recruitment)

Lim et al. 93

and actual human resources (e.g., the percentage of professionals, the percentage of
career senior executive service [SES], the percentage of noncareer SES, and the
total number of employees) have on the perceived mission accomplishment of the
federal agencies?

We believe that this research can contribute to the field of SHRM by providing infor-
mation about which types of human resources have differential effects on a federal
agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.

SHRM

For decades, a serious human resource deficit has challenged the U.S. federal govern-
ment. Scholars lament that high-quality employees leave because of inadequate pro-
motion opportunities, because they are not provided with the tools necessary for their
job, and because compensation is inadequate (Lewis, 1991; Light, 2008). In addition,
the federal government has failed not only to retain seasoned employees but also to
recruit talented new personnel (Lewis & Cho, 2011). According to Lewis and Cho
(2011), the public service workforce has been challenged by aging and retirement.
Failure to retain the current workforce and recruit new talent in the federal government
has become a serious challenge for federal government HRM.

So far, little attention has been given to how to obtain human resources from outside
the government and how to retain them systematically and strategically inside the gov-
ernment. In particular, despite the importance of HRM in the knowledge-intensive pub-
lic sector, the traditional functions of HRM practices are typically understood in
fragmented perspectives rather than in an integrated view that focuses on attaining over-
all optimization of each function. Thus, SHRM acts as an alternative to overcome these
problems and limitations by building human resources that lead organizations to achieve
goals and retain their competitive advantage (Pynes, 2013) because SHRM views an
organization’s personnel as a resource that drives organizational performance.

The Significance of SHRM in the Public Sector

SHRM aims to align HRM practices with an organization’s strategy and ultimately
with organizational development goals beyond the mere operation of these functions
(Pynes, 2013). Therefore, SHRM links HRM and strategic management to better coor-
dinate and harmonize HRM practices through multiple human resource planning pro-
cesses that aim to efficiently achieve organizational strategies and goals (Anthony,
Kacmar, & Perrewe, 2009; Burack, Burack, Miller, & Morgan, 1994; Wright &
McMahan, 1992).

There are four important differences between SHRM and traditional HRM or per-
sonnel management (see Table 1).2 First, the analytical focus is different. Traditional
HRM mainly focuses on individuals’ psychological or motivational characteristics,
such as studying how individual changes in job satisfaction and organizational citizen-
ship behavior affect organizational performance. Building on this notion, SHRM hones

94 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

in on how linkages between HRM practices and organizational strategies affect organi-
zational performance. Second, the scope of analysis is different. Traditional HRM has
separate perspectives that aim to enhance the local optimization of each HRM practice
without considering other functions. In contrast to this microscopic view, SHRM
attempts to achieve more global or comprehensive optimization through vertical and
horizontal integration of HRM practices with a macro perspective. Third, the span of
time is different. Traditional HRM focuses on short-term problem-solving processes,
whereas SHRM attempts to establish organizational strategies and to foster human
capital from a long-term perspective. Thus, members of an organization are regarded as
its “human capital,” which is a more useful concept than “human resource” because
human capital views members of organizations as “assets” rather than “resources.” A
perspective that considers personnel as assets naturally recognizes that it is important to
invest in and develop these assets. Recruiting competent personnel to the proper posi-
tions, investing in resources to sustain them, and developing human resources through
appropriate training and incentivization indicates that human resources are not merely
the object of cost cutting but are instead a strategic asset whose value can be enhanced.
When an organization determines its strategic goals or priorities, human resources
should be considered important at higher levels such as the departmental or organiza-
tional levels. Fourth, the functions and roles of HRM are different. Traditionally, HRM
practices and activities are understood to have no relation to achieving organizational
goals and strategies or to have only subordinate, functional, or instrumental roles in
contributing to achieving organizational goals. By contrast, SHRM actively intervenes
in strategy building and execution and aims to systematically develop and enhance
human resources. SHRM also empowers rather than controls organizational members
and intends to maximize their autonomy through its activities.

Table 1. A Comparison of Traditional HRM and SHRM.

Traditional HRM Strategic HRM

Focus of
analysis

Individuals’ psychological or
motivational aspects

Effects of the linkage between HRM
practices and organizational strategies
on organizational performance

Scope of
analysis

Micro and fragmented view
(pursuing local optimization of

individual HRM practices)

Macro and comprehensive view
(pursuing global optimization through

vertical and horizontal integration of
HRM practices)

Span of time Short-term problem-solving
processes

Long-term development of human capital

Functions and
roles of HRM

No relations with
organizational goals and
strategies

Control mechanism

Strong relations with the establishment
of organizational goals and strategies

Incentives for empowerment and
autonomy

Note. HRM = human resource management; SHRM = strategic human resource management.

Lim et al. 95

The SHRM characteristic most developed in the private sector involves harmonizing
organizational strategy with best HRM practices and policies to improve the organiza-
tion’s efficiency and productivity (Mello, 2011). Thus, SHRM should be considered
important in both the public and private sectors. However, the public sector has certain
distinct features that should lead it to adopt SHRM with care. Public organizations are
less exposed to market competition, have higher legal and official constraints, and are
subject to political influences (Rainey, Backoff, & Levine, 1976). They are also under
distinct social controls that involve ownership, financing, and other political and eco-
nomic factors (Perry & Rainey, 1988; Wamsley & Zald, 1973). Moreover, the public
sector tends to have more ambiguous, complicated, and multidimensional goals than
the private sector (Chun & Rainey, 2005). The performance (or budgetary) office and
the human resources office in the public sector do not coordinate to align employee
performance with organizational goals for enhancing organizational performance
(Ayers, 2013, 2015; Ban & Gossett, 2010). Given that the focus and locus in strategic
planning have been conceived in various manners, a one-size-fits-all approach to how
public agencies develop and implement substantive strategic management practices
does not work (Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010; Poister & Streib, 2005).

Nevertheless, SHRM is now emphasized in the public sector for the following
reasons (Jacobson & Sowa, 2015; Klingner, 1993; Klingner, Nalbandian, & Llorens,
2010): There is a contemporary public management movement that focuses on
increasing responsibility and efficiency; public agencies have greater legal obliga-
tions regarding issues such as safety management in the workplace, affirmative
action, and due process; the public sector labor force is increasingly diverse; and
alternative instruments have emerged for the provision of public services. Furthermore,
a growing recognition of the importance of human resources, the transition from
position management to task management, innovation, cost control, organizational
members’ participation, and the diversity of human resource have been emphasized
in the public sector.

In the history of HRM or personnel administration, the HRM paradigm has been
transformed from traditional HRM to SHRM in both the public and private sectors.
Thus, HRM is used strategically more often in the public sector, and innovative HRM
change is increasing in many fields (Hays & Kearney, 2001). Reports from the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management (U.S. OPM, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2005) and the U.S.
General Accounting Office (2002) show that the strategic aspects of HRM policies
were already being strengthened in the public sector in the 1990s and 2000s (Cascio,
2015; Dessler, 2014); accordingly, those in charge of HRM became aware of the fact
that HRM may affect their organizational performance and that SHRM is closely
linked to reinforcing human capital. These transitions resulted from the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), which forced the federal government
to integrate HR planning into organizational strategic planning processes (Tompkins,
2002). It was emphasized again in 2001, when Strategic Management of Human
Capital, which focused on improving the management and performance of the federal
government, was chosen as part of the Bush Administration agenda (Executive Office
of the President of the U.S., 2001).

96 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

SHRM and the Resource-Based View (RBV)

Traditional studies on HRM have typically addressed individual HRM practices
(including recruitment, education, training, evaluation, and compensation) separately
from a micro perspective, without providing the theoretical framework for each func-
tion (Mahoney & Deckop, 1986). This lack of theoretical foundation limits organiza-
tions’ strategic use of human resources. However, SHRM is a macro-perspective
approach that attempts to comprehend the various activities and practices of HRM and
even to integrate them. For these purposes, SHRM scholars rely on various organiza-
tional theories to overcome the limitations of traditional HRM and to develop more
advanced and sophisticated approaches (Wright & McMahan, 1992).

Among the various theoretical perspectives, the RBV has received increasing atten-
tion and has been helpful in elucidating and developing SHRM (Barney, 1991; Boxall,
1996; Delery & Doty, 1996, Wernerfelt, 1984; Wright & McMahan, 1992). One
advantage of the RBV is that it searches for methods to develop human resources as
the basis of an organization’s competitive advantage, which allows the analysis to
focus on aspects inside organizations. Thus, the RBV posits that an organization’s
resources and capabilities are determined not only by its external environment but also
by its strategic internal decisions and that organizations obtain competitive advantage
by deploying or acquiring resources (Mello, 2011).

Since Penrose (1959), RBV theorists have emphasized the scarcity and uniqueness
of resources as a critical determinant of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991, 2010;
Newbert, 2007). Wernerfelt (1984) used the term “resource-based view of the firm” for
the first time, and this concept was developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Conner,
1991; Peteraf, 1993). Barney (1991) stressed securing VRIN resources and capabilities,
that is, increasing an organization’s positive resources that are valuable, unique, or rare,
largely inimitable by current and future potential competitors, and nonsubstitutable
with other resources that competing organizations own. Thus, VRIN resources or capa-
bilities are different from resources that other organizations are able to obtain and are
not easily imitated by or transferrable to competitors for the following reasons.

First, because scarcity itself makes it difficult for other organizations to seek the
resource in question, a perfectly competitive market is unlikely to form for this
resource. In addition, unique historical conditions, ambiguous causality, and social
complexity make organizational phenomena—including human behaviors, interper-
sonal relationships, and organizational cultures—difficult to control or manage, creat-
ing the uniqueness of an organization’s resources that are not easily imitable (Barney
& Clark, 2007). As there is no scarce and unique resource with equivalent strategic
value, these resources are nonsubstitutable (Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994)
and become fundamental resources and core capabilities of the organization (Hamel &
Prahalad, 1990). Furthermore, valuable resources offer the opportunity to build and
implement strategies that help organizations improve their organizational efficiency or
effectiveness.

Competitive advantage and sustained competitive advantage are core concepts for
understanding the RBV. Organizations are said to have achieved “competitive

Lim et al. 97

advantage” when they have implemented a value-creating strategy that current and
future competitors cannot use (Barney, 2010). When other organizations cannot ben-
efit from such a strategy, the organization using the strategy has a “sustained competi-
tive advantage.” This perspective is distinguished from that of traditional studies,
which argued that the friendliness of the environment determines an organization’s
success and focused on whether the external environment an organization faces con-
sists of opportunities or threats (Bain, 1956; Caves & Porter, 1977; Stigler, 1968).
However, increasing competition and rapidly changing technologies make it difficult
for organizations to understand and predict the environment in which they are situated.
Furthermore, despite the premise that organizations in similar environments should
achieve parallel outcomes, traditional studies cannot explain many real cases of orga-
nizations that experience continuous success. Thus, the RBV shifts the focus from the
outside to the inside of organizations in seeking the source of competitive advantage.

Traditionally, under the RBV, a firm’s typical resources such as the natural
resources, technology, and financial resources have been thought to determine the
organization’s competitive advantage, but these resources are easily imitable, transfer-
rable, and substitutable by competitors, which severely limits their value (Barney,
1991, 2010; Newbert, 2007). In contrast, SHRM implies that human resources can be
the organization’s competitive advantage with VRIN characteristics (Daley & Vasu,
2005). In other words, human resources can be the pivotal source for enhancing an
organization’s performance, particularly in the public sector (Daley, 2002; Daley et al.,
2002; Mesch et al., 1995; Perry, 1993; Perry & Mesch, 1997; Perry & Miller, 1991).
Wright and McMahan (1992) detailed the process by which human resources lead to
organizations’ sustained competitive advantages as follows. First, human resources
actively add distinctive values to their organizations, and each organization expects
human resources to make different contributions. Second, because talented individuals
are scarce, an organization develops management practices such as recruiting pro-
grams, compensation, and inducement plans to secure those competent individuals.
Third, an organization’s unique human resources are impossible for competitors to
imitate. Human resources can be the source of competitive advantage because of their
unique relationships with policies, traditions, and culture inside of organizations; it is
difficult to comprehend the exact causes of competitive advantage, as competitive
advantage is difficult to imitate because of social complexity. Fourth, if an organiza-
tion once secures a valuable human resource, it may sustain competitive advantage by
adopting new technologies even if competitors also hire talented people. Based on
competitive advantage, SHRM focuses on the planning function of human resources,
pursues strategic changes to counter organizations’ environments, and emphasizes
aligning human resources with an organization’s circumstances or strategies. As men-
tioned above, this study intends to divide human resources into two categories: SHRM
practices (e.g., rewards, training, appraisal, and recruitment) and actual human
resources (e.g., the number of total employees and the number of SES).

As mentioned above, Daley and Vasu (2005) investigated the impact of SHRM
practices such as career development, training, job security, participation, merit pay,
and result-based evaluation on social welfare reform performance in North Carolina

98 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

counties. In that study, they provided a general hypothesis that “each practice does
indeed matter and individually (and collectively) contributes to organizational suc-
cess” (Daley & Vasu, 2005, p. 159).3 In addition, Kim (2010) showed there were posi-
tive relationships between SHRM practices such as training and merit rewards and
public employees’ perceived performance in Georgia and Illinois. Based on the per-
spective of the RBV and the results of previous research, we assumed that goal-aligned
and performance-based HRM practices are positively associated with the perception
of mission accomplishment by federal employees.

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between reward practices aligned with
an agency’s goal and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between training practices aligned with
an agency’s goal and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between appraisal practices aligned
with an agency’s goal and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between recruitment practices aligned
with an agency’s goal and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.

Based on the RBV, it is logical that more resources help a public agency accomplish
its missions. There are various types of resources in a public organization. Public man-
agement scholars have devised several classifications of organizational resources, such
as organizational structure and financial, human, and technological resources (Bozeman
& Straussman, 1990; Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999). Recently, Lee and Whitford (2013)
developed a more sophisticated framework that takes a holistic view on public agen-
cies’ core organizational resources. These authors offered six types of organizational
resources: administrative, human, financial, physical, political, and reputation resources.
In line with Lee and Whitford (2013), we focus on four types of actual human resources:
professionals, career SES, noncareer SES, and the total number of employees.

First, an agency’s level of professionalization is a crucial human resource. Scholars
argue that agency performance can be enhanced by professionalization because pro-
fessionals provide important expertise and knowledge (Lee & Whitford, 2013; Rainey
& Steinbauer, 1999; Stillman, 1999). Based on their professional and ethical stan-
dards, professionals offer policy knowledge and can help an agency respond to com-
plex social issues and problems. Furthermore, as indirect public service delivery
through grants and contracts becomes more and more common, contract and network
management scholars emphasize the importance of a professional workforce with
policy expertise (Brown & Potoski, 2003; Heinrich, Lynn, & Milward, 2010; Kettl,
1988; Milward & Provan, 2003). Therefore, we assume that having professionals
helps an agency accomplish its mission.

The second actual human resource is the SES members in an organization.4 SES
consists of two types of members: career and noncareer members. Career SES mem-
bers are bureaucrats who lead and manage complex organizations for public service
delivery and act as the interface between political appointees in the top management
in public agencies and the career civil servants who actually deliver public services

Lim et al. 99

and goods (Sanders, 1994). With a great deal of authority and seasoned knowledge,
career SESs are deeply involved in the internal management and policy implementa-
tion of their agencies (Colby & Ingraham, 1981; Dolan, 2000; Rourke, 1984). However,
noncareer SESs are often politically appointed. They tend to be generalists and play a
political role in successfully implementing policies (Lee & Whitford, 2013; Maranto,
1998). Although noncareer SESs may allow their agencies to enjoy more political sup-
port in implementing policies, public agencies often perform better when they are
uninterrupted by external political influence (Lee & Whitford, 2013). Consequently,
we assume that there is a positive relationship between career SESs and mission
accomplishment. We also hypothesize that noncareer SESs are positively associated
with mission accomplishment for purposes of consistency.

The final human resource at the organizational level is the number of total employ-
ees. A number of scholars maintained that agencies with a large number of employees
have better capabilities to solve problems (Hill, 1982; Jackson, 1992) because they can
obtain or remember more information about tasks, more critical judgments for fixing
errors, and more promising solution strategies (Harrison, 1975; Shaw, 1981). These
capacities may help explain the higher quality decisions reported in groups with a
large number of employees (Cummings, Huber, & Arendt, 1974). Enhanced capabili-
ties for problem solving offer competitive advantages for an organization that lead to
better performance. Based on these arguments, we posit that a large number of employ-
ees may help an agency achieve its mission.

Hypothesis 5: There is a positive relationship between an agency’s professional-
ization level and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.
Hypothesis 6: There is a positive relationship between the proportion of career
SESs in an agency and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.
Hypothesis 7: There is a positive relationship between the proportion of noncareer
SESs in an agency and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.
Hypothesis 8: There is a positive relationship between an agency’s total number of
employees and the federal agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.

Model Specification

Data Description

This study employs multiple data sources to cover both organizational- and individual-
level aspects related to SHRM. At the individual level, this study uses the 2010 Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), which is conducted by the U.S. (OPM). The
FEVS (formerly the Federal Human Capital Survey) is an annual survey that captures
employees’ perceptions of how HRM systems are functioning in the federal govern-
ment and which evaluates the progress of SHRM (U.S. OPM, 2010). Thus, a wide
range of management features in the federal government can be drawn from the FEVS.
Furthermore, the FEVS provides leaders with valuable information to improve agency
performance (U.S. OPM, 2012).

100 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

The 2010 FEVS was administered via both the Internet and paper. It was presented
to full-time, permanent employees not only in the major agencies but also in small and
independent agencies. The FEVS represents more than 95% of the entire executive
branch’s workforce, including the cabinet and small/independent agencies, with
504,609 employees receiving the survey and 263,475 responding, yielding a response
rate of 52%.

In addition, this study includes organizational aspects of federal agencies, such as
professionalization level, two types of SESs, organizational age and size, and regulatory
status. We employ data drawn from FedScope to illustrate the impact of human resources
in terms of professionalization level, senior career services, and organizational size.
FedScope, an online HRM database of the U.S. federal government, provides substantial
information on topics such as employment, employment trends, diversity, occupational
categories, and types of appointment.5 Organizational age and regulatory status were
drawn from the U.S. Government Manual and the Federal Regulatory Directory, respec-
tively. The final samples for this study include 187,900 federal employees covering 32
federal agencies,6 after eliminating cases with missing data.

Variable Measurement

The main variables at the individual level are measured using 5-point ordinal-scaled
questions (see the appendix). The dependent variable for mission accomplishment was
measured by a single question: “My agency is successful at accomplishing its mis-
sion.” The concept of performance often has multiple understandings. According to
Rainey and Steinbauer (1999), performance can be defined in various ways, such as
whether the agency performs its mission as it is supposed to, whether organizational
members of the agency work hard and well, whether the actions and procedures of the
agency and its members are well suited to attaining its mission, and whether the agency
actually achieves its mission. In fact, Nicholson-Crotty, Nicholson-Crotty, and
Fernandez (2016) used the same single item to measure mission accomplishment as
performance. In addition, Fernandez and Moldogaziev (2013) included the same item
as one of their two performance measures.

Concerning the four independent variables at the individual level, SHRM practices,7
excluding recruitment, are captured by several questions. Reward practice is measured
by two questions on promotions and pay raises (Cronbach’s α = .75). Training practice
consists of two questions that assess training needs and satisfaction with training
(Cronbach’s α = .81). Appraisal practice is captured by two questions regarding overall
performance appraisal systems (Cronbach’s α = .81). Finally, recruitment practice is
measured by a single question on the ability to recruit the right people.

On the side of human resources at the organizational level, this study focuses on the
level of professionalization and two types of SES. A federal agency’s level of profes-
sionalization is measured by the proportion of professional staff to its total number of
employees. Professionalization level measure is consistent with policy problem com-
plexity in the current literature (Chun & Rainey, 2005). Both types of SES are captured
by the proportion of career and noncareer SESs over the total number of employees

Lim et al. 101

(Lee & Whitford, 2013). Organizational size is measured by the logarithm of the total
number of employees of the 32 federal agencies.

To more precisely test the relationship between SHRM and perceptions of mission
accomplishment in government, we included control variables at both the organiza-
tional and individual levels. At the organizational level, we employed the organiza-
tional age and the regulatory status of the federal agencies because these factors can
represent the nature of the tasks of the agency, which is significant for that agency’s
performance (Chun & Rainey, 2005). With regard to the individual-level control vari-
ables, we included transformative leadership (van Wart, 2013) and goal clarity (Ko &
Hur, 2014; Whitford, Lee, Yun, & Jung, 2010). Furthermore, job and individual char-
acteristics including the workplace (headquarters or field offices), supervisory status,
gender, minority, age group, pay category, and years of service were considered (Pitts,
2009). Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for all the variables used in this study.

In Table 3, the correlation matrix shows that there are statistically significant rela-
tionships among the variables. In terms of mission accomplishment, four independent
variables showed statistically positive relationships. Among the control variables,
minority, noncareer SES, and regulatory status had statistically significant and nega-
tive relationships with mission accomplishment, whereas other variables were posi-
tively related. In particular, transformative leadership showed moderate relationships
with mission accomplishment (r = .67), reward (r = .69), training (r = .65), appraisal
(r = .057), and recruitment (r = .55). In addition, organizational size was negatively
related with the percentage of career SESs (r = −.64) and noncareer SESs (r = −.63).

Model Estimation and Results

Prior to testing the hypotheses, common source bias should be addressed. Common
source bias typically occurs when a study relies on a single survey (Favero & Bullock,
2015). However, our study collected data from multiple sources such as the FEVS 2010,
FedScope for human resource characteristics at the organizational level, the U.S.
Government Manual for organizational age, and agencies’ regulatory status from the
Federal Regulatory Directory. Thus, common source bias was not a concern in this study.

To estimate the effects of SHRM, we employed a stereotype logistic regression
(SLR) model, which accounts for a dependent variable with ordered values (Anderson,
1984). The dependent variable in this study—perceived mission accomplishment—is
a single survey item, measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree, agree,
neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree). We adopted the SLR
model for the following three reasons (Whitford et al., 2010): (a) to assess respon-
dents’ distinguishability in the nonmonotonic order of the Likert-type categories; (b)
to address the violated parallel regression assumption, which was found using a Brant
test; and (c) to allow for nonlinear relationships. Our model tested the eight hypotheses
listed above together, including control variables at the individual and agency levels.
The results of the SLR model are shown in Table 4. The model fits the data well, Wald
χ2(19) = 24,013.50, p < .01. We find evidence of ordinality inherent in the mission
accomplishment score variable from 1 through 5, as φ2 = .816 (p < .01), φ3 = .681 (p <

102 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

.01), and φ4 = .400 (p < .01), where φ5 = 0 as mission accomplishment and 5 is the
reference category and φ1 = 1 for identification (Long & Freese, 2006).

Our results show that all four goal-aligned and performance-based HRM practices
positively affect mission accomplishment and are statistically significant: Reward (p <
.01), Training (p < .01), Appraisal (p < .01), and Recruitment (p < .01). The SLR
model shows positive relationships between the proportion of career SES and mission
accomplishment (p < .01) and between organizational size (measured by the number
of total employees) and mission accomplishment (p < .01), and negative relationships
between the professional level and mission accomplishment (p < .01) and between the
proportion of noncareer SES and mission accomplishment (p < .01).

Given that the coefficients of an SLR model cannot directly indicate the effects of a
one-unit change in the independent variables (Long & Freese, 2006), Table 5 represents
the marginal effects for each type of the four goal-aligned and performance-based HRM
practices and the four human resources. The effects for all eight are close to zero for the
strongly disagree response. Of the four HRM practices, the marginal effects of

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.

Variable N M SD Minimum Maximum

Mission accomplishment (DV) 187,900 3.98 0.86 1 5
Rewarda 187,900 5.99 2.10 2 10
Trainingb 187,900 6.90 2.03 2 10
Appraisalc 187,900 7.43 2.12 2 10
Recruitment 187,900 3.27 1.11 1 5
Transformational leadershipd 187,900 13.82 3.81 4 20
Goal clarity 187,900 4.14 0.83 1 5
Workplace (headquarters = 1) 187,900 0.41 0.49 0 1
Supervisory status (supervisory = 1) 187,900 0.32 0.46 0 1
Gender (male = 1) 187,900 0.54 0.50 0 1
Minority (minority = 1) 187,900 0.32 0.47 0 1
Age group 187,900 3.40 1.03 1 5
Pay category 187,900 2.58 0.71 1 4
Years of service 187,900 4.41 1.47 1 6
% of professionals 187,900 28.03 15.41 3.95 69.98
% of career SES 187,900 0.59 0.70 0 5.06
% of noncareer SES 187,900 0.05 0.06 0 .59
Organizational age 187,900 2.17 1.08 1 4
Organizational size (log) 187,900 11.37 1.52 6.89 13.55
Regulatory agency 187,900 0.92 0.27 0 1

Note. DV = dependent variable; SES = senior executive service.
aCronbach’s α = .75.
bCronbach’s α = .81.
cCronbach’s α = .81.
dCronbach’s α = .86.

103

T
a
b

le
3

.
C

o
rr

el
at

io
n

M
at

ri
x.

M
A

R
E

T
R

A
P

R
C

T
F

G
C

H
E

SU
G

E
M

I
A

G
PA

Y
S

PR
C

S
N

S
O

R
E

.5
4*

T
R

.5
1*

*
.5

5*
*

P
.4

5*
*

.5
4*

*
.5

2*
*

C
.5

0*
*

.5
4*

*
.4

6*
*

.3
7*

T
F

.6
7*

*
.6

9*
*

.6
5*

*
.5

7*
*

.5
5*

G
C

.4
8*

*
.3

8*
*

.4
1*

*
.3

8*
*

.3
3*

*
.5

0*
*

E
.0

3*
*

.0
7*

*
0

.0
3*

*
.0

5*
*

.0
4*

*
.0

2*
*

.1
4*

*
.1

6*
*

.0
9*

*
.0

4*
*

.0
4*

*
.1

4*
*

.1
2*

*
−

.0
3*

G
E

.0
1*

*
.0

4*
*

.0
2*

*
−

.0
1*

*
0

.0
3*

*
−

.0
4*

*
−

.0
6*

*
.1

3*
*

I
−

.0
6*

*
−

.0
1*

*
0

.0
0*

*
.0

2*
*

−
.0

2*
*

.0
3*

*
.0

6*
*

−
.0

8*
*

−
.1

5*
*

G
.0

4*
*

0
−

.0
1*

*
−

.0
2*

*
−

.0
1*

*
.0

1*
*

.0
2*

*
−

.0
2*

*
.1

5*
*

.0
7*

*
−

.0
7*

PA
.0

9*
*

.1
3*

*
.0

5*
*

.0
1*

*
.0

5*
*

.0
8*

*
.0

6*
*

.1
2*

*
.2

7*
*

.0
7*

*
−

.1
1*

*
.1

1*
*

S
.0

2*
*

−
.0

4*
*

−
.0

1*
*

−
.0

3*
*

−
.0

5*
*

−
.0

3*
*

.0
2*

*
−

.1
1*

*
.2

0*
*

0
−

.0
7*

*
.4

5*
*

.1
2*

PR
.0

1*
*

.0
4*

*
.0

3*
*

0
.0

3*
*

.0
4*

*
0

.0
4*

*
−

.1
1*

*
−

.0
3*

*
.0

1*
*

−
.0

2*
*

.0
6*

*
.0

2*
*

S
.0

4*
*

.0
3*

*
.0

4*
*

.0
2*

*
.0

3*
*

.0
4*

*
.0

1*
*

.0
1*

*
−

.1
2*

*
−

.0
1*

*
−

.0
1*

*
−

.0
1*

*
.1

3*
*

.0
2*

*
.5

5*
*

S
−

.0
4*

*
−

.0
2*

*
−

.0
6*

*
−

.0
1*

*
−

.0
2*

*
−

.0
5*

*
−

.0
3*

*
.0

5*
*

−
.1

0*
*

−
.0

8*
*

.0
4*

*
0

.0
5*

*
.0

1*
*

.2
3*

*
.4

3*
*

S
.0

4*
*

.0
1*

*
.0

3*
*

−
.0

1*
*

−
.0

1*
*

.0
4*

*
.0

2*
*

−
.0

3*
*

.1
6*

*
.1

0*
*

−
.0

5*
*

.0
4*

*
−

.0
9*

*
−

.0
3*

*
−

.3
4*

*
−

.6
4*

*
−

.6
3*

O
A

.0
0*

*
−

.0
1*

*
0

.0
1*

*
−

.0
1*

*
0

0
−

.0
7*

*
.0

5*
*

.0
3*

*
−

.0
9*

*
0

−
.0

9*
*

.0
9*

*
−

.1
9*

*
−

.2
3*

*
−

.2
0*

*
.1

7*
*

G
−

.0
2*

*
−

.0
3*

*
−

.0
5*

*
−

.0
4*

*
−

.0
2*

*
−

.0
4*

*
−

.0
1*

*
.0

5*
*

.0
5*

*
0

0
.0

1*
*

−
.0

4*
*

−
.0

3*
*

−
.2

5*
*

−
.3

9*
*

.0
4*

*
.4

3*
*

.1
4*

N
ot

e.
M

A
=

m
is

si
o
n

ac
co

m
pl

is
hm

en
t;
R

E
=

r
ew

ar
d;

T
R

=
t

ra
in

in
g;

A
P

=
a

pp
ra

is
al

; R
C

=
r

ec
ru

it
m

en
t;
T

F
=

t
ra

ns
fo

rm
at

iv
e

le
ad

er
sh

ip
; G

C
=

g
o
al

c
la

ri
ty

; H
E

=
h

ea
dq

ua
rt

er
; S

U
=

pe
rv

is
o
ry

s
ta

tu
s;

G
E

=
g

en
de

r;
M

I
=

m
in

o
ri

ty
; A

G
=

a
ge

g
ro

up
; P

A
=

p
ay

c
at

eg
o
ry

; Y
S

=
y

ea
rs

o
f
se

rv
ic

e;
P

R
=

p
ro

fe
ss

io
na

ls
; S

ES
=

s
en

io
r

ex
ec

ut
iv

e
se

rv
ic

e;
C

S
=

c
ar

ee
r

SE
S;

N
S

no
nc

ar
ee

r
SE

S;
O

S
o
rg

an
iz

at
io

na
l s

iz
e;

O
A

=
o

rg
an

iz
at

io
na

l a
ge

; R
G

=
r

eg
ul

at
o
ry

s
ta

tu
s.

**
p

<
.0

104 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

recruitment are slightly greater than those for reward, training, and appraisal, which
indicates that recruitment has a greater impact on perceived mission accomplishment
than the other practices. Of the four human resources, the marginal effects of noncareer
SESs, even when negative, are greater than those for professionals, career SESs, and
the organizational size, which indicates that noncareer SESs have a stronger impact on
mission accomplishment than the other resources. As Lee and Whitford (2013) pointed
out, noncareer SESs may allow their agencies to enjoy more political support than other
resources, but interruption by external political influence may not be of great help. In
addition, the effects of professionals and noncareer SESs on mission accomplishment
are negative only for the strongly agree category. Holding all other variables constant,
the odds of a more positive perception of mission accomplishment increased for the

Table 4. Stereotype Logistic Regression Model for Mission Accomplishment.

Variables Coefficient Robust SE

Reward 0.117*** .009
Training 0.186*** .009
Appraisal 0.039*** .008
Recruitment 0.608*** .015
Transformational leadership 0.728*** .007
Goal clarity 1.684*** .021
Workplace (headquarters = 1) 0.011 .024
Supervisory status (supervisory = 1) 0.181*** .028
Gender (male = 1) −0.094*** .024
Minority (minority = 1) −0.593*** .026
Age group −0.042*** .013
Pay category 0.069*** .018
Years of service 0.023** .009
% of professionals −0.016*** .000
% of career SES 0.733*** .026
% of noncareer SES −2.159*** .297
Organizational size (log) 0.286*** .013
Organizational age −0.042*** .011
Regulatory agency −0.024 .060
φ1 1 —
φ2 .816*** .004
φ3 .681*** .003
φ4 .400*** .002
φ5 0 —
Log pseudolikelihood −165,212.58
Wald χ2(df) 24,013.50 (19)***
N 187,900

Note. SES = senior executive service.
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Lim et al. 105

cases with the positive statistically significant predictors of perceived mission accom-
plishment (i.e., reward, training, appraisal, recruitment, career SESs, and organizational
size) and decreased for the cases with the negative statistically significant predictors of
perceived mission accomplishment (i.e., professionals and noncareer SESs; see Table
6). That is, controlling for all other variables constant, the odds of strongly agree versus
strongly disagree increased by a factor of 1.124, 1.205, 1.041, 1.838, 2.160, and 1.369
for a one-unit increase in Reward, Training, Appraisal, Recruitment, the proportion of
career SESs, and organizational size, respectively, and decreased by a factor of .984 and
.158 for a one-unit increase in the professional level and the proportion of noncareer
SESs, respectively.

To show how perceptions of mission accomplishment change in a nonlinear pat-
tern with respect to each independent variable, we graphed the estimated effects of
all eight goal-aligned and performance-based HRM practices and human resources
on the five response categories of the mission accomplishment variable (see Figures
1 and 2). The curves represent the changes in the probabilities of the average respon-
dent’s answers—strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and
strongly disagree—as each measurement of human resource practice and human

Table 5. Marginal Effects.

Variables
Strongly
agree Agree

Neither agree
nor disagree Disagree

Strongly
disagree

Reward .007 −.002 −.004 −.001 .000
Training .011 −.003 −.006 −.001 .000
Appraisal .002 −.001 −.001 .000 .000
Recruitment .036 −.010 −.020 −.004 .001
Transformational leadership .043 −.012 −.024 −.005 .001
Goal clarity .099 −.029 −.056 −.012 .002
Workplace (headquarters = 1) .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
Supervisory status

(supervisory = 1)
.011 −.003 −.006 −.001 .000

Gender (male = 1) −.006 .002 .003 .001 .000
Minority (minority = 1) −.034 .008 .020 .004 .001
Age group −.002 .001 .001 .000 .000
Pay category .004 −.001 −.002 .000 .000
Years of service .001 .000 −.001 .000 .000
% of professionals −.001 .000 .001 .000 .000
% of career SES .043 −.012 −.025 −.005 .001
% of noncareer SES −.126 .037 .072 .015 .002
Organizational size (log) .017 −.005 −.010 −.002 .000
Organizational age −.002 .001 .001 .000 .000
Regulatory agency −.001 .000 .001 .000 .000

Note. The marginal effects are measured only at the means of the independent variables. SES = senior
executive service.

106 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

resource proceeds from its minimum to maximum in specific increments, given that
all other variables are at their average. The probabilities assessing mission accom-
plishment for disagree and strongly disagree are below .01. For the cases of the posi-
tive statistically significant predictors of perceived mission accomplishment (i.e.,
reward, training, appraisal, recruitment, career SES, and organizational size), we
note from the graphical patterns that the estimated probabilities for strongly agree
increases as the measured level of each predictor increases, but those for neither
agree nor disagree and agree decrease (see a, b, c, and d in Figure 1 and b and d in
Figure 2). Compared with these predictors, the respondents shifted from strongly
agree to neither agree nor disagree for the cases of the negative statistically signifi-
cant predictors of perceived mission accomplishment (i.e., professionals and nonca-
reer SESs; see a and c in Figure 2).

Conclusion

In this analysis, we assessed the RBV for studying SHRM in public agencies. We
mainly examined the impact of HRM practices and actual human resources on the
perception of federal agency mission accomplishment where we considered both
HRM practices and actual human resources to be organizational resources in the broad
sense. Our results showed that all types of goal-aligned and performance-based HRM
practices (including reward, training, appraisal, and recruitment) have positive impacts
on an agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. In addition, certain types of actual
human resources (such as the percentage of career SESs and the organizational size)
contribute to accomplishing an agency’s mission; however, other types (such as the

Table 6. Odds Ratios for the Four Goal-Aligned and Performance-Based HRM Practices and
the Four Human Resources Variables Across the Four Comparisons for Perceived Mission
Accomplishment.

Category comparisons
for perceived mission
accomplishment

Strongly agree
vs. strongly
disagree

Strongly agree
vs. disagree

Strongly agree
vs. neither
agree nor
disagree

Strongly
agree vs.

agree

Variables OR OR OR OR

Reward 1.124 1.100 1.083 1.048
Training 1.205 1.164 1.135 1.077
Appraisal 1.041 1.033 1.027 1.016
Recruitment 1.838 1.644 1.515 1.276
% of professionals 0.984 0.986 0.989 0.993
% of career SES 2.160 1.876 1.691 1.362
% of noncareer SES 0.158 0.222 0.285 0.478
Organizational size (log) 1.369 1.293 1.239 1.134

Note. OR = odds ratio; SES = senior executive service.

107

F
ig

u
re

1
.

H
R

M
p

ra
ct

ic
es

a
nd

t
he

p
er

ce
iv

ed
li

ke
lih

o
o
d

o
f
m

is
si

o
n

ac
co

m
pl

is
hm

en
t.

N
ot

=
Pr

o
ba

bi
lit

y
o
f S

tr
o
ng

ly
A

gr
ee

;
=

Pr
o
ba

bi
lit

y
o
f A

gr
ee

;
=

Pr
o
ba

bi
lit

y
o
f N

ei
th

er
A

gr
ee

n
o
r

D
is

ag
re

=
Pr

o
ba

bi
lit

y
o
f D

is
ag

re
e;

Pr
o
ba

bi
lit

y
o
f
St

ro
ng

ly
D

is
ag

re
e.

B
y

th
e

la
w

o
f
to

ta
l p

ro
ba

bi
lit

y,
t

he
c

ur
ve

s
re

pr
es

en
ti
ng

t
he

p
re

di
ct

ed
p

ro
ba

bi
lit

ie
s

m
us

t
eq

ua
l 1

108

F
ig

u
re

2
.

H
um

an
r

es
o
ur

ce
s

an
d

th
e

pe
rc

ei
ve

d
lik

el
ih

o
o
d

o
f
m

is
si

o
n

ac
co

m
pl

is
hm

en
t.

N
ot

=
Pr

o
ba

bi
lit

y
o
f S

tr
o
ng

ly
A

gr
ee

;
=

Pr
o
ba

bi
lit

y
o
f A

gr
ee

;
=

Pr
o
ba

bi
lit

y
o
f N

ei
th

er
A

gr
ee

n
o
r

D
is

ag
re

=
Pr

o
ba

bi
lit

y
o
f D

is
ag

re
e;

P
ro

ba
bi

lit
y

o
f
St

ro
ng

ly
D

is
ag

re
e.

B
y

th
e

la
w

o
f
to

ta
l p

ro
ba

bi
lit

y,
t

he
c

ur
ve

s
re

pr
es

en
ti
ng

p
re

di
ct

ed
p

ro
ba

bi
lit

ie
s

m
us

t
eq

ua
l 1

. S
ES

=
s

en
io

r
ex

ec
ut

iv
e

se
rv

ic
e.

Lim et al. 109

percentage of professionals and noncareer SESs) make negative contributions to an
agency’s perceived mission accomplishment.

As expected, all HRM practices and human resources examined in this study have
statistically significant effects on an agency’s perceived mission accomplishment, but
the directions of their influences are somewhat different. Specifically, all HRM prac-
tices and actual human resources except for noncareer SESs and professionals posi-
tively affect the dependent variable. The SES is a corps of federal managers who
serve in management positions between Senate-confirmed political appointees and
the traditional civil service, consisting of a mixture of career managers and political
appointees (Lewis, 2007). The SES aims at improving the quality of individual com-
petence and agency performance by allowing experienced senior managers in gov-
ernment to be more flexible and mobile within and among agencies (Stillman, 2004),
by providing them with separate rewards and punishment systems for achievements,
and by providing them with enhanced chances for personal development and profes-
sional certification (Perry & Miller, 1991). The SES’s considerable knowledge, expe-
rience, ability, and skill can lead to sustainable competitive advantage and better
performance. Nonetheless, contrary to our expectations, the percentage of noncareer
SESs has a negative impact on an agency’s perceived mission accomplishment. One
possible explanation for this result is that even when noncareer SESs have sufficient
experience and expertise, agencies with politically appointed SES members often
experience greater turnover, and this higher turnover can lead to ambiguous agency
goals, leadership vacuums, difficulties committing to reform, and poorer performance
(Heclo, 1977; Lewis, 2007). Therefore, if noncareer SES members are appointed to
certain government agencies, the length of their terms should be long enough to avoid
such turnover. In addition to turnover, the negative effect of noncareer SESs may
reflect overseers who are put into place to actually prevent success. In the case of
professionalization, which was measured by the proportion of professional staff to
each federal agency’s total number of employees, the negative relationship between
the professionals and the agency’s managerial effectiveness may result from the pos-
sibility that professional accountability cannot be fully demonstrated due to bureau-
cratic accountability even if professionals have autonomy, intellectual authority, and
independence, as we have learned from the space shuttle Challenger disaster. Another
possibility is that the complexity of wicked policy problems that public agencies
should address is much higher than expected and requires more professional compe-
tency and skills than expected.

We intended to investigate the differential effects of a variety of human resources on
the perceived mission accomplishment and expected that both the SHRM practices and
actual human resources would have positive impacts on perceived mission accomplish-
ment, based on the RBV. However, unlike the RBV, the results showed that some human
resource variables such as the percentage of professionals and noncareer SESs are not
contributive factors to mission accomplishment, whereas others have positive impacts.
We believe that this finding suggests two practical implications. First, various human
resources variables may have relatively differential effects on perceived mission accom-
plishment and SHRM practices have more positive impacts on perceived mission

110 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

accomplishment than actual human resources. In particular, public organizations need to
advance further their current performance-related practices like reward and appraisal as
well as personnel practices such as recruitment and training. It would imply that the mat-
ter is not about how to acquire resources, but about how to use them. Second, the finding
on noncareer SESs may refute general belief that political support is a critical resource
that enhances the performance of public organizations. Rather, it indicates that interven-
tions by political appointees hinder public agencies from accomplishing their mission.
Future studies need to investigate the reasons and find the answers to the question why
and how political support would be a threat to the performance.

Finally, we would like to note the limitation of this study. We used the 2010
FEVS data for the analysis. As you may guess, this data set is a kind of secondary
data that are not customized for our study. Therefore, we want to be clear that our
measures may not be perfect even though we conducted factor analysis and reliabil-
ity check. In addition, we note that the external recession forces that may affect
public agencies’ performance during 2007-2010 cannot be controlled in this study
even if they are overlapped with the time of the 2010 FEVS as we do not use the time
series or panel data.

Appendix

Measurement for All Variables.

Dependent variable
Mission accomplishment My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission.
Independent variables
Reward Promotions in my work unit are based on merit.

Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their
jobs.

Training My training needs are assessed.
How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your

present job?
Recruitment My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills.
Appraisal My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my

performance.
In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood

what I had to do to be rated at different performance
levels (e.g., Fully Successful, Outstanding).

Professionals (%) The percentage of professional staff over the total number
of employees of an agency.

Career SES (%) The percentage of career SES members over the total
number of employees of an agency.

Noncareer SES (%) The percentage of noncareer SES members over the total
number of employees of an agency.

Total employees The logarithm of the total employees of an agency.

(continued)

Lim et al. 111

Control variables
Transformational

leadership
I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of

doing things.
Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with

respect to work processes.
In my organization, leaders generate high levels of

motivation and commitment in the workforce.
My organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty

and integrity.
Goal clarity I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and

priorities.
Workplace Where do you work?

0 = field
1 = headquarters

Supervisory status What is your supervisory status?
0 = nonsupervisor/team leader
1 = supervisor and manager/executive

Gender Are you:
0 = female
1 = male

Minority Are you:
0 = nonminority
1 = minority

Age group What is your age group?
1 = 29 and younger
2 = 30-39
3 = 40-49
4 = 50-59
5 = 60 or older

Pay category What is your pay category/grade?
1 = Federal wage system
2 = GS 1-12
3 = GS 13-15
4 = SES/SL/ST/Other

Years of service How long have you been with your current agency (e.g.,
Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency)?

1 = less than 1 year
2 = 1 to 3 years
3 = 4 to 5 years
4 = 6 to 10 years
5 = 11 to 20 years
6 = more than 20 years

Regulatory status 0 = nonregulatory agency, 1 = regulatory agency
Organizational age 1 = 1 to 49 years, 2 = 51 to 99 years,

3 = 100 to 149 years, 4 = more than 150 years

Note. SES = senior executive service; GS = general schedule; SL = senior level; ST = scientific and technical.

Appendix (continued)

112 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministry of
Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea
(NRF-2015S1A5A8010552).

Notes

1. Grant (1991) regarded human resources as intangible resources; however, we would like
to take a step forward to divide human resources into human resource management (HRM)
practices and actual human resources. In addition, we think that HRM practices, which are
related to the organizational culture, may be much less observable than the actual human
resources.

2. This paragraph is based on articles such as Daley (2002); Klingner, Nalbandian, and
Llorens (2010); Mello (2011); and Pynes (2013).

3. One may note that there is a variety of training programs and some of them (e.g., training
for ethical issues and moral behaviors) may not be directly related to an organization’s
mission. This may make sense, but we think that programs related to ethical issues or
moral behaviors may have indirect effects on public employees’ perceptions and behaviors,
which may result in better mission accomplishment.

4. Law (5 U.S.C. 3133) requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to allocate
spaces to agency heads on a biennial cycle. Therefore, this may cause limited variation
in number of senior executive service members (SESs). However, we used the concept of
currently employed SESs, rather than the quota concept. In addition, we used the percent-
age of career SESs and the percentage of noncareer SESs in the total number of full-time
employees to mitigate the limited variation problem.

5. See http://www.fedscope.opm.gov
6. Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department

of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services,
Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of
State, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of Veterans
Affairs, Agency for International Development, Broadcasting Board of Governors,
Environmental Protection Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Federal Communication Commission, Federal Trade Commission, General Services
Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Archives
Records Administration, National Labor Relations Board, National Science Foundation,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, Small Business Administration, Social Security
Administration, Court Service and Offender Supervision Agency, Securities and Exchange
Commission.

7. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis for these seven survey items and confirmed
that four strategic human resource management (SHRM) practices variables have validity.

http://www.fedscope.opm.gov

Lim et al. 113

References

Anderson, J. A. (1984). Regression and ordered categorical models. Journal of the Royal
Statistics Society, 46, 1-30.

Anthony, W. P., Kacmar, K. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2009). Human resource management: A
strategic approach. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Ayers, R. S. (2013). Building goal alignment in federal agencies’ performance appraisal pro-
grams. Public Personnel Management, 42, 495-520.

Ayers, R. S. (2015). Aligning individual and organizational performance: Goal alignment in fed-
eral government agency performance appraisal programs. Public Personnel Management,
44, 169-191.

Bain, J. S. (1956). Barriers to new competition: Their character and consequences in manufac-
turing industries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ban, C., & Gossett, C. W. (2010). The changing roles of the human resource office. In S. E.
Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of human resource management in government (pp. 5-25). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17, 99-120.

Barney, J. B. (2010). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining competi-
tive advantage. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Boxall, P. (1996). The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based view of the firm. Human
Resource Management Journal, 6, 59-75.

Bozeman, B., & Straussman, J. D. (1990). Public management strategies: Guidelines for mana-
gerial effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, T. L., & Potoski, M. (2003). Managing contract performance: A transaction costs
approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22, 275-297.

Burack, E. H., Burack, M. D., Miller, D. M., & Morgan, K. (1994). New paradigm
approaches in strategic human resource management. Group & Organization
Management, 19, 141-159.

Cascio, W. (2015). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers: Conjectural deci-
sions and contrived deterrence to new competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
91, 241-261.

Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 1-30.

Colby, P. W., & Ingraham, P. W. (1981). Civil service reform: The views of the senior executive
service. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1, 75-89.

Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of
thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm?
Journal of Management, 17, 121-154.

Cummings, L. L., Huber, G. P., & Arendt, E. (1974.). Effects of team size and spatial arrange-
ments on group decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 460-475.

Daley, D. M. (2002). Strategic human resource management: People and performance man-
agement in the public sector. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

114 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Daley, D. M., & Vasu, M. L. (2005). Supervisory perceptions of the impact of public sector
personnel practices on the achievement of multiple goals: Putting the strategic into human
resource management. The American Review of Public Administration, 35, 157-167.

Daley, D. M., Vasu, M. L., & Weinstein, M. B. (2002). Strategic human resource management:
Perceptions among North Carolina county social service professionals. Public Personnel
Management, 31, 359-375.

Delery, J., & Doty, H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:
Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy
of Management Journal, 39, 802-835.

Dessler, G. (2014). Human resource management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dolan, J. (2000). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes, and representative bureau-

cracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 513-530.
Executive Office of the President of the U.S. (2001). The President’s management agenda.

Washington, DC: Author.
Favero, N., & Bullock, J. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly

responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
25, 285-308.

Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013). Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and
performance: Testing a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73, 490-506.

Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for
strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33, 114-135.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review, 68, 79-91.

Harrison, E. F. (1975.). The managerial decision-making process. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hays, S. W., & Kearney, R. C. (2001). Anticipated changes in human resource management:

Views from the field. Public Administration Review, 61, 585-597.
Heclo, H. (1977). A government of strangers: Executive politics in Washington. Washington,

DC: Brookings Institution.
Heinrich, C. J., Lynn, L. E., & Milward, H. B. (2010). A state of agents? Sharpening the debate

and evidence over the extent and impact of the transformation of governance. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(Suppl. 1), i3-i19.

Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n+1 heads better than one?
Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539.

Jackson, S. E. (1992). Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal dynamics of
strategic issue processing. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in stra-
tegic management (pp. 345-382). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jacobson, W. S., & Sowa, J. E. (2015). Strategic human capital management in municipal gov-
ernment: An assessment of implementation practices. Public Personnel Management, 44,
317-339.

Kettl, D. F. (1988). Government by Proxy: (Mis?)managing federal programs. Washington,
DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Kim, J. (2010). Strategic human resource practices: Introducing alternatives for organiza-
tional performance improvement in the public sector. Public Administration Review,
70, 38-49.

Klingner, D. E. (1993). Reinventing public personnel administration as strategic human resource
management. Public Personnel Management, 22, 565-578.

Klingner, D. E., Nalbandian, J., & Llorens, J. (2010). Public personnel management: Contexts
and strategies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lim et al. 115

Ko, J., & Hur, S. (2014). The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and manage-
rial trustworthiness on work attitudes: Integrated understanding based on social exchange
theory. Public Administration Review, 74, 176-187.

Lee, S. Y., & Whitford, A. B. (2013). Assessing the effects of organizational resources on
public agency performance: Evidence from the US federal government. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 23, 687-712.

Lewis, D. E. (2007). Testing pendleton’s premise: Do political appointees make worse bureau-
crats? The Journal of Politics, 69, 1073-1088.

Lewis, G. B. (1991). Turnover and the quiet crisis in the federal civil service. Public
Administration Review, 51, 145-155.

Lewis, G. B., & Cho, Y. J. (2011). The aging of the state government workforce: Trends and
implications. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 48-60.

Light, P. C. (2008). A government ill executed: The depletion of the federal service. Public
Administration Review, 68, 413-419.

Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using
Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Mahoney, T. A., & Deckop, J. R. (1986). Evolution of concept and practice in personnel admin-
istration/human resource management (PA/HRM). Journal of Management, 12, 223-241.

Maranto, R. (1998). Thinking the unthinkable in public administration: A case for spoils in the
federal bureaucracy. Administration & Society, 29, 623-642.

Mello, J. A. (2011). Strategic human resource management. Mason, OH: South Western.
Mesch, D. J., Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1995). Bureaucratic and strategic human resource

management: An empirical comparison in the federal government. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 5, 385-402.

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. (2003). Managing the hollow state collaboration and contracting.
Public Management Review, 5, 1-18.

Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assess-
ment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 121-146.

Nicholson-Crotty, S., Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Fernandez, S. (2016). Performance and manage-
ment in the public sector: Testing a model of relative risk aversion. Public Administration
Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/puar.12619

Penrose, E. (1959). Theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Perry, J. L. (1993). Strategic human resource management. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 13(4), 59-71.
Perry, J. L., & Mesch, D. J. (1997). Strategic human resource management. In C. Ban & N.

Riccucci (Eds.), Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges (pp.
21-34). New York, NY: Longman.

Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (1991). The senior executive service: Is it improving managerial
performance? Public Administration Review, 51, 554-563.

Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A
critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182-201.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view.
Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191.

Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S.
federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69, 328-338.

Poister, T. H., Pitts, D. W., & Edwards, L. H. (2010). Strategic management research in the
public sector: A review, synthesis, and future directions. The American Review of Public
Administration, 40, 522-545.

116 Public Personnel Management 46(2)

Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal
government: Status after two decades. Public Administration Review, 65, 45-56.

Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing public and private organiza-
tions. Public Administration Review, 36, 233-246.

Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory
of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 9, 1-32.

Rourke, F. E. (1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Sanders, R. P. (1994). Reinventing the senior executive service. In P. Ingraham & B. Romzek

(Eds.), New paradigms for government (pp. 215-238). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shaw, M. E. (1981.). Group dynamics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Stigler, G. J. (1968). The organization of industry. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago

Press.
Stillman, R. J. (1999). Preface to public administration: A search for themes and direction.

Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.
Stillman, R. J. (2004). The American bureaucracy: The core of modern government. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Tompkins, J. (2002). Strategic human resources management in government: Unresolved

issues. Public Personnel Management, 31, 95-110.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2002). A model of strategic human capital management.

Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1998). Strategic human resource management: Report

of roundtable discussion. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1999a). Strategic human resource management:

Discussion of key terms and concepts. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1999b). Strategic human resource management:

Aligning with the mission. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2005). Human capital standards. Washington, DC:

Author.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2010). A new day for the civic service: Federal

employee viewpoint survey 2010. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2012). 2012 federal employee viewpoint survey results:

Employees influencing change. Washington, DC: Author.
van Wart, M. (2013). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of lead-

ers. Public Administration Review, 73, 553-565.
Wamsley, G. L., & Zald, M. N. (1973). The political economy of public organizations. Public

Administration Review, 33, 62-73.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5,

171-180.
Whitford, A. B., Lee, S.-Y., Yun, T., & Jung, C. S. (2010). Collaborative behavior and the per-

formance of government agencies. International Public Management Journal, 13, 321-349.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource

management. Journal of Management, 18, 295-320.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained

competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 5, 301-326.

Lim et al. 117

Author Biographies

Seunghoo Lim is an assistant professor in the Public Management and Policy Analysis Program
at the International University of Japan. His specializations are policy process and analysis. His
research has appeared or is forthcoming in refereed journals, including Journal of Public
Administration Research & Theory (JPART), VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations, and Public Administration & Development.

Tae Kyu Wang is a research professor in Department of Social Welfare and research fellow for
Institute for Healthcare and Life Science at Catholic Kwandong University. He received his
PhD in public administration from Florida State University. His research interests include pub-
lic and nonprofit management, performance management, and organizational theory and
behavior.

Soo-Young Lee is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public Administration and
research fellow of Korea Institute of Public Affairs at Seoul National University. Among his
main research interests are public personnel administration, organization theory, and organiza-
tional behavior. His recent research can be found in journals such as JPART and Administration
& Society.

Chapter 2 What Every Public Sector Human Resource
Manager Should Know About the Constitution

David H. Rosenbloom American University
Joshua Chanin San Diego State University

Constitutional law is central to public human resource management (PHRM) at all levels of American
government. Judicial branch interpretation of constitutional law regulates in one way or another merit
examinations, recruitment, selection, training, promotions, affirmative action and diversity efforts, drug
testing, and disciplinary procedures. These court decisions are not just another concern to be balanced among
the many competing pressures that public managers face; they form the basis of our public administration and
are central to its operation. Because public administrators take an oath to support the Constitution, the values
embodied in constitutional law decisions are ethical and normative guides for the exercise of administrative
discretion (Rohr 1978, 1986). If individual administrators or local governmental agencies violate the
constitutional rights of applicants or employees, they are subject to legal action and may be held liable for
monetary damages. Consequently, public human resource managers are expected to maintain a sophisticated
knowledge of constitutional law. This chapter explains the basic structure underlying current constitutional
doctrine and reviews the leading cases in the areas of greatest concern to today’s PHRM. The following eight
sections will rely on an up-to-date survey of relevant case law to familiarize those interested in PHRM with
the application of the U.S. Constitution’s First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to public
employment; as well as with the structure of public administrators’ potential liability for constitutional torts
arising out of breaches of their subordinates’ or others’ constitutional rights. The chapter concludes with a
brief summary of these constitutional concepts and a few examples of the critical role constitutional law
plays in maintaining the integrity of our public administration.

Constitutional Doctrine

Constitutional law has not always been central to the operation of our public administrative agencies. As
surprising as it may seem, prior to the 1950s public employees in the United States had very few federally
protected constitutional rights, and even less of an ability to assert these rights effectively within the
framework of their employment. These public positions were governed by the “doctrine of privilege,” a
constitutional reasoning that held that because public employment was a privilege rather than a right, it could
be offered on almost any terms the governmental employer saw fit, no matter how arbitrary. Not having a
right to a position in the public service, the employee, upon dismissal, lost nothing to which he or she was
entitled. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made clear in an early case establishing the constitutionality of
disciplining public employees for the content of their speech, “The petitioner may have a constitutional right
to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman” ( 1892: 220).McAuliffe v. New Bedford
Under this approach, the Constitution failed to provide public employees and applicants with the very basic
protections enjoyed by private citizens.

Although the doctrine of privilege had a certain logic, it also ignored the realities of citizens’ interactions
with government in the modern administrative state. If the Constitution did not protect public employees and
applicants fired or denied jobs for virtually any reason, would not the same principle apply to other kinds of
privileges, such as welfare benefits, government contracts, passports, public housing, drivers’ licenses, and so
forth? Could those be denied, as public employment sometimes was, partly because the individual favored
racial integration, read Tom Paine or , failed to attend church services, or engaged in aThe New York Times
host of nonconformist and unconventional activities (Rosenbloom 2014: 119–122)? To the extent that “big
government” creates a dependency of the people on government benefits, which were considered privileges,
strict adherence to the doctrine of privilege would enable government to attach conditions to their receipt that

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 2/19/2022 5:48 PM via NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY
AN: 1945908 ; Richard C. Kearney, Jerrell D. Coggburn.; Public Human Resource Management : Problems and Prospects
Account: s1229530

could undermine recipients’ constitutional rights. For instance, eligibility for unemployment benefits could
require one to be willing to work on Saturday in violation of her constitutional right to free exercise of
religion ( 1963).Sherbert v. Verner

Notwithstanding a variety of twists and turns in the development of case law since the 1950s, the courts
eventually developed an alternative method for analyzing the constitutional rights of public employees. The
fundamental underlying premise is that “the government’s interest in achieving its goals as effectively and
efficiently as possible is elevated from a relatively subordinate interest when it acts as sovereign [dealing
with citizens] to a significant one when it acts as employer. The government cannot restrict the speech of the
public at large just in the name of efficiency. But where the government is employing someone for the very
purpose of effectively achieving its goals, such restrictions may well be appropriate” (Waters v. Churchill
1994: 675). The contemporary approach, generally termed the “public service model,” calls on judges to
balance four often competing concerns: (1) the public employee’s or applicant’s interests as a member of the
political community in exercising constitutional rights and enjoying constitutional protection from arbitrary,
discriminatory, or repressive treatment by the governmental employer; (2) the government’s interest as an
employer in having an efficient and effective workforce; (3) the public’s interest in the operation of public
administration and government more generally; and (4) the judiciary’s interest in avoiding undue
involvement in day-to-day PHRM decisions ( 1984; 2006;Harvard Law Review Garcetti v. Ceballos
Rosenbloom 2014: 149–152).

Importantly, depending on the specific circumstances, the public’s interest can coincide with either that of the
employee or the government. For instance, the public shares a strong interest in robust First Amendment
protection of whistle-blowers who alert the media to gross governmental mismanagement or
government-created or -abetted dangers to the community’s health or safety. Conversely, the government and
the public share an interest in having very limited constitutional constraints on the dismissal of inefficient,
dishonest, or unreliable civil servants. It is important to note that under the public service model all public
employees can assert some of the rights they have as citizens or legal residents against their governmental
employers. Consequently, the term is a misnomer in the public sector. It refers toat-will employment
employees who lack a property right or interest in their positions (e.g., those who lack civil service
protections against arbitrary treatment). Such employees have no constitutional procedural due process
protections against dismissals or other adverse actions for ordinary work-related causes, such as inefficiency
or insubordination. However, due process also applies to liberty interests and public employees retain First,
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to some degree of freedom of speech, association, and
exercise of religion, privacy, and equal protection of the laws.

Despite its imperfections, the public service model is certainly an advance over less complicated approaches
such as the doctrine of privilege. However, because this approach requires a subjective and often elaborate
balancing of the interest of employees, government, and the public, reasonable judges and human resource
managers will often disagree on what the Constitution requires in specific circumstances. Judicial decision
making under the public service model not only has the potential to cause disagreement; it can also generate
constitutional decisions that are difficult to follow and apply to specific personnel decisions. As then
Supreme Court Justice, and later Chief Justice, William Rehnquist noted:

This customary “balancing” inquiry conducted by the Court . . . reaches a result that is quite
unobjectionable, but it seems to me that it is devoid of any principles which will either instruct or
endure. The balance is simply an ad hoc weighing which depends to a great extent upon how the Court
subjectively views the underlying interests at stake. ( 1985:Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
562)

Rehnquist was specifically addressing procedural due process issues involved in the dismissal of a municipal
employee. Much the same can be said of judicial decision making regarding free speech and other areas
under the public service model, as is demonstrated by the following review of the contemporaryC

op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

constitutional law of public personnel.

Freedom of Speech

Rankin v. McPherson (1987) outlines the current approach for analyzing public employees’ constitutional
rights to nonpartisan free speech. Ardith McPherson was a nineteen-year-old probationary clerk in the office
of Constable Rankin in Texas. While talking with a coworker (who was apparently also her boyfriend)
shortly after the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, she remarked, “Shoot, if they go for him
again, I hope they get him” (322). Another office employee overheard her remark and reported it to
Constable Rankin, who fired McPherson after she admitted making the comment. Believing that the
dismissal violated her right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,1 McPherson sued for
reinstatement, back pay, and other relief. In analyzing the case, the Supreme Court’s majority noted that
“even though McPherson was merely a probationary employee, and even if she could have been discharged
for any reason or for no reason at all, she may nonetheless be entitled to reinstatement if she was discharged
for exercising her constitutional right to freedom of expression” (324). This is an example of why so-called
at-will employment is an inapt term in contemporary PHRM.

The Court went on to explain the logical structure of public employees’ right to free speech, beginning with
whether the employee’s remark touched on a matter of public concern (that is, of potential interest to the
public). If a remark relates to a matter of public concern, it is considered of value to the public’s informed
discussion of government and public policy. Such comments are part of the free marketplace of ideas that is
vital to the operation of our constitutional democracy. By contrast, statements of purely private concern, such
as what one employee thinks of another’s personality, intelligence, or clothes, are afforded minimal (if any)
protection when they interfere with the proper functioning of government offices.

In , a 5–4 majority concluded that McPherson’s remark touched upon a matter of public concern. ItRankin
had been made in the context of a discussion of Reagan’s policies, and McPherson, an African American,
apparently offered it as a way of punctuating her disdain for the administration’s approach to minorities.2
Next, upon determining that McPherson’s comment touched on a matter of public concern, the Court
proceeded with the balancing required by the public service model. When weighing the government’s interest
in discharging an employee for statements that somehow undermine the mission of the public employer,
courts must consider the responsibilities of the employee within the agency. An employee’s burden of
caution and responsibility for the words he or she speaks will vary with the extent of authority and interaction
with and accountability to the public that the employee’s role entails. Where, as in McPherson’s case, “an
employee serves no confidential, policymaking, or public contact role,” the potential harm to the public
office due to that employee’s private speech is minimal and is outweighed by the employee’s First
Amendment rights (328).

Public employees’ free speech protections include a right to “whistle-blow,” which generally involves
alerting elected officials or the public to gross waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or specific
government-created or abetted dangers to the health, security, or safety of the community. The Supreme
Court has reasoned that due to their positions inside government, public employees are sometimes uniquely
able to contribute to the “free and open debate, which is vital to informed decision-making by the electorate”
and “accordingly it is essential that they be able to speak out freely without fear of retaliatory dismissal” (

1968: 571–572).Pickering v. Board of Education

A public employee’s First Amendment protection for whistle-blowing and speaking out about their agencies’
decision making and performance was narrowed by the Court’s decision in (2006).Garcetti v. Ceballos
There, the Court held that the First Amendment does not protect public employees’ speech made pursuant to
their professional duties, regardless of whether the content of the remarks is deemed a matter of public
concern. In the 5–4 holding, the Court’s conservative majority conjured up the doctrine of privilegeGarcetti
in determining that “Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional
responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simplyC

op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created” (
2006: 421–422). In short, a public employee’s expression as part of his or her Garcetti v. Ceballos work

does not enjoy First Amendment protection.3product

The Court’s majority opinion in drew a confusing distinction between the rights of individuals asGarcetti
public employees and as citizens: “refusing to recognize First Amendment claims based on government
employees’ work product does not prevent them from participating in public debate. The employees retain
the prospect of constitutional protection for their contributions to the civic discourse. This prospect of
protection, however, does not invest them with a right to perform their jobs however they see fit” (Garcetti v.

2006: 422). This seems to suggest that whistle-blowers have more constitutional protection in theirCeballos
role as private citizens than they do as public employees. In other words, an employee garners more First
Amendment protection if he or she raises a concern through external channels such as the media rather than
through the professional chain of command or other internal channels established to protect whistle-blowers.
Furthermore, rather than relying on the First Amendment to shield them from retaliatory action, the Court
urged public employees who whistle-blow to familiarize themselves with and rely on protective statutes, such
as the federal Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, as well as relevant state and local statutory provisions. If a
statement is covered by the terms of such statutes, it is automatically considered a matter of public concern
and the government is prohibited from retaliating, regardless of how disruptive the comments may be.

In (2014: 2), the Court attempted to further clarify the holding by drawing aLane v. Franks Garcetti
distinction between work product speech and “speech [on a matter of public concern] that simply relates to
public employment or concerns information learned in the course of public employment,” which continues to
enjoy constitutional protection. In practice, however, distinguishing between speech that is part of a work
assignment and speech resulting from something learned on the job is sometimes likely to be difficult.
Consequently, public sector human resource managers should be cautious in applying the and Garcetti

rulings.Franks

Public employees’ constitutional right to free speech does not extend to partisan management or
campaigning. In the Supreme Court’s view, the governmental interests in workplace efficiency and the
appearance of partisan neutrality outweigh the damage that governmental restrictions on political activity do
to public employees’ rights. Such measures also protect civil servants from being coerced by elected and
politically appointed officials to support parties and candidates ( 1947; United Public Workers v. Mitchell

1973). The Court has given wide berthCivil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers
to governmental employers in this policy area by allowing considerable flexibility in the drafting of
restrictions ( 1973).Broadrick v. Oklahoma

Of course, the fact that political neutrality regulations are apt to be constitutional does not mean that
governments will choose to impose them. The trend has been away from comprehensive restrictions on
public employees’ participation in partisan activities. For example, the 1993 Federal Hatch Act reform
modified a variety of restrictions, some of which reached back to the early 1900s (see Rosenbloom 1971:
94–110). The Hatch Act reforms allow most federal employees to distribute partisan campaign literature,
make speeches, hold offices in political organizations, stuff envelopes with campaign literature, make phone
calls as part of a partisan political campaign, and solicit votes (though not funds). The amended law does not
extend to members of the Senior Executive Service, however, and exempts some agencies, including the
Merit Systems Protection Board, and positions, such as Administrative Law Judge, on grounds that overt
partisanship would undermine their missions or functions. The Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012 reduced
restrictions on state and local employees’ right to run for partisan office and exempted District of Columbia
employees from many of the Hatch Act restrictions previously applying to them. The federal Office of
Special Counsel receives complaints of violations of the Hatch Act and provides advisory opinions on its
application.

Can whistle-blowing and related speech on matters of public concern always be distinguished from partisan
expression? The answer is clearly no, but the Supreme Court has yet to be confronted with the need to create
a legal distinction between them. In terms of PHRM, therefore, some uncertainty remains in this area,

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

especially during electoral campaign periods.

Applying the public service model to employees’ speech can sometimes be further complicated by disputes
over the exact content of the remarks at issue. In cases where the interpretations of speakers and bystanders
differ, the public employer is permitted to act on what it reasonably believes was said, even in the absence of
substantial evidence. The Supreme Court case law requires merely that the employer take reasonable steps to
find out what the employee may actually have said. However, the Court’s guidance in this area has been
exceptionally vague: “only procedures outside the range of what a reasonable manager would use may be
condemned as unreasonable” ( 1994: 678).Waters v. Churchill

It is clear that the Supreme Court has given public human resource administrators much to think about
regarding the scope of public employees’ constitutionally protected speech. In sum, the following must be
considered: What did the employee actually say? Were the remarks on a matter of public concern? Were they
made pursuant to an employee’s official duties as opposed to being based on something that he or she may
have learned on the job? What was the specific context in which they were uttered? What is the nature of the
employee’s position with reference to confidentiality, policy making, and public contact? What is the relative
value of the remarks to the public discourse? How great are the remarks’ potential for disruption? To these
factors must be added others from earlier case law, including whether the speech involves prohibited political
partisanship, suggests disloyalty to the United States, or is so without foundation that the employee’s basic
competence is called into question. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court
admits, “competent decision-makers may reasonably disagree about the merits of a public employee’s First
Amendment claim” ( 1983: note 7).Bush v. Lucas

Freedom of Association

The contemporary constitutional law regarding public employees’ First Amendment right of freedom of
association is also central to some aspects of PHRM. In general, public employees’ right to join organizations
voluntarily (including political parties, labor unions, and even extremist racist and other antisocial groups) is
well established, as is their right to refrain from associating with or supporting organizations (AFSCME v.

1969; 1966; 1960 1976; Woodward Elfbrandt v. Russell Shelton v. Tucker ; Elrod v. Burns Abood v. Detroit
1977). However, two areas of PHRM that have been specifically “constitutionalized” inBoard of Education

this context should be noted.

First, it is possible for union security agreements to violate public employees’ constitutionally protected
freedom not to associate; no public employee can be required to join a union as a condition of holding his or
her job. However, an agency shop is permitted: This arrangement requires nonunion members to pay a
“counterpart” or “fair share” fee to the union that represents their collective bargaining unit. In Abood v.

(1977) the Supreme Court “rejected the claim that it was unconstitutional for aDetroit Board of Education
public employer to designate a union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees,
and to require nonunion employees . . . to pay a fair share of the union’s cost of negotiating and administering
a collective bargaining agreement” ( 1986: 243–244). But the Court alsoChicago Teachers Union v. Hudson
held that “nonunion employees do have a constitutional right to ‘prevent the Union’s spending a part of their
required service fees to contribute to political candidates and to express political views unrelated to its duties
as an exclusive bargaining representative’” ( 1986: 244).Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson

Certain procedural safeguards accompany a public employee’s First Amendment protection against being
compelled to underwrite a union’s political agenda. In the Supreme Court’s words, “the constitutional
requirements for the Union’s collection of agency fees include an adequate explanation of the basis for the
fee, a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decision maker,
and an escrow account for the amounts reasonably in dispute while such challenges are pending” (Chicago

1986: 249). In (2012), theTeachers Union v. Hudson Knox v. Service Employees International Union
Supreme Court added the requirement that “when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues
increase,” as opposed to annual dues, “the union must provide a fresh . . . notice [to nonmembers in theC

op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

bargaining unit] and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without affirmative consent” (Knox v.
2012: 22). In other words, with special assessments and increases, theService Employees International Union

nonmember employees must have the opportunity to before the union can deduct funds from theiropt in
paychecks rather than to opt out afterward. strengthens public employees’ First Amendment right not toKnox
be compelled to support causes that they oppose. Undoubtedly, though, it will make it more difficult for
unions to raise funds to oppose unforeseen political initiatives, such as efforts to reduce public employees’
compensation to limit state or local governmental budgetary shortfalls.

Second, beginning with its holding in (1976), the Court began to establish substantialElrod v. Burns
constitutional barriers to the use of political partisanship in public personnel decisions. was triggeredElrod
when the newly elected sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, fired or threatened to dismiss sheriff’s office
employees who were not members of or sponsored by the Democratic Party. The employees bringing the suit
were all Republicans holding non-civil service positions and had no statutory or administrative protection
against arbitrary discharge. The Court held for the first time that patronage dismissals could violate public
employees’ freedom of association and belief. However, it was divided and unable to form a majority opinion
on the standard that the government must meet when dismissing someone based on partisan affiliation.

Four years later, in (1980), the Court revisited the issue of patronage dismissals. TwoBranti v. Finkel
employees of the Rockland County, New York, Public Defenders Office were dismissed solely due to their
affiliation with the Republican Party. The Court’s majority now agreed that “the ultimate inquiry is not
whether the label ‘policy maker’ or ‘confidential’ fits a particular position; rather, the question is whether
hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective
performance of the public office involved” (518). This standard places a heavy burden of persuasion on
elected officials and political appointees who would dismiss employees based on their partisan affiliation.

The next patronage case to reach the Supreme Court was (1990). TheRutan v. Republican Party of Illinois
governor of Illinois ordered a hiring freeze prohibiting state officials from filling vacancies, creating new
positions, or recalling furloughed employees without his “express permission.” About 5,000 positions
became open annually and several employees who were denied promotions, transfers, or recalls charged that
the governor was “operating a political patronage system” by granting permission to fill openings only with
employees having “Republican credentials” (62, 67). The Court held that “the rule of and Elrod Branti
extends to promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions based on party affiliation and support” (79).
Accordingly, for most intents and purposes, partisanship is an unconstitutional justification for taking public
personnel actions.

In reaching these decisions regarding public employees’ freedom of association, the Supreme Court
considered the various claims that union security arrangements strengthen labor-management relations and
that patronage promotes democracy and loyalty to elected officials, as well as governmental efficiency.
However, using the public service model, the Court concluded that these interests could be secured by means
that were less invasive of public employees’ First Amendment rights. The patronage cases illustrate that
constitutional law is forever changing and that even “a practice as old as the Republic” may eventually
succumb to new constitutional thinking ( 1976: 376).Elrod v. Burns

Privacy

The Fourth Amendment affords protection to private individuals against “unreasonable” government searches
and seizures. Traditionally, courts have addressed Fourth Amendment issues in the criminal justice context.
During the 1980s, however, as drug testing became common practice, the scope of the amendment’s
application to public employees emerged as an important issue in PHRM. In law enforcement cases, the
amendment requires that searches and seizures be pursuant to warrants, or, where these are impracticable,
probable cause (reasonable suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal wrongdoing). In applying the
public service model, courts have construed the Fourth Amendment to permit government employers to meet
a much lower standard to justify administrative (non-law enforcement) searches. Consistent with the publicC

op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

service model, this lower threshold both manifests and facilitates the government’s significant interest in the
performance of its employees and the efficiency of its agencies.

In (1987), a divided Supreme Court held that “individuals do not lose FourthO’Connor v. Ortega
Amendment rights [against unreasonable government searches and seizures] merely because they work for
the government instead of a private employer” (723). The justices also agreed that the relevant threshold
question is whether the employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace. Such an
expectation is defined as one that, according to the courts, society is prepared to share. If there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy, then the search will not violate the Fourth Amendment. If there is such an
expectation, then the search must be reasonable in its inception and scope. In practice, this approach often
requires that judges analyze cases individually on their own merits rather than according to broad principles.

requires that workplace searches of offices, desks, files, and so forth be based on a reasonable O’Connor
suspicion that an employee may have engaged in behavior for which discipline would be appropriate.

In (2010), the Supreme Court extended ’s logic to the “electronic sphere”City of Ontario v. Quon O’Connor
(760). The extent to which a governmental employer can obviate its employees’ Fourth Amendment
protections against administrative searches through policy statements regarding expectations of privacy
remains uncertain. In , Ontario’s “Computer Policy stated that ‘[u]sers should have no expectation ofQuon
privacy or confidentiality when using’ City computers” (758). Whether that policy extended to Quon’s text
messaging was in dispute. However, the Court held that even if Quon had a reasonable expectation in his
texting, the City’s search of his messages was reasonable in its inception and scope because “a reasonable
employee would be aware that sound management principles might require the audit of messages to
determine whether . . . pager[s] [were] being appropriately used” (762). While ruling against based onQuon
the specific facts of the case, the Court left open the issue of when, if ever, public employees might have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in their use of government owned computers, pagers, and other electronic
devices because “[a] broad holding concerning employees’ privacy expectations vis-à-vis employer-provided
technological equipment might have implications for future cases that cannot be predicted” (760).

The Supreme Court has also held that in certain cases where the “special needs” of the government outweigh
the privacy rights of individuals, public employers may conduct warrantless searches, even in the absence of
a reasonable suspicion that an employee has engaged in wrongdoing. In most of these situations, the
government’s interests (as well as the public’s) are asserted through suspicionless drug-testing programs,
which randomly test certain public employees, regardless of whether there is a reasonable basis for believing
that any of these employees use illegal drugs. For example, in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives

(1989), the Court held that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) may subject certainAssociation
railroad employees, although working for private corporations, to random, suspicionless blood and urine tests
for the presence of drugs or alcohol. The Court reasoned that the government’s legitimate interest in
protecting its citizens from railroad employees under the influence of alcohol or drugs significantly
outweighed the Fourth Amendment privacy interests of the employees. In National Treasury Employees

(1989), the Court extended this rationale to those public employees who carry firearms orUnion v. Von Raab
are engaged in drug interdiction. Accordingly, the Court noted that such employees have a reduced
expectation of privacy “by virtue of the special, and obvious, physical and ethical demands of those
positions” (711). HIV and other health-related testing programs present similar legal issues. In this context,
blood- and urine-testing regimes must be reasonable in terms of purpose and procedure. However, as such
practices become more common it is increasingly difficult for employees and applicants to claim that they
violate a reasonable expectation of privacy (see, e.g., 1989).Fowler v. New York

Further, anyone engaged in law enforcement, public safety, and national security positions can be subjected
to a reasonably designed suspicionless drug-testing program. Public human resource managers should
remember that such testing programs are only for administrative objectives, such as greater
cost-effectiveness, safety, health, and productivity. Searches for potential criminal punishment require
warrants or probable cause, without which evidence generated by them usually may not be used as a basis for
prosecution.

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

Liberty

The broad issue of public employees’ constitutional liberty has also been the subject of significant litigation.
This area of jurisprudence, called , focuses on the meaning of the word in thesubstantive due process liberty
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which respectively prohibit the federal government and states (and their
political subunits) from depriving anyone within their jurisdictions of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. Courts have interpreted the due process clause to include those fundamental rights that are
“implicit in ordered liberty” and are “deeply rooted” in our society’s history and traditions. Many of these
rights, including, for example, the right to use contraception or the right to travel, are not mentioned
explicitly in the text of the Constitution.

It is common, even natural, for government employers to exercise control over public employees, particularly
where matters of public policy, workplace efficiency, and employee morale are concerned. To this end,
Senator Sam Ervin found that in the 1960s public employees were requested “to lobby in local city councils
for fair housing ordinances, to go out and make speeches on any number of subjects, to supply flower and
grass seed for beautification projects, and to paint other people’s houses” (United States Senate 1967: 9).
Today, it is more common for federal employers to pressure employees to participate in blood drives,
charitable campaigns, and similar programs. A court will deem such conditions unconstitutional only if they
are found to violate an employee’s fundamental rights, or if the court determines the conditions to be nothing
more than tenuously connected to the interests of the government (see United States v. National Treasury

1995). The liberty interests of public employees have the potential to affect governmentEmployees Union
employment practices, but to date have not done so significantly. Public employees’ reproductive decisions
are an exception; their grooming preferences and residency requirements illustrate the general tendency.

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (1974) focused on the constitutionality of a policy requiring
mandatory, unpaid maternity leave for public school teachers. The Court found the mandatory leave policy
unconstitutionally restrictive, but used language broad enough to provide protection for public employees’
reproductive choices. The Court stated that it “has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters
of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment” and that “there is a right ‘to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so
fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child’” (639).

In the Court’s view, the liberty to bear children must remain free of undue or purposeless governmental
interference. Choices with regard to grooming and residence have been given lesser protection. In Kelley v.

(1976) the Court found no constitutional barrier to grooming regulations applying to male policeJohnson
officers. Although a lower court held that “choice of personal appearance is an ingredient of an individual’s
personal liberty” (241), the Supreme Court placed the burden of persuasion on the employee challenging the
regulation to “demonstrate that there is no rational connection between the regulation . . . and the promotion
of safety of persons and property” (247). The challengers were unable to do this despite the government’s
questionable rationale: The government claimed that the grooming standards would make the police more
readily identifiable to the public (ignoring, apparently, that police officers wear uniforms) and that they
would promote esprit de corps, despite the police union’s vehement opposition to them.

Finally, in (1976), the Court upheld the constitutionalityMcCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission
of residency requirements for firefighters. It did so without much discussion and in the face of petitioner
McCarthy’s rather compelling concern for the well-being of his family. The decision remains good law and,
consequently, public employees can be required to live within the jurisdictions in which they work or a
specified distance from it. Though these issues are not frequently litigated and are no longer capturing
headlines, the principles are still very much alive in current constitutional jurisprudence; public sector human
resource managers should understand and follow the law established in this line of cases.

Equal ProtectionCop
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

1.
2.

Contemporary equal protection analysis under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments is of critical importance
to PHRM. Equal protection doctrine regulates government affirmative action policies, procedures having a
disparate impact on different social groups, and overt discrimination against individuals based on race,
ethnicity, citizenship, gender, age, and other factors. The threshold question in an equal protection inquiry is
whether a law, policy, decision, custom, or practice classifies individuals according to some characteristic
such as race, gender, wealth, residency, or education. Such categorizations—either explicit or implicit—must
be present in order to justify an equal protection challenge.

What distinguishes an actual classification, such as one created by law, from practices that are ostensibly
neutral but have a disparate impact on different categories of people, such as racial groups or males and
females? The Court addressed that difference in (1976), a case in which unsuccessfulWashington v. Davis
candidates for the Washington, DC, police academy sued on grounds that the department’s use of an exam
testing verbal skills, which African Americans failed disproportionally, amounted to a racially discriminatory
hiring practice. In finding for the police department, the Supreme Court made clear that public human
resource practices that appear neutral on their face but bear more harshly on one racial group than another, as
has often been the case with merit examinations, will not be unconstitutional simply because of their
disparate impact. To violate the equal protection clause, public practices must manifest a discriminatory
purpose of some kind. The Court emphasized that such a purpose need not be “express or appear on the face
of the statute” and made clear that it could be “inferred from the totality of the relevant facts” (Washington v.

1976: 241–242). Such implicit classifications are treated identically to explicit ones. Once they haveDavis
determined that a classification exists, courts rely on a three-tiered structure to determine its constitutionality.
What follows is a brief description of this framework, with a particular focus on the application of each tier in
the context of PHRM.

Suspect Classifications

Courts consider legal classifications based on race or ethnicity as “suspect,” or highly likely to violate equal
protection principles. These suspect classifications, historically employed to disadvantage members of
minority groups, can be very difficult for governments to justify. Reviewing courts subject laws that create
suspect classifications to “strict scrutiny,” the most intense and exacting form of judicial review. In these
cases, the government will bear a heavy burden of persuasion and receive little if any deference. Courts deem
suspect classifications constitutional only if they are found to serve a compelling governmental interest and
are “narrowly tailored” to achieve that purpose. To date, workforce diversity has not been considered a
compelling governmental interest by the Supreme Court.4 Affirmative action for members of minority
groups may be viable if its purpose is to remedy past, proven discrimination against racial or ethnic groups.
The leading case in this area is (1987), in which a federal judge imposed hiring andUnited States v. Paradise
promotion quotas for African Americans in the Alabama Department of Public Safety. The case so divided
the Supreme Court that it was unable to form a majority opinion. Nevertheless, most of the justices agreed
that the remedy was a constitutional means to overcoming decades of discrimination and resistance to equal
protection in the Alabama state patrol. A majority also agreed that the relief was adequately narrowly
tailored.

In the public personnel context, narrow tailoring requires that five conditions be met:

Less drastic and equally efficacious remedies, such as fines, are impractical or unavailable.
There must be a fixed stopping point at which use of the classification ends. This may be based on
time, for example, three to five years, or successful remediation of the previous violation of equal
protection, such as minorities having gained 25 % of the positions the governmental workforce
involved.
The quotas, goals, or targets must be proportionate to the racial and/or ethnic composition of the
relevant population or workforce base. For example, a 25 % quota for African Americans would be
disproportionate in Vermont, but not in Alabama.
Waivers must be available so that if the agency is unable to find qualified candidates then it will not be

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

5.
forced to hire or promote incompetents, on the one hand, or remain understaffed, on the other.
The approach cannot place a harsh burden on “innocent third parties.” The general principle is that
those employees to whom the classification does not apply (e.g., non-minorities) should not be made
objectively worse off by the government’s efforts to promote inclusion and diversity, as in affirmative
action. Consequently, firing or furloughing nonminorities to free up positions for minorities is
considered a harsh burden, whereas not providing training to nonminorities, which reduces their
opportunities for advancement but does change their rank, pay, or other working conditions, is not (see

1986; 1979).Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education United Steel Workers of America v. Weber

In (2003), dealing with affirmative action for applicants to the University of MichiganGrutter v. Bollinger
Law School, the Court added a sixth condition that logically applies in the public personnel context as well:
that each candidate be afforded an individualized assessment of his or her qualifications.

It is important to note that racial and ethnic classifications are considered suspect even if their purpose is to
enhance minority employment opportunities. At various times since the 1970s, when the Supreme Court
began hearing affirmative action cases, efforts have been made to distinguish between classifications based
on “invidious discrimination” and those that are deemed “benign,” or intended to promote the employment
interests of minorities and women. In (1995), a 5–4 majority of the SupremeAdarand Constructors v. Pena
Court deviated from previous Court jurisprudence and defied considerable academic and pundit commentary
suggesting that benign racial or ethnic classifications pose little threat to equal protection because they lack a
discriminatory purpose. The Court held that “all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or
local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny” (227). In the
majority’s view, requiring such scrutiny is the only way to ensure that there is no intent to discriminate, or if
there is one, it is somehow justified by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored.5 In a
concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas took pains to explain that, in his view, the entire distinction
between invidious and benign was untenable and irrelevant: “government-sponsored racial discrimination
based on benign prejudice is just as noxious as discrimination inspired by malicious prejudice. In each
instance, it is racial discrimination, plain and simple” (241). In (2005), a case involvingJohnson v. California
prison administration, the Supreme Court held that racial classifications purported to be neutral rather than
invidious or benign are also subject to strict scrutiny.

Quasi-Suspect Classifications

Classifications based on biological sex are “quasi-suspect” and subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny. In
these cases, the burden of proof is on the government to show that the classification is substantially related to
the achievement of important governmental objectives. Originally, courts considered these classifications
nonsuspect and evaluated them using a much less rigorous standard of review. As society and the judiciary
became more conscious of the discriminatory effects of efforts to “protect” women from long working hours,
physically demanding jobs, participating on juries in cases involving depravity, and so on, these
classifications were raised to an intermediate level. In practice, courts evaluate sex-based classifications using
a standard comparable to that of a strict scrutiny review, requiring governments to provide an “exceedingly
persuasive justification” for their use ( 1996: 533). Intermediate scrutiny poses aUnited States v. Virginia
challenge to government employment practices based on traditional thinking about “male” and “female” jobs,
workplace behavior, physical strength, and other capacities. Practices based on outdated perceptions of
gender roles may be vulnerable to constitutional challenge. Although it is currently easier in a technical sense
to justify affirmative action for women than for racial or ethnic minorities because classifications based on
biological sex do not receive strict scrutiny, public sector human resource managers should be alert to the
likelihood that such programs will be unconstitutional in the absence of a very strong governmental interest.

Nonsuspect Classifications

The federal courts consider classifications based on residency, wealth, age, education, and similar factors toCo
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

be nonsuspect. Public policies use such classifications frequently and for a variety of reasons—eligibility for
benefits of some kind such as social security, voting, drivers’ licenses, and so forth. Judges subject these
classifications to a lower level of scrutiny through what has become known as the “rational basis” test. The
burden of persuasion is generally on the challenger to show that such classifications are not rationally related
to the achievement of a legitimate governmental purpose. Courts typically grant a great amount of deference
to the judgment of lawmakers and governmental employers in such cases. For instance, the Supreme Court
found a rational connection between the state’s interest in public safety and its policy requiring police
officers to retire at age fifty. No equal protection violation was found, despite the fact that many officers
would be physically and mentally fit to continue in their jobs well beyond age fifty (Massachusetts Board of

1976). At present, classifications based on sexual orientation are nonsuspect. However,Retirement v. Murgia
as with other nonsuspect classifications, they must serve a legitimate governmental purpose.

Procedural Due Process

In addition to their substantive aspects, the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
guarantee certain procedural rights to individuals being deprived of life, liberty, or property by the federal or
a state or local government. In determining the extent of procedural due process to be afforded in
administrative matters, courts balance three factors: (1) the individual’s interests at stake; (2) the risk that the
procedures used, if any, will result in an erroneous decision, and the probable value of additional procedures
in reducing the likelihood of error; and (3) the government’s interests, including administrative burdens and
financial costs, in using the procedures in place. The underlying assumption in this formula is that although
additional procedures will generally reduce mistakes, they also add costs. For example, the high cost of
guaranteeing a full-fledged adjudicatory hearing, which includes the right to witness confrontation,
cross-examination, and legal representation, might be considered necessary in cases where the interest at
stake is substantial enough to require a very low error rate. Conversely, where an individual’s interest is
minimal, the government may be required to provide nothing more than notice of the decision-maker’s
rationale and an opportunity to challenge the decision in writing. Cases involving the rights of public
employees illustrate that procedural due process balancing takes place within the framework of the public
service model.

In (1972), the Supreme Court identified four individual interests that would giveBoard of Regents v. Roth
public employees a right to a full hearing in dismissals: (1) where the dismissal was in retaliation for the
exercise of constitutionally protected rights, such as freedom of speech; (2) “where a person’s good name,
reputation, honor or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him” (573); (3) where
the dismissal diminishes a public employee’s future employability; and (4) where the employee has a
property right or property interest in the position, such as tenure or a contract.

The public service model is important in determining both the timing and the nature of the hearing. In
(1985), the Supreme Court held that a security guard whoCleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill

allegedly lied on his application was entitled to notice of the allegations, an explanation of the employer’s
evidence, and an opportunity to respond—all prior to being terminated. The Court noted that hadLoudermill
a property right in his job by virtue of being a “classified civil servant.” The pretermination requirement is an
“initial check against mistaken decisions—essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action”
(545–546). This serves the interests of the employee as well as those of the public and the government. In
cases involving employment terminations, such as those at issue in and , a preterminationRoth Loudermill
hearing frequently helps the state avoid additional personnel costs caused by unnecessary turnover and
complex posttermination litigation.

A court’s procedural due process balancing changes when employee suspensions are at issue. In Gilbert v.
(1997), the Supreme Court reasoned that no due process was required prior to suspending a lawHomar

enforcement officer who had been charged with a felony. In this case, the governmental and public interests
in an effective workforce outweighed those of the employee. As the Court explained, “So long as a

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

suspended employee receives a sufficiently prompt post-suspension hearing, the lost income is relatively
insubstantial, and fringe benefits such as health and life insurance are often not affected at all” (932). The
Court also noted that the government has reasonable grounds for suspending an employee who has been
formally charged with criminal behavior.

An adverse action triggering procedural due process protections may be based on a mix of factors, some of
which involve constitutional rights and others that do not. For instance, an employer may also consider an
employee who has engaged in controversial speech to be incompetent or disruptive for reasons unrelated to
his or her remarks. In such a case, the employer will have the opportunity to demonstrate “by a
preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision . . . even in the absence of the
protected conduct” ( 1977: 287).Mount Healthy School District Board of Education v. Doyle

Because procedural due process analysis considers the probability that the government is acting in error, the
public employer will often investigate an employee before taking disciplinary action. In LaChance v.

(1998), the Supreme Court held that employees suspected of lying to or attempting to misleadErickson
investigators in an effort to defend themselves may be disciplined for their falsehoods without any violation
of their due process rights. Courts have determined that the due process “right to be heard” does not protect
an employee from sanctions resulting from lying. However, where an investigation may lead to criminal
charges, the public employee does maintain the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.

As in other areas, the public service model’s balancing approach in procedural due process cases provides
public sector human resource managers with a rough set of guidelines, but it may not prove sufficient to
inform particular administrative decisions. Individual facts and circumstances may ultimately determine close
legal questions. For example, it is difficult in the abstract to know how quickly after suspending an employee
an employer must provide a hearing in order to meet the current “prompt post-suspension hearing”
requirement. As always, the best way to keep track of answers to such questions is to follow the case law in
one’s jurisdiction, including rulings by the federal district courts and courts of appeals in one’s judicial
circuit.

Liability

It cannot be overemphasized that a public manager’s need for knowledge and understanding of relevant
constitutional doctrine is much more than academic. As a result of several Supreme Court decisions over the
past three decades, such knowledge has become a positive job requirement (Rosenbloom, O’Leary, and
Chanin 2010: 271–287). Today, a public sector manager occupying a position at any level of government
may well be personally liable for compensatory and even punitive damages, if found to have violated “clearly
established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v. Fitzgerald
1982: 818; see also 1983; 1991). “Clearly established” in this context itself isSmith v. Wade Hafer v. Melo
not altogether clearly established. In (2002) the Court held that “clearly established” does notHope v. Pelzer
require a judicial precedent in a case with materially similar facts, only that the public employee has “fair
warning” from constitutional law and values that his or her behavior will violate someone’s rights. However,
in (2012), “clearly established” was defined as such “that every ‘reasonable officialReichle v. Howards
would [have understood] that what he is doing violates’” a right ( 2012: 2093; brackets inReichle v. Howards
the original text). The Supreme Court essentially reiterated this standard with reference to police in Plumhoff

(2014): “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’sv. Rickard
contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have
understood that he was violating it” (2023).

An exception to personal liability exists for federal personnel in some cases where the individual whose
rights have been violated is able to obtain a remedy in alternative fashion established by legislation or,
presumably, executive order, such as through appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Bush v. Lucas
1983). Moreover, public employees have absolute immunity from civil suits for damages for violations of
individuals’ constitutional rights when they are performing adjudicatory functions, such as hearing examinersC

op
yr
ig
ht
©

2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

or “prosecuting” adverse actions ( 1978; 1988; 1991).Butz v. Economou Forrester v. White Burns v. Reed
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that absolute immunity attaches to the specific function rather than the
job title. Thus, a hearing examiner has absolute immunity when engaged in adjudication, but not when hiring
or firing his or her secretary.

In addition to the federal constitutional principles outlined in this chapter, public sector human resource
experts must be aware of state constitutional law, which may also affect public sector human resource
matters. Where a state’s protection of public employees’ rights such as privacy or substantive due process
exceeds that of the federal Constitution, state and local governments must meet the higher state standard.
Public managers at all levels of government may avoid liability by exercising their constitutional “right to
disobey” any order requesting implementation of an unconstitutional law or policy so as to prevent
infringement of others’ protected rights ( 1979). This ability, of course, isHarley v. Schuylkill County
premised on an understanding of the constitutional rights at issue and a facility with the public service model
for balancing all the interests at stake. Gaining reasonable knowledge of the constitutional law—both state
and federal—that governs one’s actions is the best way to avoid violating rights. Public managers need not be
lawyers, but they must develop the ability to recognize if and when decisions, actions, procedures, or policies
run afoul of the law.

Conclusion

Contemporary efforts to improve public sector performance serve two components of the public service
model—the governmental and public interests. However, the interests and rights of employees may receive
limited attention. The tools of contemporary public administration—downsizing, performance measurement
and management, newer electronic communication technologies and social media, outsourcing, competitive
sourcing, and collaborative governance arrangements—can increase the immediacy of the Constitution in
dealing with human resources. For instance, downsizing and competitive sourcing can bump up against
procedural due process and equal protection rights. Where civil service status or other property interests in
employment are involved, dismissals cannot constitutionally be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or
unauthorized by law. If individual employees are picked as targets for reductions in force, they will almost
certainly have substantial due process rights. Depending on the circumstances, and especially in cases where
agencies have been under court order to increase diversity (as in ), downsizing thatUnited States v. Paradise
has a harmful impact on the employment interests of minorities or women will be subject to challenge under
the equal protection clause.

In an age in which employers can monitor employees’ computer usage, including key strokes, email, and use
of pagers and other communication devices, new Fourth Amendment privacy questions are certain to arise, as
in .Quon

Outsourcing and collaborative governance present a special set of constitutional issues when they involve a
public function (such as incarceration) or so entwine the government and a private organization that it is
impossible to tell where one begins and the other ends (e.g., public-private partnerships). In those
circumstances, under current “state (i.e., governmental) action” doctrine, at the state and local levels, the
private organization and its employees may well become liable for violating individuals’ constitutional rights.
A private individual working directly for a state or local government is likely to have the same qualified
immunity as public employees ( 2012). Yet one working for a private organization underFilarsky v. Delia
contract with a government may not. For example, in (1997), a prison guardRichardson v. McKnight
employed by a private prison management firm was held to a higher liability standard. Unlike a public
employee, he was subject to liability for violating prisoners’ constitutional rights regardless of whether they
were clearly established or a reasonable person would have known of them. Private organizations that
become state actors by virtue of their contractual or other cooperative arrangements with the federal
government are not liable for money damages in constitutional tort suits (Correctional Services Corporation

2001). Neither are their employees, at least in so far as state tort law offers an alternative throughv. Malesko
which the injured party may be compensated ( 2012).Minneci v. Pollard

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

A human resource expert aware of constitutional principles and current doctrine could bring this
constitutional dimension to bear on organizational decisions concerning outsourcing and collaborating with
private entities. Will the private organizations, whether for profit or nonprofit, seeking government contracts
be working in policy or program areas in which constitutional rights are relevant? Will their organizational
cultures and staffing levels ensure that such rights will be protected? Could they and their employees
withstand liability suits? Would it be better public policy to keep the function within a government agency in
order to make sure that the employees are properly trained with respect to their constitutional
responsibilities?

By taking a proactive role in alerting decision-makers to constitutional issues, particularly those presented in
First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, public sector human resource experts will not
only protect individual rights but also reduce susceptibility to lawsuits. Incorporating a constitutional
dimension into public administration will give managers better and more consistent information and skills to
protect employees’ rights as well as to achieve organizational goals within the framework of our
democratic-constitutional government.

Notes

1. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, apply directly to the federal
government. The Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, prohibits the states (and their political
subunits) from violating many of these rights as well. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
protects individuals from the deprivation of life, liberty, or property by sub-national governments. Over the
years, the term has been read by the Supreme Court to “incorporate” much of the Bill of Rights,liberty
including the First and Fourth Amendments, which are of particular importance to PHRM. This is why
McPherson can argue that her First Amendment rights, which are incorporated into the Fourteenth
Amendment, have been violated. Because the Fourteenth Amendment is what applies the First Amendment
to state and local governments, she argues that it has been violated as well. As is discussed later in the
chapter, the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits the states and their subunits from depriving any person
within their jurisdiction “equal protection of the laws.” Known as the equal protection clause, this provision
is interpreted to apply to the federal government through the word in the Fifth Amendment, a processliberty
called “reverse incorporation.”

2. , 461 U.S. 138 (1983), establishes that courts must consider a public employee’sConnick v. Myers
comment in its original context when evaluating whether the comment touches on a matter of public concern.

3. The Court noted that an exception might be made for faculty at public universities and colleges, whose
work product involves teaching and writing.

4. In (2003), the Supreme Court held that diversity in higher education can constitute aGrutter v. Bollinger
compelling governmental interest. The Court’s reasoning would seem to apply to diversity in public sector
human resource management as well: “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the
citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of
every race and ethnicity” (332).

5. As an interesting and relevant aside, courts may also hold local governments and agencies liable for
monetary damages when their policies are closely connected to violations of individuals’ constitutional
rights, regardless of whether those rights can be said to be clearly established or should be reasonably known
( 1978; 1986).Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services Pembaur v. Cincinnati

References
( ).Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 1977Co

py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

( ).Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 1995

.AFSCME v. Woodward, 406 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1969)

( ).Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 1972

( ).Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 1980

( ).Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 1973

( ).Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 1991

( ).Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 1983

( ).Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 1978

( ).Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 1986

( ).City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 2010

( ).Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 1973

( ).Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 1974

( ).Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 1985

( ).Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 1983

( ).Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 2001

. . , ( ), – .Developments in the Law—Public Employment 1984 Harvard Law Review 97 7 1611 1800

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

( ).Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 1966

( ).Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 1976

( ).Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S.Ct. 1657 2012

( ).Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 1988

.Fowler v. New York, 704 F. Supp. 1264 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)

( ).Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 2006

( ).Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 1997

( ).Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 2003

( ).Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 1991

(E.D. Penn 1979).Harley v. Schuylkill County, 476 F. Supp. 191

( ).Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 1982

( ).Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 2002

( ).Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 2005

( ).Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 1976

( ).Knox v. Service Employees International Union Local 1000, 132 S.Ct. 2277 2012

( ).LaChance v. Erickson, 522 U.S. 262 1998

( ).Lane v. Franks, U.S. 134 S.Ct. 2369 2014Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

( ).Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 304 1976

( ).McAuliffe v. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 1892

( ).McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 424 U.S. 645 1976

( ).Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S.Ct. 617 2012

( ).Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 1978

( ).Mount Healthy School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 1977

( ).National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 1989

( ).O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 1987

( ).Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 1986

( ).Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 1968

( ).Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 2014

( ).Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 1987

( ).Reichle v. Howards, 132 S.Ct. 2088 2012

( ).Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 1997

. . . : ., Rohr John 1978 Ethics for Bureaucrats New York, NY Marcel Dekker

. . : ., Rosenbloom David H. 1971 Federal Service and the Constitution Ithaca, NY Cornell University Press

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

. . ( ed.). : , Rosenbloom David H. 2014 Federal Service and the Constitution 2nd Washington, DC Georgetown
.University Press

, , and . . (, Rosenbloom David H. Rosemary O’Leary Joshua Chanin 2010 Public Administration and Law 3rd
ed.). : .Boca Raton, FL CRC/Taylor & Francis

( ).Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 1990

( ).Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 1960

( ).Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 1963

( ).Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602 1989

( ).Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 1983

( ).United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 1947

( ).United Steel Workers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 1979

. . United States Senate 1967 “Protecting Privacy and the Rights of Federal Employees” S. Rept. 519. 90th
. .Cong., 1st Sess August 21

( ).United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 1995

( ).United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 1987

( ).United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 1996

( ).Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 1976

( ).Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 1994

( ).Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 1986

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
6.
C
Q

la
w.

2/19/22, 12:49 PM PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312) – PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 1/3

Week 5

PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (33851013…

Public Personnel Policy Development

Work/life balance is certainly not a new concept, but because of advancements in areas

like civil rights and technology, work/life balance looks different now, compared to 20

years ago– at least in the United States. Interestingly, since 1976, with the passage of the

Social Assistance Act, all families in Denmark have the right to public childcare. Denmark’s

public childcare system also gives expectant mothers the 4 weeks before birth, in addition

to 14 weeks of maternity leave after birth. Additionally, fathers receive 2 weeks of

maternity leave, while both parents are given 32 weeks after the first 14 to split, with

50% pay (Berman, Bowman, West, & Van Wart, 2016).

Also, as health becomes a higher priority, companies have implemented wellness

programs and policies. In some public organizations, full-scale stress reduction programs

linked to measurable outcomes have been launched. For example, some organizations

incorporate screening devices into the recruitment process to assess person-environment

fit. Another example is incorporating job expectations into the orientation process. This

way, an employee knows exactly what is required by the time training ends, and the job

begins. Mandatory workshops and courses are other methods of incorporating wellness

into the workplace.

Additionally, as a more recent development, public organizations are jumping on the

telecommuting bandwagon. When the demand for flexibility on the job first arose, many

organizations adopted the flex work week. For some organizations, this means working a

variable work schedule, which might include four 10-hour days, for example. For others, it

means being present during pre-set core working hours such as in the office on certain

days or times. As demands for even more flexibility have grown, many organizations are

allowing employees the ability to work remotely from home at least one day a week.

As you digest this week’s readings, think about ways in which you, as Director of

Personnel Administration for Organization X, could begin to create a more employee-

friendly workplace while also maintaining order.

Be sure to review this week’s resources carefully. You are expected to apply the

information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/home/173272

2/19/22, 12:49 PM PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312) – PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 2/3

Books and Resources for this Week

Baskar, S. (2016). The influence of HR

policy dimensions on the job

satisfaction of employees of public

sector banks: A study on Indian

Overseas…
Link

Jacobson, W. S., & Lambright, K. T.

(2018). The Development of County

HR Policies: The Perspectives of

Counties in Two States. Public

Personnel…
Link

Kearney, R. C., & Coggburn, J. D.

(2016). Public human resource

management: Problems and prospects.

Los Angeles: CQ Press.
Link

Week 5 – Assignment: Recommend an Employee-

Friendly Policy
Assignment

References:

Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & Van Wart, M. R. (2016). Human resource

management in public service: Paradoxes, processes, and problems (5th ed.). Los Angeles:

Sage Publishing.

75 % 3 of 4 topics complete

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/viewContent/1622100/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/viewContent/1622101/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/viewContent/1622102/View

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/viewContent/1622066/View

2/19/22, 12:49 PM PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312) – PUB-7017 v1: Public Personnel Administration (3385101312)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/173272/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 3/3

Due March 6 at 11:59 PM

This week, you learned all about employee-friendly policies. Now, it is time to practice

your public speaking skills in delivering the message that Organization X is implementing a

new employee friendly policy/program.

First, select one of the programs discussed in the readings and conduct an online search

for additional information on the subject. Then, reflect on your findings and how the

implementation of the program you chose might relate to a more stable work/life balance

or just a healthier work environment in general. Then, citing a combination of the readings

and your outside research, give a speech to employees of Organization X outlining the

new program/policy and how it will impact them moving forward.

Length: 4-6 pages, not including title and reference pages

For grading purposes, you will submit a transcript of the speech you would present, along

with any visual aids (chart, graphs) that you would use to enhance the presentation. Also,

you may present a recording of your speech using CaptureSpace so that your professor

can give you ungraded feedback on your lecture style. This audio submission is optional.

If you choose to record your lecture, upload it to your professor using CaptureSpace. An

average speech tends to be 100 to 150 words per minute.

References: Support your speech with at least five references, three of which must be

scholarly and published within the last five (5) years. In addition to these specified

resources, other appropriate professional or scholarly resources, including older articles,

may be included.

Your speech should be scholarly, yet engaging. In making your speech engaging, you may

depart from usual writing form an organization and choose to use anecdotes, humor, or

other speaking tools; be sure, however, to cite your sources appropriately in the print

version of the speech that you submit.

Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts

presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this

topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards where

appropriate. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

Upload your document, and then click the Submit to Dropbox button.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018770233

Public Personnel Management
2018, Vol. 47(4) 398 –418

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0091026018770233

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

The Development of County
HR Policies: The Perspectives
of Counties in Two States

Willow S. Jacobson1 and Kristina T. Lambright2

Abstract
We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with county HR directors (20 in New
York, 20 in North Carolina) to learn more about the development of internal HR
policies. Key resources used by directors in both states include other jurisdictions,
colleagues in other county departments, state and federal agencies, laws and statutes,
professional associations, and information gathered from general Internet searches.
More than half of the HR directors reported using internal working groups, and
almost two-thirds indicated that they systematically reviewed the implications
of policies for specific departments. Yet, only a handful of HR directors reported
utilizing other promising practices such as engaging rank-and-file employees in the
policy process, reviewing a new or revised policy’s consistency with existing policy,
and using evidence-based decision making to develop policies. Although there was
little difference by state, our findings indicate the characteristics of HR directors can
shape how a jurisdiction approaches policymaking.

Keywords
HRM, local government, policymaking

Organizations continue to face a range of challenges including changing demograph-
ics, economic concerns, and political pressures. Chief among these is having a work-
force with the skills and expertise needed to perform core organizational functions.
Growing research speaks to the critical role human resource management (HRM) can
play in ensuring short-term and long-term organizational effectiveness (Becker &

1The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA
2Binghamton University, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Willow S. Jacobson, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box 3330, Chapel Hill, NC
27599-3330, USA.
Email: [email protected]

770233PPMXXX10.1177/0091026018770233Public Personnel ManagementJacobson and Lambright
research-article2018

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

mailto:[email protected]

Jacobson and Lambright 399

Gerhart, 1996; Jacobson & Sowa, 2015; Kellough, 2017; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005).
Crafting an appropriate job posting, ensuring the selection process is rigorous and
meets all legal requirements, and hiring a qualified candidate are simply the first steps
in the employment life cycle. Once hired, employees need to be oriented, trained,
motivated, and at times disciplined. Human resource (HR) departments and policies
influence each step of this process. HR policy formation if done correctly serves as a
crucial strategic tool for managing an organization’s workforce. Internal organiza-
tional policies influence those working within public organizations as well as the
results those organizations are able to produce.

Despite considerable scholarly interest in specific HR policies and their impact on
employees and organizations, there has been surprisingly little empirical investigation
of the process practitioners use to develop these policies. Specifically, we do not know
the type of resources HR managers consult, which stakeholders are involved in the
process and the extent to which policies are evaluated prior to implementation. Are
managers going beyond simple information gathering and utilizing practices that make
the process more inclusive and assess the potential policy impact on their organization?
Learning about the policymaking strategies HR departments use may be particularly
helpful for current practitioners when they are deciding how to structure their own pro-
cesses and make them more aware of possible practices they may want to adopt.

To better understand how HR policies are developed, we conducted 40 semi-struc-
tured interviews with county HR directors in two states: 20 interviews in New York
and 20 interviews in North Carolina. We examined both the information resources and
strategies HR directors utilized when developing policy. We also created an index
based on use of promising practices and assessed whether respondent or jurisdictional
characteristics help explain policy process choices. Our research provides important
insights into HR practices of county government, a level of government which several
scholars have noted is understudied (Benton, 2005; Streib et al., 2007; Svara, 1996).
We begin by summarizing past research on HR policies as well as discussing several
strategies scholars identify as promising. Next, we present our methods and key find-
ings. Finally, we explore the implications of our study and highlight several areas for
future research.

Approaches to HR Policymaking and Promising Practices

HR scholars often recommend formalizing or codifying practices or desired behaviors
into a policy. However, they do not typically specify the resources that should be con-
sulted when creating the policy or how the process of writing it should be approached.
For example, Bradbury and Facer (2010) note when talking about workplace ethics
that “the overarching practical recommendation for managing an ethically robust at-
will employment relationship is to implement a policy and set of behaviors that exceed
legal obligation” (p. 281). There are a variety of resources and strategies managers
could potentially utilize when developing ethics policies, but still little is known about
how they approach this process in practice. Similarly, while HR scholarship has
focused on constitutional and legal requirements in the public sector (Hartman, Homer,

400 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

& Reff, 2010; Hoyman & McCall, 2010; Ledvinka, 2010; Riccucci, 2010; Rosenbloom
& Chanin, 2016), it does not explore how these constitutional and legal issues impact
the development of jurisdictional policies. Rather than examining the policy develop-
ment process, research on HR policy has focused on the impact of specific policies or
practices on outcomes (Bae & Yang, 2017; Battaglio & French, 2016; Caillier, 2016;
Facer & Wadsworth, 2008; Facer, Wadworth, & Arbon, 2010; Galinsky & Stein, 1990;
Grover & Crooker, 1995; Honeycutt & Rosen, 1997; Huselid, 1995; Otenyo & Smith,
2017; Selden & Moynihan, 2000; Wadsworth & Facer, 2016), policy and innovative
behaviors (Searle & Ball, 2003), and comparative policies and practices (Kopp, 1994).

Although past scholarship does not directly address the HR policy formation pro-
cess, it does provide insights into possible ways this process may be approached. Two
important decisions HR managers must make are what information resources they
should consult and how many resources will be adequate. Although ideally decision
makers would gather as much relevant information as possible to make the best deci-
sion, humans in the real world have cognitive limits and ultimately must “satisfice” in
their information search (Simon, 1947). Drawing on seminal work by DiMaggio and
Powell (1982), isomorphic pressures may at least partially influence the information
managers seek as part of their search. According to DiMaggio and Powell (1982),
organizations within a field are often quite similar due to three key processes. These
processes involve organizations’ (a) acting in response to formal or informal pressure
from external constituencies that oversee or regulate them, referred to as coercive
isomorphism; (b) imitating “best practices” used by comparable entities, referred to as
mimetic isomorphism; and (c) adopting policies consistent with professional norms
and values, referred to as normative isomorphism. Considering DiMaggio and Powell’s
framework in this context, one would expect local HR managers to gather information
about state and federal agencies’ expectations and other counties’ practices and profes-
sional norms when developing policy. These resources may or may not be used in
conjunction with information from other sources.

Past scholarship while not investigating the HR policymaking process specifically
also identities a number of strategies that are suggested as promising practices which
HR managers may want to use in policy development. These strategies involve more
than information gathering. For example, a key consideration when developing poli-
cies is the extent to which the process is inclusive. When designing policy, receiving
feedback from varied perspectives may increase its efficacy. Research on diverse
teams has demonstrated that inclusive teams that are more heterogeneous in composi-
tion are more likely to be successful in accomplishing their tasks and identifying new
ideas (Phillips, Liljenquist, & Neale, 2009). Consistent with this, Stewart and Brown
(2011) stress the importance of encouraging diversity in ideas and thoughts in HR
decision making and note that “making sure that the team of decision makers includes
people with different backgrounds can help” (p. 45).

In addition, scholars have highlighted the benefits of engaging employees in policy-
making processes (Adler & Borys, 1996; DeHart-Davis, 2009, 2017; Fernandez, Resh,
Moldogaziev, & Oberfield, 2015; Sabharwal, 2014; Stivers, 2008; Whitener, Brodt,
Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). The inclusion of those who will need to comply with a

Jacobson and Lambright 401

policy or enforce it is important in order for a policy to be effective. Employees can
offer valuable insights into the reality of day-to-day operations critical for policy design
(Stivers, 2008). Including stakeholders in the policy development process can also
increase compliance once a policy is implemented and make it more likely that the
policy will be perceived as fair (Adler & Borys, 1996; Kim & Mauborgne, 1998; Rubin,
2007). Research on the design of effective performance appraisal systems offers empir-
ical support for the importance of seeking feedback from the workforce and has found
these complex and often controversial processes are improved through greater and
more diverse stakeholder involvement, including input from employees (Mohrman,
Resnick-West, & Lawler, 1989; Roberts, 2003; Rubin, 2007).

While seeking feedback from a variety of stakeholders is beneficial, it is critical to
ensure that policies align with organizational needs. Over the past two decades, sev-
eral scholars have argued that HR managers should not just focus on compliance and
regulation as they traditionally have but also move to be strategic partners on the
executive team allowing HRM to better help organizations align their workforce to
achieve their strategic and organizational goals (D. M. Daley, 2006; Jacobson & Sowa,
2015; Lim, Wang, & Lee, 2017; Pynes, 2009; Selden, 2009). Advocates of Strategic
Human Capital Management (SHCM) emphasize the importance of aligning person-
nel policies and practices with an organization’s strategic objectives and its other ini-
tiatives and policies (Jacobson, Sowa, & Lambright, 2013; Pynes, 2009; Selden,
2009). In addition to considering consistency with existing policy, HR managers
should review policy implications for individual departments within an organization.
As an illustration, J. L. Daley (2012) notes when discussing work–life policies: “HR
specialists must consider the circumstances of offering work-life policies across work
units. For example, flexible working hours may be easily implemented in a city’s utili-
ties unit but might create chaos within the police or fire units” (p. 70).

Another central tenet of SHCM is that HR decisions should be evidence-based
(Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006; Rousseau & Barends, 2011; Selden, 2009). As explained by
Selden (2009), HR professionals should collect data using relevant and reliable mea-
sures and utilize this information to make decisions. Consistent with arguments made
by SHCM scholars, Roberts (2010) advocates for the use of research methods and
evaluation in the HR decision-making process. Furthermore, Clardy (1997) asserts
that HR policy and practices are improved when practitioners gather information from
formal data collection methods and use it as part of their decision-making process.
While SHCM proponents have promoted the benefits of evidence-based decision
making, the use of analytics may be difficult in practice as other scholars have demon-
strated the challenges of actually using performance information in public organiza-
tions (Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008; Arnaboldi, Lapsley, & Steccolini, 2015; Hall,
2017; Poister, Pasha, & Edwards, 2013). Despite scholars recognizing the importance
of HR policy as a managerial tool, there has been little systematic empirical investiga-
tion of how HR professionals approach policymaking. Our research aims to address
this gap by examining the information resources and process county government HR
managers utilize when developing internal HR policies, including their use of the
promising practices identified in this literature review.

402 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

Research Design

We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 40 county HR directors: 20 from
New York and 20 from North Carolina. We used a “diverse” case approach when
selecting these two states (Seawright & Gerring, 2008). Our goal was to examine the
HR policymaking process in two very different contexts so we could explore how, if
at all, environmental differences influence internal county HR policymaking pro-
cesses. New York and North Carolina were good choices for this comparative case
study design because they are from different regions and vary in terms of their political
culture, county civil service laws, and the role of collective bargaining and union
activity in the public sector.

Counties in these two states were randomly selected from jurisdictions with work-
forces of 500 employees or greater. We excluded counties located in New York City.
These counties were omitted from the sampling frame because the size and function of
government in New York City is on a different scale compared to the other counties in
New York and North Carolina and could introduce confounding factors into our analy-
sis. We limited our sampling frame to counties with workforces greater than 500
employees to ensure a county’s workforce would be of sufficient size to warrant a need
for a county-level HR director. We also felt it was important to have a minimum work-
force size to increase the probability that our respondents would be involved in poli-
cymaking decisions that were sophisticated enough to enable them to answer our
interview questions.

Our sample represents 41% and 45% of the counties eligible to be included in our
study from New York and North Carolina, respectively. While collecting our data, we
observed a high level of data saturation. Based on a review of the data conducted after
approximately 30 interviews, we found respondents were consistently identifying the
same key themes. After completing an additional 10 interviews, we reviewed the
responses and found no new patterns emerging from the data. At this point, we had
achieved the intended coverage of our sampling frame (more than 40% of eligible
counties were included from both states) and were confident that we had reached data
saturation. The counties included in our sample had populations ranging from 29,967
to 1,419,369 with a median of 117,154 and workforce sizes ranging from 500 to 11,735
with a median of 974. The smallest HR department had two employees, whereas the
largest had 120 employees; 68% had 10 or fewer employees. Table 1 compares our
sample and counties that were eligible to be included but were not selected in terms of
population, workforce size, poverty rate, and median household income. As this table
indicates, the medians for these two groups are generally similar for each of these
demographic characteristics.

At the start of each interview, we guaranteed confidentiality. The average interview
lasted 45 min. We asked respondents to first think of the most recent policy they had
helped to develop or revise.1 The types of policies respondents discussed varied con-
siderably. Examples included policies related to workplace violence, the Family
Medical Leave Act, harassment and discrimination, substance abuse, and ethics. In
addition, the impetus for creating or revising the policies varied. Several directors

Jacobson and Lambright 403

indicated that they were responding to mandates from either the state or federal gov-
ernment. Others described policy changes that were internally driven.

Respondents were asked to describe the process used to develop the policy they
identified, including what information they had used and what individuals were
involved. As part of this discussion, we asked respondents what information resources
they felt were the most helpful. Next, we asked respondents to describe the typical
process that they used to develop policies if it was different from the process they had
used for the specific policy example. In addition, respondents were asked to describe
any situations in which their approach to policy development might be different. We
asked the questions about the typical policymaking process and about unusual situa-
tions to ensure we had a comprehensive understanding of the variety of practices each
county used to develop HR policies. For this research, we were interested in learning
about a county’s overall policy process. Our unit of analysis is not the approach a
jurisdiction took with one specific policy but rather the full range of activities,
resources, and strategies they employed when developing HR policies. Finally, we
collected information about the jurisdictions and the respondents’ professional back-
grounds. Slightly less than half of our respondents (45%) had worked in the private
sector previously, and 60% were members of national professional associations. Tables
2 and 3 provide further background information about respondents.

All interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analyzed using the
qualitative data analysis software QSR NVivo. We developed coding definitions to
ensure consistent code usage and utilized both pattern-matching (Yin, 1994) and
memoing (Miles & Huberman, 1994) in our data analysis. Both researchers indepen-
dently coded all of the interview data and then reviewed this information together to
resolve any coding discrepancies. In addition to qualitatively analyzing the data, we
developed an index to measure the extent to which counties were using strategies that
were consistent with the practices identified as promising in the literature review. We
describe the components of this index in detail in our findings. We ran several t tests
and basic correlations to assess whether there were any patterns involving the index
scores and the characteristics of the respondents or the county for which they worked.

Table 1. Comparison of Demographics for Sample and Counties Eligible to be Included but
Not Selected (All Medians).

Population

Number
of county
employees

Poverty rate
(2009-2013; %)

Median
household

income

Eligible NY counties not in the sample 73,966 951 14 51,393
NY sample 117,154 1,071 14 49,969
Eligible NC counties not in the sample 115,778 977 20 41,895
NC sample 107,557 734 17 45,441
All eligible counties not in the sample 95,745 928 16 46,484
Entire sample 117,154 974 15 48,653

Note. NY = New York, NC = North Carolina.

404 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

This study’s research design enabled us to collect rich qualitative data and examine the
HR policymaking process in two states with very different political, social, and economic
characteristics. However, there are some limitations to the research design. This study is
exploratory as there is little empirical research on this paper’s topic. With 40 interviews,
we are not able to provide definitive answers to our research questions. The power of the
inferential statistical tests we ran was also low due to the small size of our sample. Another
limitation is that county HR directors’ utilization of information resources in New York
and North Carolina may not be representative of the resources used by other types of
public managers or county HR directors in other states. Finally, we have no outcome
measures on policy efficacy. As a result, we are unable to assess if using promising prac-
tices identified in the literature review actually makes policies more effective.

Findings

We begin by describing the information resources HR directors used to develop poli-
cies. Next, we provide an overview of the extent to which counties employed

Table 2. Respondent Experience.

Years of HR experience Count (%; n = 38) Years in position Count (%; n = 39)

5 or less 3 (8) 5 or less 22 (56)
6 to 10 7 (18) 6 to 10 10 (26)
11 to 15 5 (13) 11 to 15 3 (8)
16 to 20 6 (16) 16 to 20 3 (8)
21 to 30 11 (29) 21 to 30 1 (3)
31 and greater 6 (16) 31 and greater 0 (0)

Note. HR = human resource.

Table 3. Respondent Formal and Continuing Education.

Highest degree Count (%; n = 40) Certification Count (%; n = 40)

High school diploma 2 (5) No certification 25 (63)
Associates 1 (3) Certification (community

college, state, other)
5 (13)

Bachelors 20 (50) SHRM Certification
(PHR, SPHR)

10 (25)

Bachelors, some
graduate

6 (15)

Graduate degree
(JD, MPA, MBA, etc.)

11 (28)

Note. SHRM: Society for Human Resource Management, PHR = Professional in Human Resources,
SPHR = Senior Professional in Human Resources, JD = Juris Doctor, MPA = Master of Public
Administration, MBA = Master of Business Administration.

Jacobson and Lambright 405

strategies consistent with the promising practices identified in the literature review.
We conclude this section by developing an index based on the use of these promising
practices and examining whether there are any relationships between the county’s
policymaking process and respondent or jurisdictional characteristics.

Information Resources

Respondents used a wide array of resources when creating or revising policies. Table
4 details, by state, the frequency with which various information resources were used
in the policymaking process. Counties were recorded as utilizing a resource if respon-
dents mentioned ever consulting it in the policy development process, not just if they
mentioned using it in the specific policy example they described at the beginning of
the interview. On average when working on policy, HR directors drew on six different
resources, ranging from a low of three resources to a high of 10 resources. Besides
indicating that they personally helped create policies and relied on their own internal
HR staff, directors reported other county staff and officials were often involved in
policymaking (see Table 4). Of the 40 HR directors, 24 (60%) received feedback from
county attorneys or retained council, 22 (55%) from the county executive or executive
staff, 34 (85%) from other county staff subject matter experts (including department
heads, union representatives,2 and specific county employees with specialized knowl-
edge in the policy area being explored), and 11 (28%) from boards or legislatures.3
North Carolina HR directors were more likely to consult the county executive or

Table 4. Information Resource Use For Policy Development.

Count (%)
North Carolina

(n = 20)

Count (%)
New York
(n = 20)

Count (%)
entire sample

(n = 40)

Internal resources
County attorney or retained council 12 (60) 12 (60) 24 (60)
Executive or executive staff 14 (70) 8 (40) 22 (55)
Other county staff subject matter experts 17 (85) 17 (85) 34 (85)
Members of board or legislature 5 (25) 6 (30) 11 (28)
External resources
Personnel or policies from other jurisdictions 20 (100) 16 (80) 36 (90)
State or federal agencies 10 (50) 12 (60) 22 (55)
Professional associations 11 (55) 7 (35) 18 (45)
General Internet search 9 (45) 10 (50) 19 (48)
Laws or general statutes 9 (45) 10 (50) 19 (48)
Academic publications or personnel 12 (60) 0 (0) 12 (30)
Consultants 3 (15) 6 (30) 9 (23)
Vendors 3 (15) 3 (15) 6 (15)
Private sector examples 3 (15) 1 (5) 4 (10)
Books 1 (5) 0 (0) 1 (3)

406 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

executive staff, but use of other internal resources was comparable by state. Several
respondents indicated the information they received from internal sources was
extremely helpful. As an example, one respondent reported,

You learn there are people [internally] who have been doing this kind of stuff for years.
They are good at it and know a lot more than some others, and they are a tremendous
asset to the process. They are able to analyze documents provided by the consultant or
challenge with real life experiences that may say maybe it worked somewhere else but
we’ll tell you why it didn’t work here and what we did to counteract why it didn’t work
here. I find the department people are the experts and are invaluable to developing any
kind of policy.

In addition, respondents utilized a variety of external information resources when
developing or revising policy. The most common was personnel and policies from other
jurisdictions: 36 respondents (90%) reported consulting other jurisdictions in the policy
development process. Respondents emphasized they wanted to learn from other coun-
ties’ experiences. Reflecting the sentiments of many, one respondent commented, “We
try to seek out similarly situated governments and see what they do and we’ll learn from
their experiences. We try to find a template so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.”
While many directors relied heavily on their colleagues from other jurisdictions in the
policymaking process, some recognized limitations with this approach and noted that
strategies which work in one jurisdiction may not necessarily work in another if there
are considerable differences in the characteristics of the counties. These directors indi-
cated they were careful to modify policies when necessary to meet the needs of their
jurisdiction before adopting them. As one of these respondents explained, “I realize
what works for some counties won’t always work for us so I like to have samples of
policies from other counties and just kind of tailor them to our needs.”

Consistent with the fact that directors frequently reported they created or revised
policy because of an external mandate, many respondents used state and federal gov-
ernments as key resources in the policymaking process. More than half of the directors
(55%) mentioned either calling representatives from state or federal agencies or con-
sulting their websites. Respondents thought the guidelines and policy templates pro-
vided by these agencies were particularly useful. According to one respondent,

They [the state] had a template in place. They had already documented the process so it
made the research easier. We had a template to use as a guide so the rest was based on our
own particular needs. It was a good starting point.

In addition, 19 respondents (48%) reported reviewing laws and general statutes from
both the state and federal government to develop policy. Respondents used these legal
documents as references to clarify what they could and could not do when creating a
policy as well as what they had to do.

Another key resource was the Internet with 19 directors reporting they routinely
conducted general Internet searches as part of the policy development process. In fact,
many of these respondents indicated this was the first thing they did. In the words of

Jacobson and Lambright 407

one respondent, “No, I wish I could say there was a particular site but normally I just
Google the area. For example, social media, I’ll Google that.” Others did more tailored
searches. For instance, one respondent commented, “What I generally do is if I can’t
find links through the appropriate website on the Internet, I will Google search a topic
and look for a site I trust based on what I used in the past.” While generally viewed as
an important information resource for many, some respondents noted that the useful-
ness of the Internet did vary depending on the policy. As an example, one respondent
reported, “When we did our Family Medical Leave, there was a lot of material on the
net, where something like nepotism is not really out there.”

Professional associations were also important resources with 18 respondents (45%)
indicating they had used information from these organizations when developing or
revising policy. Directors were most commonly utilizing resources from national pro-
fessional associations such as the Society for Human Resource Management and the
International Personnel Management Association. Some respondents reported profes-
sional associations provided helpful policy templates, whereas others described using
professional associations as more general sources of information in the policymaking
process.

While the frequency with which different external information resources were used
was quite similar across the two states, there was one important exception. None of the
respondents from New York mentioned consulting academic personnel or publications
when developing policy. However, 12 North Carolina HR directors (60% of the North
Carolina sample) reported using academic resources although all of these respondents
had received information from the same academic institution: the School of
Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.4 Several respondents
reported the assistance they had received from this resource was helpful. For example,
one North Carolina HR director commented, “We use [the School of Government] all
the time. [School of Government faculty X] is on my speed dial.” None of the New
York or North Carolina HR directors reported using academic resources from any
other institutions in the policy development process.

Respondents reported that they typically used the same process to develop policies
regardless of a policy’s content. However, a handful of directors said they did tend to
consult fewer resources when developing policies that were straightforward, such as
when it is in response to a specific state mandate, compared to policies where there
was more discretion. For example, one respondent commented,

Unless something is spelled out so clearly in law that you don’t have to expand on it, then
I wouldn’t go through this process. Most of the time you have to adopt what the legal
requirements are to your actual setting.

Generally, directors reported that they had access to all of the information sources that
they wanted.

When asked which resource was most useful, the following were the most fre-
quently identified: other jurisdictions (13 counties), state or federal resources includ-
ing laws and policy templates (11 counties), and internal resources such as input from

408 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

other department heads and county employees (six counties). Other respondents com-
mented that the value of different resources varied depending on the policy. As one
respondent noted, “I think in my experience in some cases the benchmarks are more
helpful and then in other cases the stakeholder feedback.”

Some of the external resources that managers mentioned using frequently as well
as the resources that were identified as the most useful suggest isomorphic processes
may be influencing county HR policymaking. Managers’ use of state and federal agen-
cies as well as laws and statutes as key information resources aligns with coercive
isomorphism. Similarly, managers’ reliance on personnel and policies from other
counties is consistent with mimetic isomorphism. It is also possible that managers’
utilization of the Internet may reflect mimetic isomorphism if the primary purpose of
their searchers was to find policy templates from similar organizations. Finally, man-
agers often consulted professional associations when developing policy, which could
imply normative isomorphism. All 40 managers reported utilizing resources associ-
ated with at least one isomorphic process, with 80% using resources consistent with
two or more isomorphic processes.

Use of Promising Practices in the Policymaking Process

Are managers primarily focused on being expedient when designing policy, focusing on
gathering information they think they need from a mix of internal and external sources
and then writing policy? Or are they also using more sophisticated strategies that may
help them tailor policies to their jurisdictions’ needs and go beyond simple information
gathering? According to our interviews, counties varied in the extent to which they used
strategies consistent with promising practices described in our literature review. For
instance, the degree to which counties’ policymaking processes were inclusive differed.
Directors in 21 counties (53%) indicated that at least sometimes, internal work groups
composed of individuals from multiple departments were responsible for developing
and writing HR policies (10 in North Carolina and 11 in New York). In the remaining
counties, the policy development process was less inclusive, and the HR department was
the primary policy author. Four of the counties with internal working groups had stand-
ing policy committees. As described by one of these directors,

We have a personnel committee . . . It is made up of the County Manager, one of the
Commissioners and I will create the policy, meet with them, talk to them about the issues
leading to the needs for a creation or revision and they will give input and decide if it’s
ready to take to the Board of Commissioners.

In the other 17 counties, committees were specifically assembled based on the nature
of the policy. As one of these directors explained,

There’s not a big broad brush that can say we’re going to pull together the same six
departments to write every policy that we’re doing. It really depends on the situation and
what you’re trying to resolve by creating the policy.

Jacobson and Lambright 409

Both standing policy groups and ad hoc committees provided counties with a mecha-
nism for systematically involving other voices in the policy-writing process beyond
just the HR department and increasing the diversity of the decision-making team. The
members of these internal working groups were generally senior management and
department heads.

Another strategy counties used to ensure that the policymaking process was inclu-
sive and a variety of concerns were considered was to give rank-and-file employees
opportunities to provide feedback. Seven directors (18%) described employee engage-
ment efforts (four from North Carolina and three from New York). Some counties had
open comment periods during which any employee could offer input. Others indicated
they specifically sought guidance from line staff potentially affected. As an example,
one respondent explained the role staff play in the policy development process as “first
just fact gathering, what has occurred and then what would they like to see occur.”

In addition to trying to involve a variety of voices in policymaking, several counties
mentioned strategies they used to ensure policies were thoroughly evaluated. The most
common was to systematically review policy implications for departments with 26
counties (65%) specifically mentioning they consider this when creating and revising
policies (13 from both states). According to one of these respondents: “We have such
a variety of employees. Talking to them [department heads] on how they would fit into
such a policy and how it would affect them is beneficial.” In some cases, departments
were asked for their feedback to evaluate the feasibility of the policy once the policy
had been developed: “After we research it and draft a policy, we send it to the depart-
ment heads and ask for their feedback.” In others, input from the department was the
impetus for the policy: “Maybe the way we do things internally doesn’t meet the needs
of the department . . . so we look to make changes based on feedback from department
heads.” Less common than reviewing departmental implications, six directors reported
that their counties (15%) considered the new or revised policy’s consistency with other
existing policies (four in North Carolina and two in New York). As an example, one
director commented when describing the development of his county’s technology use
policy, “We [also] have an external communications policy so there’s back and forth
to make sure things aren’t contradictory and are consistent.” Finally, 10 counties
(25%) reported systematically reviewing data and using evidence-based analysis to
inform the policymaking process (six in North Carolina and four in New York).
Typically, these counties were benchmarking their policies with those from other juris-
dictions and private employers to ensure county policies were consistent and
competitive.

Policy Process Sophistication Index

As part of our analysis, we developed an index to assess how counties structured their
policy formation processes and measured the extent to which counties were using
strategies consistent with the practices identified as promising in the literature review.
These practices are more sophisticated as they go beyond simple information gather-
ing. Our index has five components. Counties were given a point for each of the

410 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

following policymaking strategies they utilized (these are not the same as the resources
they draw on referenced in Table 4, but reflect process choices): (a) use (at least some-
times) of an internal working group to help develop policy (as a measure of team
diversity), (b) engagement of rank-and-file employees in the policy process, (c) review
of policy implications for individual departments, (d) review of the new or revised
policy’s consistency with existing policy, and (e) use (at least sometimes) of evidence-
based decision making to develop policies. The maximum potential score a county
could receive on the index was a 5. Table 5 provides descriptive statistics for the index
and its components. As Table 5 illustrates, counties’ scores ranged from zero to four
with a mean score of 1.75, indicating the average county is using approximately two
out of five promising practices. All four of the counties that received a zero on our
index (i.e., those that had not adopted any of the promising practices) appear to be
particularly reliant on resources aligned with isomorphic processes. At least half of the
resources each of these counties were consulting fit this classification.

We examined whether there were any patterns between a county’s sophistication
index score and a variety of respondent characteristics including education, certifi-
cations, membership in a national professional association, time in position, private
sector work experience in HR, and status as strategic partners. As Table 6 shows, the
average index score was higher for respondents who had more education, had some
type of certification, were members in a national professional association, had been
in their positions for 5 or fewer years, had no private sector experience and were
strategic partners (they were actively engaged in the county strategic planning pro-
cess and their input was viewed as critical by executive county leadership).5 We also
explored whether a county’s sophistication score was related to the following juris-
dictional characteristics: state and HR department size. Counties in North Carolina
and those with HR departments that had 11 or more staff had higher average index
scores as Table 6 illustrates. According to a two-sample t test, the difference between
the index scores for respondents with and without private sector experience was
significant (p < .05). In addition, there was a significant negative correlation between
the respondent’s time in their position and the county’s score on the sophistication
index (p < .05). None of the other respondent or jurisdictional characteristics were
significant.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for the Policymaking Sophistication Index Score and Its
Components.

Minimum Maximum M SD

Policy Index Score (n = 40) .00 4.00 1.75 1.05612
Use of internal working groups (n = 40) .00 1.00 0.5250 0.50574
Engagement of employees (n = 40) .00 1.00 0.175 0.3848
Review of departmental implications (n = 40) .00 1.00 0.650 0.4830
Review of consistency with other policies (n = 40) .00 1.00 0.150 0.3616
Evidence-based decision making (n = 40) .00 1.00 0.250 0.4385

Jacobson and Lambright 411

Discussion and Conclusion

This article provides important insights into the process county government HR pro-
fessionals use to develop internal HR policies for their workforces. Our findings indi-
cate county HR directors collect information from a combination of internal and
external resources. Some key resources frequently used by directors in both states
align with isomorphic processes, including other jurisdictions, state and federal agen-
cies, laws and statutes from the state and federal government, and professional asso-
ciations. Managers’ reliance on these resources suggest they may at least in part be
responding to pressure from oversight bodies, copying “best practices” of similar
organizations and adopting current professional norms when developing policies. HR
directors in both states also commonly consulted colleagues in other departments and
the Internet for information.

Table 6. Policy Sophistication Index by Respondent and Jurisdictional Characteristics.

n M

Respondent characteristics
Education (n = 40)
High school or associates degree 3 0.6667
Bachelor’s 26 1.6923
Master’s or JD 11 2.1818
Certificate (n = 40)
No certifications 25 1.5600
Has a certification 15 2.0667
National professional association membership (n = 40)
Not a member of national professional association 16 1.5000
Member of national professional association 24 1.9167
Time in position (n = 39)
0-5years 22 2.0455
6 or more years 17 1.2353
Private sector experience (n = 40)
No 22 2.0455
Yes 18 1.3889
Role in county strategic planning (n = 40)
Not a strategic partner 24 1.5414
Strategic partner (self-reported) 16 2.0625
County characteristics
State (n = 40)
North Carolina 20 1.9000
New York 20 1.6000
HR Department size (n = 40)
1-10 employees 27 1.6296
11 or more employees 13 2.0000

Note. HR = human resource.

412 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

All but four of the counties included in our sample went beyond simple information
gathering and utilized strategies consistent with at least one of the promising practices
identified although there was considerable variation in the number different counties
had adopted. Utilization of some strategies was common. For instance, more than half
of the HR directors reported relying on internal working groups. This approach gives
individuals from different departments an opportunity to influence policies, increasing
the diversity of the decision-making team. In addition, almost two-thirds of the HR
directors indicated that they systematically reviewed the implications of policies for
specific departments. Implicit in the use of internal work groups and review of depart-
mental implications is the recognition that different departments are likely to have
different perspectives on the same policy and its impact.

However, other strategies were less commonly employed. Only a handful of HR
directors reported utilizing each of the following strategies: (a) engaging rank-and-file
employees in the policy process (18%), (b) reviewing a new or revised policy’s con-
sistency with existing policy (15%), and (c) using (at least sometimes) evidence-based
decision making to develop policies (25%). These findings suggest that the directors
could ask for more feedback from rank-and-file employees and policies could be more
thoroughly evaluated in many of the counties studied. While internal working groups
provide feedback from a variety of perspectives and composition of these groups var-
ies, typically upper level managers serve on these committees. As a result, policy
issues that are important to rank-and-file employees may receive less attention or be
overlooked. Offering more opportunities for rank-and-file employees to give input
may increase organizational buy-in and increase the likelihood that a policy is effec-
tive (DeHart-Davis, 2009; Stivers, 2008). Moreover, considering a policy’s consis-
tency with existing policies and using evidence-based decision making can help
counties tailor policies to match their specific needs and strategic goals.

Overall, the frequency with which different information resources were used was
consistent across the two states with a few exceptions. The most notable was that only
the North Carolina directors reported consulting academic publications or personnel in
the policy formation process. The approach to policymaking and extent to which HR
directors utilized different practices was also similar across states. The average score
on the sophistication index was slightly higher for the North Carolina counties.
However, this difference was not significant. The similarities in the information
resources and practices used in the two states are quite interesting given unions play a
much more prominent role in New York and the two states are very different in terms
of their political, social, and economic characteristics. Our results may indicate that
environmental factors such as these have minimal influence on internal county HR
policymaking processes.

While there was little difference by state, our findings suggest certain characteris-
tics of HR directors matter and shape how a jurisdiction approaches the policy process.
HR directors with private sector experience were significantly less likely to be using
strategies included in our sophistication index. We often think of the private sector
being ahead of the public sector in terms of more strategic behavior, making this an
interesting and unexpected result (Lawler & Boudreau, 2009; Ulrich, Brockbank,

Jacobson and Lambright 413

Johnson, Sandholtz, & Younger, 2008). Two of our measures look at practices that are
more inclusive in nature, and private sector organizations may place less emphasis on
this value. Moreover, there is often less variation in the activities and outputs within
private sector organizations compared to public sector ones. As a result, there may be
less need to consider policy implications or use analytical tools to examine policy fit.
In addition, HR directors who had been in their positions longer used significantly
fewer strategies. More experienced HR directors may have greater confidence that
they have a good sense of how various policies will impact their workforce and assume
they do not need to seek feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders and closely
examine policy implications. However, it is possible these directors are resistant to
change or the use of new practices. The individual leading the HR department appears
to play an important role in how a county approaches developing internal policies for
its workforce. The results of this research are consistent with work by Jacobson et al.
(2013) that finds HR leadership is critical in SHCM implementation. Both studies
underscore the importance of the leadership HR directors can provide.

In this research, we assess the overall sophistication of counties’ HR policymaking
process. Although we classify some counties as more “sophisticated” in their approach
than others, even the counties that have adopted some of the more advanced strategies
are unlikely to use them for every policy. In fact, uniform use of these practices would
not necessarily be recommended. For instance, if a county is mandated by the state to
implement a policy prohibiting smoking within 100 feet of a public building, there
may be little need for the HR director to thoroughly vet the policy. It may be sufficient
for the HR director to develop the policy primarily based on advice from colleagues in
other county departments and using template policy documents from the state.
However, HR directors may want to use a more deliberate approach in situations
where HR directors have greater discretion such as with the development of a social
media use policy. In this example, it may be helpful to (a) seek information from many
different sources (such as the IT and legal departments) and use an internal working
group because this is a relatively new challenge for county governments with many
potential implications, (b) consider employee buy-in early in the process, (c) collect
data on job-related social media usage, (d) systematically assess policy impact on dif-
ferent departments, and (d) carefully evaluate the fit with existing policies (such as
those related to IT and public information) prior to implementation. The most appro-
priate approach for developing a particular policy depends on the characteristics of the
jurisdiction, a jurisdiction’s needs, and strategic goals as well as the policy itself.

Our findings suggest several areas for future research. Building on this exploratory
study, scholars should consider how the policy formation process impacts HR policy
results. As noted previously, we did not collect data on policy outcomes and were
unable to explore whether the use of the promising practices identified actually made
HR policies more effective. Researchers could also compare the efficacy of the vari-
ous strategies we discussed and investigate whether some strategies are more effective
than others.

Another limitation of our study is its small sample size. The average index scores
were considerably higher in counties where respondents had more education, had

414 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

some type of certification, and were strategic partners. Even though the differences in
these means were quite large, none were statistically significant, perhaps due to the
low power of our statistical tests. Our results suggest that the preparation and philo-
sophical approach of HR directors may matter in the policy formation process too. It
would be interesting to examine in future research whether the same basic patterns
we found could be replicated and whether the results would be statistically significant
with a larger sample. Such results would provide further evidence that HR directors
play an important role in the policymaking process. In particular, researchers may
want to more closely examine the association between the sophistication of a coun-
ty’s policymaking process and the training HR directors receive. Findings of a rela-
tionship between these two variables would further suggest normative isomorphism
is influencing HR policy formation as universities and other professional training
institutions are critical in fostering shared norms and values within fields (DiMaggio
& Powell, 1982).

In addition, researchers may wish to explore some of the strategies we highlight in
greater depth as this research looked at them as part of a broad overview of the policy-
making process. For instance, collecting information from other jurisdictions was a
very common practice and could be consistent with mimetic isomorphism. We are
curious to what extent counties are really seeking feedback on best practices as
opposed to just gathering information about any policy. We also wonder how, if at all,
they are tailoring these policies. As another example, it would be interesting to find out
more about the specific ways counties try to engage rank-and-file employees in the
HR policymaking process. Are these efforts perfunctory or is county leadership
actively seeking feedback and shaping HR policy based on employee input?

The answers to these questions will provide a greater understanding of the process
used to develop internal HR policies and will help local government HR professionals
identify promising practices they may opt to utilize. These policies have an important
and long-lasting impact on the culture and morale of the workforce. Learning more
about how managers can strategically approach policymaking has the potential to
improve the performance of public organizations.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes

1. Pugh, Hickson, and Hinings (1969) define formalization as “the extent to which rules, pro-
cedures, instructions and communication are written” (p. 116). This is important to note as
in this research we are explicitly examining policies that have been formalized in a written
process and adopted by a governing board.

Jacobson and Lambright 415

2. Only respondents from New York reported union representatives participated in the poli-
cymaking process. All state and local governments in North Carolina are prohibited from
engaging in collective bargaining.

3. In these cases, the board or legislature was involved in the policy design phases. This is not
a reference to the formal adoption of a policy by the board or legislature.

4. According to the school’s website, it is “the largest university-based local government
training, advisory, and research organization in the United States,” offering courses, semi-
nars, and specialized conferences for public officials. There is no comparable system of
support for local governments available through higher education institutions in New York.

5. As part of our interviews, we talked with respondents about their counties’ strategic plan-
ning processes. We specifically asked human resource (HR) directors about their involve-
ment in strategic planning in their county and the extent to which their county manager
viewed HR as a strategic function, a support function, or some combination of both.

References

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61-89.

Ammons, D. N., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data
to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project.
Public Administration Review, 68, 304-318.

Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Performance management in the public sec-
tor: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31, 1-22.

Bae, K. B., & Yang, G. (2017). The effects of family-friendly policies on job satisfaction and
organizational commitment: A panel study conducted on South Korea’s public institutions.
Public Personnel Management, 46, 25-40.

Battaglio, R. P., & French, E. P. (2016). Public service motivation, public management reform,
and organizational socialization: Testing the effects of employment at-will and agency on
PSM among municipal employees. Public Personnel Management, 45, 123-147.

Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational
performance: Progress and prospects. The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 779-801.

Benton, J. E. (2005). An assessment of research on American counties. Public Administration
Review, 65, 462-474.

Bradbury, M. D., & Facer, R. L. II. (2010). Developing practical strategies for maintaining ethi-
cal behavior. In S. E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of human resource management in govern-
ment (3rd ed., pp. 279-297). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Caillier, J. G. (2016). Does satisfaction with family-friendly programs reduce turnover? A panel
study conducted in U.S. federal agencies. Public Personnel Management, 45, 284-307.

Clardy, A. (1997). Studying your workforce: Applied research methods and tools for the train-
ing and development practitioner. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Daley, D. M. (2006). Strategic human resource management. In N. M. Riccucci (Ed.), Public
personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges (4th ed., pp. 163-176). White
Plains, NY: Longman.

Daley, J. L. (2012). Human resource management in the public sector: Policies and practices.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

DeHart-Davis, L. (2009). Green tape: A theory of effective organizational rules. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 361-384.

DeHart-Davis, L. (2017). Creating Effective Rules in Public Sector Organizations. Georgetown
University Press. ISBN: 9781626164468 (1626164460)

416 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1982). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
Retrieved from http://doi.org/ 10.17323/1726-3247-2010-1-34-56

Facer, R. L., II., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2008). Alternative work schedules and work-family bal-
ance: A research note. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 166-177.

Facer, R. L., II., Wadsworth, L. L., & Arbon, C. A. (2010). Alternative work schedules in local
government: Cui bono? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 322-340.

Fernandez, S., Resh, W. G., Moldogaziev, T., & Oberfield, Z. W. (2015). Assessing the past
and promise of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for public management research:
A research synthesis. Public Administration Review, 75, 382-394.

Galinsky, E., & Stein, P. J. (1990). The impact of human resource policies on employees:
Balancing work/family life. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 368-383.

Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource
policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents
and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271-288.

Hall, J. L. (2017). Performance management: Confronting the challenges for local government.
Public Administration Quarterly, 41, 43-66.

Hartman, J., Homer, G. W., & Reff, A. H. (2010). The legal issues in human resource manage-
ment. In S. E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of human resource management in government
(3rd ed., pp. 423-454). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Honeycutt, T. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). Family friendly human resource policies, salary lev-
els, and salient identity as predictors of organizational attraction. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 50, 271-290.

Hoyman, M. M., & McCall, J. R. (2010). Sexual harassment. In S. E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook
of human resource management in government (3rd ed., pp. 423-454). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, pro-
ductivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-
872.

Jacobson, W. S., Sowa, J. E., & Lambright, K. T. (2013). Do human resource departments act as
strategic partners? Strategic human capital management adoption by county governments.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44, 317-339.

Jacobson, W., & Sowa. J., (2015). Strategic Human Capital Management in Municipal
Government: An Assessment of the Degree of Implementation Practices, Public Personnel
Management, 44, 317-339.

Kellough, J. E. (2017). Public personnel management: A cornerstone of effective government.
In N. M. Riccucci (Ed.), Public personnel management: Current concerns, future chal-
lenges (6th ed., pp. 165-174). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the
knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 323-338.

Kopp, R. (1994). International human resource policies and practices in Japanese, European,
and United States multinational companies. Human Resource Management, 33, 581-599.

Lawler, E. E., III., & Boudreau, J. W. (2009). Achieving excellence in human resources man-
agement: An assessment of human resource functions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.

Ledvinka, C. B. (2010). The Americans with Disabilities Act. In S. E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook
of human resource management in government (3rd ed., pp. 491-514). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

http://doi.org/ 10.17323/1726-3247-2010-1-34-56

Jacobson and Lambright 417

Lim, S., Wang, T. K., & Lee, S. Y. (2017). Shedding new light on strategic human resource man-
agement: The impact of human resource management practices and human resources on the
perception of federal agency mission accomplishment. Public Personnel Management, 46,
91-117.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Mohrman, A. M., Resnick-West, S. M., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1989). Designing performance
appraisal systems: Aligning appraisals and organizational realities. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Otenyo, E. E., & Smith, E. A. (2017). An overview of employee wellness programs (EWPs) in
large U.S. cities. Public Personnel Management, 46, 3-24.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006, January). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business
Review, pp. 63-74.

Phillips, K. W., Liljenquist, K. A., & Neale, M. A. (2009). Is the pain worth the gain? The
advantages and liabilities of agreeing with socially distinct newcomers. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 336-350.

Poister, T. H., Pasha, O. Q., & Edwards, L. H. (2013). Does performance management lead to
better outcomes? Evidence from the U.S. public transit industry. Public Administration
Review, 73, 625-636.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., & Hinings, C. R. (1969). An empirical taxonomy of structures of
work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 115-126.

Pynes, J. E. (2009). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations (3rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Riccucci, N. M. (2010). Affirmative action. In S. E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of human resource
management in government (3rd ed., pp. 455-474). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that
works. Public Personnel Management, 32, 89-98.

Roberts, G. E. (2010). Conducting practical human resource management research. In S. E.
Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of human resource management in government (3rd ed., pp. 735-
768). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rosenbloom, D. H., & Chanin, J. (2016). What every public sector human resource manager
should know about the constitution. In R. C. Kearney & J. D. Coggburn (Eds.), Public
human resource management: Problems and prospects (pp. 16-31). Washington, DC:
SAGE.

Rousseau, D. M., & Barends, E. G. R. (2011). Becoming an evidence-based HR practitioner.
Human Resource Management Journal, 21, 221-235.

Rubin, E. V. (2007). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical
results from the Department of Defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 19, 125-143.

Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further
performance. Public Personnel Management, 43, 197-217.

Searle, R. H., & Ball, K. S. (2003). Supporting innovation through HR policy: Evidence from
the UK. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12, 50-62.

Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of
qualitative and quantitative options. Policy Research Quarterly, 61, 294-308.

Selden, S. C. (2009). Human capital: Tools and strategies for the public sector. Washington,
DC: CQ Press.

418 Public Personnel Management 47(4)

Selden, S. C., & Moynihan, D. P. (2000). A model of voluntary turnover in state government.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20, 63-74.

Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in
Administrative organization (1st ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Stewart, G. L., & Brown, K. G. (2011). Human resource management: Linking strategy to
practice (2nd ed.). Danvers, MA: John Wiley.

Stivers, C. (2008). Governance in dark times: Practical philosophy for public service.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Streib, G., Benton, J. E., Byers, J., Cigler, B. A., Klase, K. A., Menzel, D. C., . . . Waugh, W. L.
Jr. (2007). Conducting research on counties in the 21st century: A new agenda and database
considerations. Public Administration Review, 67, 968-983.

Svara, J. H. (1996). Leadership and professionalism in county government. In D. C. Menzel
(Ed.), The American county: Frontiers of knowledge (pp. 109-127). Tuscaloosa: University
of Alabama Press.

Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.

Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D., Sandholtz, K., & Younger, J. (2008). HR competen-
cies: Mastery at the intersection of People and Business. Alexandria, VA: Society for
Human Resource Management.

Wadsworth, L. L., & Facer, R. L. (2016). Work–family balance and alternative work sched-
ules: Exploring the impact of 4-day workweeks on state employees. Public Personnel
Management, 45, 382-404.

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators
of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513-530.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.

Author Biographies

Willow S. Jacobson is an associate professor of Public Administration and Government at the
School of Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her work is published
in such outlets as Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration
Review, and the Review of Public Personnel Administration. Her research interest include
Strategic Human Capital Management, leadership, and organizational theory and behavior.

Kristina T. Lambright is an associate professor in the Department of Public Administration in
the College of Community and Public Affairs at Binghamton University. Her research interests
include contracting, citizen participation, organizational performance, and engaged scholarship.
She has published in a cross-section of public administration and nonprofit management
journals.

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

The Influence of HR Policy
Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction

of Employees of Public Sector Banks:
A Study on Indian Overseas Bank†

S Baskar*

* Chief Manager (Rtd.), Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail: [email protected]

The HR policies in the Public Sector Banks (PSBs) relating to Compensation, Benefits,
Promotion, Mobility, Transfer, Contingent Rewards, Training, Staff Accountability,
Incentives, etc. have been framed in terms of guidelines issued by the Government of
India (GOI), which is the promoter and major shareholder of the PSBs. These policies
have a direct bearing on the job satisfaction of employees and cascading effect on the
performance of the bank. The research study in Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) revealed
that the overall level of job satisfaction of employees in terms of established job factors
was found to be at an ambivalent level. While factors like Fringe Benefits (FB) and
Operating Conditions (OPC) showed a level of dissatisfaction, factors like Promotion,
Contingent Rewards and Pay showed an ambivalent level. Regression analysis on the
data showed Performance Management System (PMS) factor as the significant factor
among the six factors of bank policy dimensions considered for the study. Conversely,
Pearson Correlation Coefficient analysis showed that PMS factor was positively related
to factors like Communication, Contingent Rewards and also Pay. However, factors like
Trade Union and Communication were found to be negatively related to each other. The
research findings not only support the existing literature on job satisfaction but also add to
the deficit literature by exploring the influence and relationship of Bank Policy Dimensions
for the Job Satisfaction of employees in the Indian context in Public Sector Banks.

Introduction
India had a fairly developed commercial banking system in existence at the time of independence
in 1947, with 637 commercial banks operating in the country (RBI, 1947). The Reserve Bank
of India (RBI) was established in 1935 and became a state-owned institution to serve as a
central bank of the country from January 1, 1949. The Government of India (GOI)
simultaneously enacted the Banking Regulation Act in 1949 providing a framework for regulation
and supervision of commercial banking activity by RBI.

The GOI perceived that loans extended by colonial commercial banks were biased toward
working capital for trade and large firms (Joshi and Little, 1996). Hence, “GOI took the view

† The paper is a part of author’s thesis submitted for the award of Ph.D.

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201646

that the banking system has had to serve the goals of economic policies of the country’ particularly
concerning equitable income distribution, balanced regional growth, elimination of poverty,
employment generation and the control of private sector monopolies in trade and industry.”

As a corollary of the state policy, and at the behest of a report (under the aegis of RBI) by
the Committee of Direction of All India Rural Credit Survey (1951), the Imperial Bank of India
was taken over by the government and renamed as State Bank of India (SBI) on July 1, 1955
with the RBI acquiring substantial holding of shares. A number of erstwhile banks owned by
princely states were made associates of SBI in 1959 (7 banks), like State Bank of Travancore
(SBT), State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH), etc. Thus, the beginning of the plan era in 1952
(Five-Year Planning Process) also saw the emergence of public ownership of one of the most
prominent of the commercial banks.

There was a feeling that though the Indian banking system had made considerable progress
in the 1950s and 1960s, the credit deployment to agriculture, small industries and other plan
priorities is negligible with overriding influence of private banks to serve commercial and industry
houses including the state-owned SBI and its associate banks.

To meet these concerns, the government introduced the concept of social control in the
banking industry in 1969, aimed with an objective to serve with a focus for the development of
the economy in conformity with national plan priorities and objectives. In tune with the concept
of social control, the Indian banking industry was subjected to nationalization in two phases
(1969 and 1980). It was led to the birth of Public Sector Banks (PSBs).

The adverse developments in the banking sectors coupled with ‘current account crisis’ (3%
of GDP) in early 1991 and poor macroeconomic performance characterized by a public deficit
of 10% of GDP, and an inflation rate of 10% necessitated the GOI and RBI for introduction of
financial sector reforms from 1991-92 which has been one of the central issues facing emerging
markets and developing economies.

Hence, to improve the operational efficiency and profitability of the banks, particularly
PSBs, which had long been characterized as highly regulated and financially repressed, financial
sector reforms based on international financial standard were introduced progressively from
1992 and 1998 in two phases in terms of Narashimham Committee recommendations.

These measures paved the way for accelerated performance of the Indian banking sectors,
and the PSBs have been playing a dominant role in improving the country’s economy from
1992 to today (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh, 2013) in an environment of competition from
private and foreign banks. India’s banking industry is well set to reach US$4 tn by 2020, from
the current level of 77 tn (US$1.30 tn) in synchronizing with global financial standards and
norms with a dominant role for PSBs (Jagirdar, 2011).

In spite of the impressive growth and massive contribution to nation building after
Independence, the stakeholders of PSBs (GOI, RBI and PSBs) have systematically neglected
this very workforce during the journey period, on the pretext of overstaffing, low productivity
and profitability, by totally overlooking their social contribution to the nation. PSBs have

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

increased their manpower by a meager Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of around
0.5% to achieve a balance sheet growth of 22% during the period of 2007-10 (McKinsey
Report, 2010).

McKinsey had made some revealing observations that PSBs would have dearth of talented
manpower by way of losing experienced senior executive and middle management at an
unprecedented rate due to retirement in the current decade (2010-20). The PSBs suffered
further by high levels of attrition too, which is around 20%, especially at junior scales.

There is a leadership capacity gap of at least 12,000-15,000 people in branches, regions,
businesses and functions in each bank as leadership pipelines are extremely thin which adversely
affects the succession planning. As such, PSBs today are seriously handicapped vis-à-vis their
competitors in the marketplace in terms of huge human capital deficit. Overall, the people
processes in PSBs appear to be inadequate and HR has become a new risk as diagnosed by the
Khandelwal Committee on HR issues of PSBs (2010).

The bankers have to take note of HR problems: inducting talent in large numbers to retain
their market shares, yawning generation gaps, thin leadership pipeline impacting succession
planning, escalation of per employee costs in PSBs (which is currently 62% as against 50%
globally for most banks), lack of clear role definition, massive re-skilling to unlearn and relearn,
proactive feedback on employee performance in place of confidential performance appraisal
systems, staff accountability syndrome, dilution of norms for selection of EDs, CMDs and
influence of GOI on major HR policy issues of PSBs, as a promoter and major shareholder.

Livelihood was not the only reason for working in any organization. As Henry Ford famously
said, “Why is it every time I ask for a pair of hands, they come with a brain attached?”. The
people then understood that apart from livelihood, there is something else required, and the
something else was termed ‘Job Satisfaction’. Industries are now in the knowledge age and
hence people work for ‘Empowerment’ in general, and transformation of HR system in this
direction is the key to success of the PSBs.

Jack Welch, Chief Executive of General Electric, said that too often, it is common that we
measure everything and understand nothing. The three most important things we need to
measure in a business are “customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction and the cash flow”.
The customer satisfaction at higher level would increase your market share. The employee
satisfaction gets you productivity, quality, pride, creativity and the cash flow which is a vital key
of a company. Hence, job satisfaction of employees contributes positively to leverage productivity
and customer satisfaction to enhance profitability of a company.

Majumdar (2013), in “A Deloitte Study on Why HR Leaders Need to Think Like Economists”,
revealed that it is possible to establish a clear numerical relationship between good human
capital management (employees) and enhanced financial results (performance) such as cash
flow, profitability and margins, and customer value-added by business levels.

These research reviews provided strong evidence through successive studies over the decades
that people work for purpose other than pay, i.e., job factors like fringe benefits, nature of job,

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201648

relationship with co-worker, contingent rewards, supervision, promotion, etc. Conversely, Annual
Bankers Conference (BANCON) reports of 2010-2013, RBI study reports, and Khandelwal
committee on HR issues of PSBs (2010) are very vocal about “banks policy dimensions on HR
areas such as Performance Management System (PMS), Transfer, Training, Government Policies,
Staff Accountability and Trade Unions.” These factors have also implicated critical influence
on the job satisfaction of employees’ in public sector banks.

A majority of research studies on job satisfaction of bank employees have been focused
mainly on traditional job satisfaction factors in the banks, mostly neglecting these critical
factors. The research in banking industry would be in an entirety, only when those job factors
relevant to the organization of study, i.e., bank policy dimensions on transfer, training,
performance management, government policy guidelines, staff accountability, etc. are also
studied along with the traditional established job factors of compensation, fringe benefits,
supervision, co-worker relations, etc. (Bhattacharya, 2007). Hence, the researcher factored in
these variables of bank policy dimensions as identified research gap items.

The present study was carried out in Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), one of the large category
public sector banks in India. HR policy of the banks are common to all the PSBs which are
framed by the GOI and being implemented by the PSBs in letter and spirit with slight medications
based on the ecology and negotiation capacity of trade unions of the individual banks. Hence,
the study results would be true reflections on the job satisfaction of employees of all the PSBs.

Literature Review
The purpose of literature review is to identify problems, past and current trends, potential
relationships between theories and empirical findings and the influence of factors to formulate
researchable hypotheses to address the objectives of intended research.

In an interesting perspective, in the Indian context where unions are strong and influential,
to think of job satisfaction without unionism would be very unrealistic (Sinha and Sharma,
1962). Virmani (1995) found from a review of in-depth study of eight organizations for “redefining
industrial relations” that the principles of collective bargaining need different attitude and it
must give way to participation in the development of institutions with various changes in the
role of management and its unions, and hence cannot coexist.

Annamalai and Vijayakumar (2002) reported that salary structure, relations with co-workers
and superiors, supervision, bank policies and practices as dissatisfied job factors from a study on
“job satisfaction among bank employees-cadre-wise”. Job descriptions and objective measurement
of individual performance were not drawn in greater details in the banks. Consequently, linkages
of performance and incentives were not framed in PSBs (Deshmukh, 2004).

Kavitha (2009) in her doctoral thesis found that PSB bank employees were dissatisfied with
pay and pay rise compared to their peers in the private sector. Their satisfaction level was
higher for the job factors like relationship with superiors, co-workers, fringe benefits, compared
to private bank employees. PSB employees were more dissatisfied with “operating conditions,
communication and nature of work”, compared to private bank employees.

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

Saiyadain (2009) summarized the findings of several research studies conducted between
1951-1998 and 1965-1997 in various industries including banks/public sector units: the hygiene
factors would enhance workers’/clerks’ satisfaction, and the motivators contribute to managers’/
supervisors’ job satisfaction which seem to match with those factors envisioned by Herzberg
and others way back in 1957. There was a positive relationship between job satisfaction
components towards employee job performance (Anuar Bin Hussin, 2011).

Blessing White studies from 2010 to 2012 revealed that career development opportunities
and training, opportunities to apply their talents, and more challenging work were the top
influencing factors of job satisfaction of employees in manufacturing, banking/financial services
in India.

Payal Chanania (2012) reported that the new generation craves for constant feedback and
praises that too in highly visible format as against the traditional reward schemes and pay-for-
performance incentives, quoting the findings from international strategic group, ‘Recognition
Council’. Social recognition steps in as “the new currency” that fosters employee engagement,
motivation and retention.

Chakrabarty (2012) opined that the most important area of HRM in the PSBs was the
PMS which in current form was unable to discriminate, and differentiate between performers
and non-performers. In any organization, naturally there would be 10-15% of people would be
high performers. Banks should focus on the remaining 85%, as any improvement in their
performance would have a significant impact on the organization’s performance, as “banking
is a team game”, the RBI deputy governor lamented.

Goyal and Joshi (2012) forecasted that “diminishing employee satisfaction results in decreased
revenue.” Due to deteriorated compensation structures for bank officers, and staff accountability
policies, job satisfaction, motivation and willingness to accept higher assignments, risk-taking
and mobility of employees have been significantly impacted (Sharma, 2012).

Meena and Dangayach (2012) reported that employee satisfaction in banks has been
recognized to cause major impact on economy and social phenomenon of growth and standard
of living. Hence, banks must continuously strive for employee satisfaction in order to stay
profitable, and the benefits of employee satisfaction are: organization would benefit in the long
run, caring about the quality of their work, delivering superior value to the customer, more
employee productivity and profitability.

Indian employees attach a premium to pleasant colleagues in preference to the pay factor
as revealed in the global work monitor survey of Ranstad Work Monitor Survey of 2012.

Shiva Kumar (2013) Senior Vice-President, Nokia, gives an interesting perspective on the
‘New-Gen employees’ as a Concorde generation, equating with arrive before they leave, and
they are loyal to their careers and not institutions. They thrive on praise and are sensitive to
criticism. Attrition is one of the biggest challenges in India which ranges between 15-20%, and
“by 2020, 66% of companies would be having new employees.”

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201650

The British Media (2013) reported that “Money can buy happiness”, and the core theme
was confirmed in a study by a dozen academics by analyzing an array of robust data from 126
countries, which disclosed that “Money is still a universal motivator and adds to happiness”.

The term ‘employee engagement’ has assumed significance as a variable to job satisfaction
since the 2000s and it means different things to different organizations. Some equate it with
‘Job Satisfaction’ (SHRM 2007-2013).

The Towers Watson study (2013) showed that employee benefits have gradually emerged as
a powerful tool to attract and retain key talent and are increasingly being leveraged to enhance
the employee value proposition.

Nayar (2013), Joint MD of IT major HCL, experimented a concept of “employees first,
customers second” over 6 years, which helped to increase the revenues fivefold as the level of
‘employee engagement’ reached a new pinnacle of satisfaction”. He further added that
recognizing the centrality of the frontline employees is a challenge which is ignored across the
world’ in the businesses.

Mahalingam (2013), an executive coach, seconded the above view as ‘value people first’.
This made many in the business circles to wonder why there is so much disconnect between
what we know (effective people management makes very good business sense and business
cents) and what we do (ignore people management) in our organization. In some organizations,
the problem is not with the first line or middle managers; “the bottleneck is always at the top of
the bottle”, suggesting that CEO and senior managers demonstrate poor people management
day in and day out, simply ingrained as a silent chronic HR culture in the companies.

Objectives
The following objectives were framed to evaluate the influence of various aspects of HRM
policies and practices on the Job Satisfaction (JS) of employees in IOB:

• To examine the impact of established job factors on the JS of employees viz. Pay,
Fringe Benefits (FB), Contingent Rewards (CR), Promotion (PR), Nature of Work
(NW), Co-Worker (CW), Operating Conditions (OPC), Supervision and
Communication.

• To study the influence of bank policy dimensions identified for the study such as
PMS, Transfer, Training, Government Policies on HR Areas, Staff Accountability
and Trade Unions.

• To study the relationship between the established job factors and perceived Bank
Policy dimensions to ascertain their impact on the JS of employees.

• To make an attempt to understand the performance of the bank with reference to
employee job satisfaction in terms of the performance factors of the bank.

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

Hypotheses
Null hypotheses (H001-H003) were framed to drive the course of research to test the influence
of job satisfaction factors, bank policy dimensions, and the relationship between these two
factors.

Methodology

Job Satisfaction Concept and Framework
Job satisfaction is one of the most widely discussed and enthusiastically studied subjects.
However, job satisfaction is among the most difficult constructs to define. Wood (1973) describes
job satisfaction as “the condition of contentment with one’s work and it’s in his mind, denoting
a positive attitude”. Locke (1973) stated that job satisfaction could be viewed as “a pleasurable
or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience”.

One of the most cited definitions on job satisfaction is that of Spector (1997): “Job satisfaction
has to do with the way how people feel about their job and its various aspects”. It has to do
with the extent to which people like or dislike their job. Even though several different definitions
have been proposed, they all travel in the same direction: the attitude an employee has towards
her/his job.

In human services, there is evidence that satisfaction is associated with employee performance
and client outcomes (Wiggins and Moody, 1983). Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (1954) and
Herzberg’s two factor theory (1966) of motivation still wield influence on job satisfaction of
employees.

Motivation theory is one of the widely accepted and studied theories used to explain human
performances in organization. The performance of a worker is directly dependent of motivation
and hence increased job performance and in turn upbeat job satisfaction, and vice versa.

Selladurai (1991) and Judge and Bono (2001) suggested that the relationship between job
satisfaction and performance is of a cyclic nature, indicating that increased job satisfaction
leads to increased job performance and vice versa.

Bhattacharayya (2007) empirically concluded that “Most of the studies in India have
attempted to find out the job-satisfaction variables, which have been construed as the
motivational variables”, an important practicable thought for the researchers.

Job satisfaction has been positively correlated to both job performance and motivation
factors in terms of job satisfaction and engagement that ultimately affect the effectiveness of
an organization (Ellickson and Logsdon, 2002; Timmer, 2004, and SHRM JS Surveys, 2007-
2013).

Hence, it is concluded that “motivation influences engagement, leads to productivity of
individual to collective performance, in turn job satisfaction, and that motivation, Job
Performance (JP) and Job Satisfaction (JS) have a circular cyclic relationship”, mediated by
job factors (see Figure 1). These are the guiding concepts for the researcher for the entire gamut
of this research.

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201652

Data Collection
The primary data was collected by means of a standardized/designed questionnaire survey
instrument. The researcher had discussed with senior executives, some senior and junior staff
officers, branch managers, clerical and trade unions of IOB in ample measure in person about
the study. Besides, mobile phones and e-mails were utilized to inform the purpose of the survey
to the respondents, union representatives and other colleagues in various states as the survey
focus was Pan-India.

Annual reports of IOB, reports of Bankers Annual Conferences (BANCON), committee
reports of RBI, IBA, Strategic HR Consultants, Business magazines, financial dailies and other
literature reviews of articles and research paper from journals, besides websites, were the sources
for collecting secondary data.

Questionnaire
The first part of the questionnaire (see Appendix) contains demographics and general information
about the respondents. The second part includes the standardized questionnaire of Spector
(1992 and 2007), which contained nine aspects of job satisfaction factors, namely, Pay, Fringe
Benefits, Contingent Rewards, Promotion, Co-Worker, Operating Conditions, Nature of Work,
Communication and Supervision. Each factor includes 4-items/statements, with a 7-point rating
scale (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree) to enable the respondents to cast their
perception on the influence of JS factors.

The third part was a questionnaire designed for banks’ policy dimensions based on the
review of literature, in consultation with three experts in banking/HR-related areas and the
research supervisor. Based on their opinions and suggestions, six factors, namely, Training,
Transfer, Government Policy Guidelines, Performance Management, Staff Accountability and
Role of Trade Unions were identified and finalized with 27 statements. Responses to all items in
the survey instrument were on a 7-point Likert scale.

Figure 1: Concept of Job Satisfaction Framework

PERFORMANCE

JOB
SATISFACTION

MOTIVATION

ENGAGEMENT

JOB FACTORS

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

The interval scale is a standard survey rating scale best suited for opinion or attitude
measurement. This kind of Likert-scale is selected based on the recommendation of Kronsnick
and Fabrigar (as cited in Maiyaki et al., 2011). They clarified that the range of scale between
5 and 7 is set up to be more reliable than five-point Likert scale and appears to be optimal
when measuring a bipolar. This is due to the reason that the scale with more points allows the
respondents to articulate their viewpoint more precisely and comfortably.

In addition, Likert scale allows the researcher to make a more subtle distinction among the
various respondents’ attitudes regarding a particular item, and the perception level was computed
based on normative mean scores. The questionnaire was pretested with 30 employees in IOB
and a few changes were incorporated in consultation with the experts and research supervisor.

Sample Frame and Size
In the sampling process, within any organization in order to use aggregated psychological
climate to predict job satisfaction level, there is a need to ensure that all members of the
organization, or a convenient stratified sub-sample of individuals covering all positions, are
represented. Without such sampling procedures in place, James et al. (1984) concluded that
the use of aggregation is not justified.

The population universe of 28,128 employees for our study in IOB is large (March 2013)
(Table 1). Based on the model table of Bartlett et al. (2001), the appropriate sample size for the
population of above 20,000 and up to 30,000 was arrived at >379 at 95% confidence level
with 5% margin of error. Out of 600 questionnaires mailed, 400 completed questionnaires were
used for the analysis.

Table 1: Total Number of Employees in IOB as on March 2013

Officers Clerks Messenger/Peon Sweeper Total Staff

11,768 11,928 2,796 1,636 28,128

Source: Bank Annual Report

The researcher had excluded the messenger and sweeper aggregating 4,432 (15.76%) from
the purview of current study as they are not part of clerical cadre directly handling any banking
transactions and they have very negligible role in the performance of the bank. The sampling
response in the study was “66% out of 600 questionnaires” distributed to the respondents by
stratified convenient sampling, to cover all the cadres of clerks, junior, middle and senior
management from all the age and gender group of employees.

Data Analysis and Tools
Raw data collected from the respondents through the questionnaire were analyzed using the
software “Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18”. Appropriate statistical
techniques such as descriptive analysis, numerical statistics such as frequencies, means, standard
deviations and inferential statistics like factor analysis, Pearson correlation coefficients and

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201654

regression analysis were employed to analyze the data collected from 400 employees of IOB
across the country.

These are standardized techniques being utilized in the HR research over the years (“Human
Resource Research Methods”, Bhattacharayya, 2007). The level of influence of established job
satisfaction factors (9) had been analyzed and computed and tabulated by utilizing the
standardized Spector (2007) rating scales and numerical statistics.

The factor analysis, a multivariate statistical technique, is utilized in the study with a spectrum
of analysis (KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, Eigenvalues, PCA, RCM and Scree Plot
Criterion) for validating the survey instrument of Bank policy dimensions (6 factors) with 27
questions designed for this research study. This technique is helpful to identify the underlying
factors that determine the relationship between the observed variables and also to provide an
empirical classification scheme of clustering of statements into groups called factors or dimensions
by the process of data reduction, groupings summation and significance. It was performed
using rotated factor matrix. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method was used for extraction
because it leads to the derivation of uncorrelated statements/factors.

KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was found to be significant to carry out the factor
analysis for the data obtained as the items measuring the factors of bank policy form empirically
separate dimensions. Eigenvalues of factors plotted in the Scree plot showed six factors that
could be taken with confidence which can explain the overall variance. The employee’s perception
on the rank order preference of bank policy dimensions was analyzed and presented by utilizing
descriptive statistics.

Spearman’s correlation coefficient was utilized to compute the relationship of job satisfaction
factors with bank policy dimensions. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the
predictors of job satisfaction related to bank policy dimensions. In all cases, research questions
were tested at the 0.05 or 0.01 level of significance.

The author has also made an attempt in the study to understand the performance of the
bank in terms of employee job satisfaction, which was one of the objectives of the research. For
this purpose, the researcher had utilized the secondary data on the performance of the banks
from 2007 to 2013 (study period) on key business and financial parameters: growth of Deposits
(D) and Advances (A), Business mix (D+A), Current and Saving Deposits (CASA), Profits, Per
Employee Productivity, Asset Quality, Net Interest Margin (NIM), Cost of Funds (COF), Return
on Assets (ROA), Capital to Risk Asset Ratio (CRAR) and Net NPA Ratio (NNR) and RBI
reviews of the individual bank performances in terms of these key business and financial
parameters.

Results and Discussion

Influence of Traditional Established Job Satisfaction Factors
Out of the nine factors of JS, employees of IOB have perceived the motivational factors such
as Fringe Benefits, Contingent Rewards and Promotion prevailing in the bank as dissatisfied
and ambivalent respectively (Table 2).

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Job Satisfaction Level of Employees

S. No. Variable Mean Std. Deviation Level

1. Pay 15.86 5.62 Ambivalent

2. Promotion 16.39 3.84 Ambivalent

3. Contingent Rewards (CR) 15.77 4.43 Ambivalent

4. Fringe Benefits (FB) 14.85 5.05 Dissatisfied

5. Operating Conditions (OPC) 13.76 3.73 Dissatisfied

6. Supervision 21.02 4.05 Satisfied

7. Co-Worker 20.31 3.65 Satisfied

8. Nature of Work 21.33 3.57 Satisfied

9. Communication 18.25 4.68 Satisfied

Overall Job Satisfaction-(weighted mean) 163.27 26.99 Ambivalent

The reflections of employees on hygiene factors, viz., Pay and OPC, were also in a state of
ambivalent (unsure or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied). The Operating Conditions (OPC) in
terms of policies and procedures for guiding the employees in the functional areas of banking,
including HR areas, besides working conditions and its effects on the perception of employees,
were rated as ‘dissatisfied’ in the current study. The reasons attributed for the negative ratings
were staff shortage, too much of work load, shoddy working facilities at rural areas and job
stress.

These conditions lead to error and mistakes causing operational risks which lead to
perpetuation of frauds, noncompliance of system and procedures, and increase in Non-Performing
Assets (NPA), as being felt in IOB as well in other public sector banks. According to Indian
employees, the top three reasons for stress at workplace include unclear or conflicting job
expectations, inadequate staffing (lack of support, uneven workload in group) and lack of
work-life balance (Towers Watson Study, 2013).

The employees were satisfied with the human relation aspects prevailing in the bank, i.e.,
relationship with co-worker, nature of work, supervision and communication. As such, the null
hypothesis formulated is rejected as there was significant influence implicated by five aspects of
JS factors (S. No. 1-5 of the Table 2) with overall level of JS of employees also in an ambivalent
state.

Perceptions of Respondents on the Influence of Bank Policy
Dimensions
Descriptive Analysis was utilized to rank the importance of bank policy dimensions
(Table 3), which had shown that the scores in four factors, namely, PMS, Staff Accountability,
Transfer and Training Policies, were below average rating and people were in agreement with
the importance of these factors for their satisfaction. Each factor was brought to the level of

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201656

Table 3: Perceptions of Respondents on the Influence
of Bank Policy Dimensions

S. No. Factors Factors Ranking
Mean Values

Descending

1. Trade Unions 1 4.47

2. Government Policy Guidelines 2 4.36

3. Performance Management System (PMS) 3 3.47

4. Staff Accountability 4 3.46

5. Bank Transfer Policy 5 3.42

6. Training Policy 6 2.64

Perceived Bank Policies Average 3.64

each element taking the average of all the elements in each factor. Thus, it allows us to
simplify, in understanding, where employees are in strong agreement, least in agreement, and
also where employees are not in agreement. Based on the ratings of the respondents, one could
say that overall, the perception of employees towards bank policy dimensions is somewhat agreeable,
as the score for overall perception towards perceived bank policies is 3.64. The score is more than
3, and 3 represents neutrality; however, the overall score of 3.64 falls towards the agreeable side.

Trade union/officers association was rated as top ranking factor, followed by Government
Policy Guidelines for employees’ satisfaction under bank policy dimensions. Nagarajan (Bancon
2003) reported that HRM policies and practices have been evolved primarily through reactive
processes in PSBs between ‘the management and trade unions’. The trade union and officers
association wielded undue influence in the execution of transfer policy of clerical and officer’s
cadre.

Sharma (1980) studied the relationship between job satisfaction and union involvement
which showed that of all the variables, union involvement turned out to be the best predictor of
variations in job satisfaction. It was due to prevailing environment in the PSBs that employees
are in the habit of approaching the trade union and officers association for majority of the HR
issues rather than the management including vigilance and disciplinary cases where union
people are appearing for employees as defense representatives.

Further, Government Policy Guidelines, which were ranked at No. 2, have impacted
recruitment, promotions, placement, mobility, performance evaluation, incentives and staff
accountability in the PSBs. It is clear that the undue influence of the government in the HR
portfolio through bank board’s has not gone down well with the employees/senior management
who have larger stakes in overall HR management strategies of the PSBs.

The agenda for HR management has been dictated and influenced by GOI, and trade
unions/associations as per the observations of Khandelwal Committee (2010) and Chakrabarty
(2012) on HR issues of PSBs.

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

PMS was construed as a crucial ‘motivating factor’ in addressing the major HR issues in
promotion, transfer, training, placement, incentives, career, and leadership development was
ranked third in this study. It was in conformity with its significance for employee’s satisfaction
as revealed from various studies.

Staff accountability was perceived as a distress factor affecting the employee morale, work-
life balance and decision making. No bank anywhere in the world, other than PSBs in India,
has a policy that every loan loss should be scrutinized with a view to fixing accountability on all
the officials who had been associated with the loan and other transactions. The perceptions
that bonafide actions of officers and other employees enjoy the protection in PSBs from
accountability are only on paper (Viswanathan, 2002).

The present staff accountability policies are also visibly associated with risk aversion tendencies
on the part of the officers due to the fear psychosis of an external and internal vigilance
mechanism prevailing with a Damocles’ sword, which acted as an antithesis to the motivation
in the PSBs (Krishnamurthy, 2012; and Sharma, 2012).

Bank transfer policy was rated at 4, construed as a factor of distress (mean 3.42) due to the
fact that its implementation is highly non-transparent, ad hoc and annualized with post promotion
negotiation with trade unions. Employees appearing for promotions would be under cloud on
transfer policy before appearing for promotion.

Training policies were relegated to last position as the most dissatisfied job aspect as
competency mapping, appropriate training, methodology and the level of competency acquired
and its utility in the field after training have not been evaluated (Gopal and Radhakrishnan,
BANCON, 2011; and Shilpi Singh, 2013). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, as the
employees in IOB perceived that the bank policy dimensions would significantly impact their
satisfaction levels.

Bank Policy Dimensions and Their Relationship with Job
Satisfaction Factors
The regression analysis indicated that the beta coefficient of the component of PMS had
revealed positive value of 0.162 (Table 4), which means Performance Management Policy
alone had the ability to predict the level of job satisfaction and impact the satisfaction of
employees. It was due to PMS which embodied the Government Policy Guidelines on promotions,
placement, mobility, transfer, training, incentives and staff accountability policies and followed
in letter and spirit annually (applicable to all PSBs). As such, it was implied that the respondents
have not considered other factors, i.e., accountability, training, transfer and government policy,
as significant factors.

Conversely, Pearson Correlation Coefficient analysis employed in the study revealed that
PMS and communication were related positively (r = 0.129; p > 0.05) with each other. PMS
and communication might reciprocate each other with PMS promoting the employees for
better communication in the organization and vice versa, with employees’ perception on
communication as one of the JS factors also satisfactory (Table 2). PMS was related positively

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201658

Table 4: Beta Values and Significance Level of Predictive Variables

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 163.410 16.051 – 10.181 0.000

Accountability 0.709 1.333 0.039 0.532 0.595

Training –0.259 0.659 –0.036 –0.393 0.695

Govt. Policy 0.094 0.862 0.008 0.109 0.913

PMS 1.465 0.660 0.162 2.220 0.027*

Trade Union –1.281 0.927 –0.096 –1.382 0.168

Perceived Bank –0.251 0.378 –0.079 –0.662 0.508
Policy Dimensions

Note: a Dependent Variable: Overall Job Satisfaction; and Significant at 0.05 level.

with contingent rewards (r = 0.108; p > 0.05) and also with pay (r = 0.112; p > 0.05) which
were not held in good stead (Table 2) in the bank.

Similarly, trade union and communication were found to be negatively related (r = –0.136;
p > 0.05) to each other. Higher scores on trade union related to low communication, which
indicated people showing less communication with the organization when there is increased
proximity with the trade union and vice versa. Incidentally, trade union scored first rank among
the respondents under bank policy dimensions, suggesting that “the greater the job satisfaction,
the less favorable was the attitude towards the union”. The null hypothesis had been ‘retained’
as there was no significant relationship between a majority of the job satisfaction factors and
perceived bank policy dimensions among the employees of IOB.

Impact of Job Satisfaction on the Performance of IOB
The secondary data of business and financial parameters of IOB from 2008 to 2013 revealed
that the growth of CASA deposits (SB plus Current Account) came down from 29.4% as at the
end of March 2009 to 27.1% as at the end of March 2013. The overall growth in current
deposits (CA) was insignificant during this period. The disbursement trend in credit has shown
that there was near stagnancy in agriculture at 15.8% during this period, where it was 45% and
27% for industry and services sectors respectively as of March 2013.

The business per employee which was at 5.83 cr in 2008 rose to 14.17 cr as on March
2013 (Table 5). With alarming increase in credit growth, flow of credit to various sectors rose
from 2011 to 2013, but keeping the staff component at around 26,000 as constant, in real
terms, the workload of the employees increased manifold.

The net NPA ratio which was at 0.60% as of March 2008 rose to reach a level of 2.50% in
2013. It was due to higher slippages of loan accounts amounting to 5,601 cr, and it touched

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

Ta
b
le

5
: E

ff
ic

ie
n
c
y

A
n
a
ly

si
s

fo
r
In

d
ia

n
O

ve
rs

ea
s

B
a
n
k

3
1

.0
3

.2
0

1
3

2
.5

0
1

,4
1

6
.8

0
2

.2
0

1
4

.8
0

1
6

.3
1

1
7

.5
3

–5
.6

6
7

.2
2

0
.2

4
3

.3
5

1
1

.9
4

1
1

.8
5

3
1

.0
3

.2
0

1
2

1
.3

5
1

,1
7

6
.0

0
3

.8
4

2
5

.8
3

2
4

.1
6

2
2

.8
6

–2
.0

2
7

.0
3

0
.5

2
3

.7
4

1
2

.9
8

1
3

.3
2

3
1

.0
3

.2
0

1
1

1
.1

9
1

,0
0

5
.0

0
4

.1
6

4
1

.5
5

3
5

.4
4

3
1

.0
8

5
0

.7
3

5
.5

5
0

.7
1

3
.7

2
1

6
.6

4
1

4
.5

3
1

.0
3

.2
0

1
0

2
.5

2
7

1
2

.0
0

2
.6

3
5

.5
0

8
.4

6
1

0
.6

7
–4

6
.6

9
5

.8
0

0
.5

3
4

.1
5

1
8

.1
8

1
4

.7
8

3
1

.0
3

.2
0

0
9

1
.3

3
6

8
9

.5
0

5
.2

0
2

3
.9

8
2

0
.9

2
1

8
.7

3
1

0
.3

3
6

.4
2

1
.1

7
4

.3
6

1
4

.6
0

1
3

.2
0

3
1

.0
3

.2
0

0
8

0
.6

0
5

8
2

.7
0

4
.8

2
2

8
.3

5
2

4
.9

8
2

2
.6

7
2

4
.7

4
6

.2
0

1
.3

0
4

.0
7

1
4

.0
2

1
1

.9
3

C
re

d
it

Q
u
a
li

ty
(%

)

E
ff

ic
ie

n
c
y

(A
m

t.
i

n
L

a
k
h
)

G
ro

w
th

)
P

ro
fi

ta
b
il

it
y

(%
)

S
tr

en
gt

h
a

n
d

S
o
u
n
d
n
es

s
(%

)

Y
e
a
r

N
et

N
P
A

R
a
ti

o
B

u
si

n
e
ss

P
e
r

E
m

pl
oy

A
d
va

n
c
es

G
ro

w
th

B
u
si

n
e
ss

G
ro

w
th

D
e
p
o
si

t
G

ro
w

th
P

ro
fi

t
G

ro
w

th
C

o
st

o
f

Fu
n
d
s

(C
o
F
)

R
e
tu

rn
o
n

A
ss

e
ts

R
e
tu

rn
o
n

A
d
va

n
ce

s
A

d
ju

st
ed

to
C

o
F

W
a
ge

s
a
s

P
e
rc

e
n
t

to
T

o
ta

l
E

x
p
en

se
s

C
R

A
R

P
ro

fi
t

P
e
r

E
m

p
lo

ye
e

S
o

u
rc

e:
C

o
m

p
u

te
d

T
ab

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201660

the level of 8,914 cr as of March 2013, from the level of 1,616.90 cr in 2007, affecting the
profitability and image of the bank among the stakeholders as well as in the market. Business
growth and profitability indicators showed rapid increase during the year-ended March 2011,
and declining trend was witnessed in the later years, the notable being negative growth in profit
(–5.66%) as of March 2013.

The soundness indicators, namely, CRAR had shown a mixed trend during this period, and
it declined to 11.85% as of March 2013. Conversely, Cost of Funds (COF) had shown an
increasing trend.

Though the overall performance of the bank depends on various factors such as economy
slowdown, government policy guidelines, global meltdown, and customer service, employee’s
satisfaction level would also notably influence the performance of the bank as evidenced from
the reflections of performance data in the current study.

Further, certain secondary data forms a benchmark reading to confirm/ensure the relevance
of statistical study. The concept of research is to develop contextual knowledge (how this field
draws on and connect to others), the methods (the tools of enquiry), and the ability to tie it to
the big picture. Finally, ways were found to link the specific item of interest to larger issues, by
looking across subjects from diverse fields for an answer or combine ideas from different lessons
in the indented project.

In the present study also, based on a review of various literatures, it has been interpreted
that the level of job satisfaction may be one of the reasons influencing the performance factors
of the bank. This rationale was supported by the studies on Khandelwal Committee Report on
“HR Issues of Public Sector Banks”, 2010, Conference Papers presented in BANCON
Conferences – 2011-2013, RBI Deputy Governors’ speeches on HR Conferences on PSBs
from 2010-2015, etc. and reflections from corporate leaders on HR policy implications on the
performance of their industries progressively over the years as revealed from the review of
literature cited.

Incidentally, a majority of HR policy prescriptions for PSBs are based on these reports/
BANCON Conferences, by the Government of India who is the major shareholder and promoter
of these banks. Thus, the answer for one of the objectives of the study is that job satisfaction
level of employees does influence the performance factors in Indian Overseas Bank.

Conclusion
Based on the findings, the following conclusions are drawn:

• The research revealed that overall job satisfaction level of employees in IOB in terms
of traditional JS factors has been in an ‘ambivalent level’ and bank policy dimensions
were at an ‘average level’.

• The happier and positive side of the studies is that employees of IOB are satisfied
with human aspects in their banks which were due to satisfied co-worker relations,
supervision, and communications flow in the bank.

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

• The declining trend in growth of CASA deposits (SB plus Current Account) during
the study period has been a reflection of deficient customer service in the bank.

• The employees perceived fringe benefits, OPC as dissatisfactory factors, besides
pay, promotion and contingent rewards at an ambivalent level.

• Staff accountability was perceived to be a high distress factor affecting the employee
morale, work-life balance and decision making on the part of junior, middle and
senior management in the bank—a cause for concern to the top management of the
PSBs, RBI and GOI.

• PMS would predictably drive employee engagement to performance which leads to
satisfaction as perceived by the employees. The study revealed the emergence of
PMS as a crucial ‘motivating factor’ to address the major HR issues in promotion,
transfer, training, placement, skill mapping and leadership development.

• The research findings indicated that job satisfaction level does influence the
performance growth indicators in IOB.

• The study findings could be well replicated in other PSBs, as the prevailing HR
policies are more or similar in all the PSBs.

The research findings of the study “not only support the existing literature on job satisfaction
but also add to the deficit literature by exploring the influence and relationship of Bank Policy
Dimensions for the Job Satisfaction of employees in the Indian context in Public Sector Banks”.

The study findings also supported the model of job satisfaction umbrella which is an offshoot
of B2B International Ltd., “White Paper on Employee Satisfaction at Work” (2010). The
model stems from the theories of both Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, and Herzberg’s two factor
theory, with ‘Hygiene’ factors at the base of the pyramid and ‘satisfiers’ (motivators) at the top
(see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Job Satisfaction Pyramid

Satisfiers (Motivators)

To
p

M
an

ag
em

en
t Policy D

im
ensions

Hygiene Factors

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201662

The researcher declares that an organization successfully meets each of these engagement
factors, mediated by policy dimensions, and top management becomes more attractive to new
budding employees and becomes more engaging to its existing staff.

PSBs have been recognized to cause major impact on economy and social phenomenon of
growth and standard of living in the country. Hence, “banks should concentrate continuously
on employee satisfaction in order to stay profitable for the benefits of all the stakeholders” and
in the process, would be benefitted by employee retention, customer satisfaction and greater
employee positive contributions to the organizational effectiveness and performance.

Limitations of the Study

• The researcher strongly believes that the results generated from the study will be highly
generalizable to the whole population.

• An instrument was designed to include identified bank-specific factors in the current study
and the same was standardized through a careful review by a panel of experts.

• The regional bias may also have influence on answering the questionnaires on some factors.

• The individuals in the population may have chosen not to respond to the survey at all or
may not have responded to all of the questions, which is inherent in such type of all-India
surveys using questionnaires.

• The focus of the research was only on IOB (Public Sector Bank), where the researcher, as
an officer holding various positions up to the level of senior executive (1977 to 2010), has
had a good amount of learning exposure to HR dimensions and other related issues.H

References
1. Annamalai S and Vijayakumar T (2002), “Job Satisfaction Among Bank Employees”,

IBA Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 2, February, pp. 29-34, Mumbai.

2. Annual Reports of IOB for the Period from March 2007 to 2013.

3. Anuar Bin Hussin (2011), “The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Job
Performance Among Employees in Trade Winds Group of Companies”, Malaysia.

4. Bartlett J E, Kotrlik J W and Higgins C C (2001), “Organizational Research: Determining,
Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research”, Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 43-50.

5. Baskar S (2015), “Study on Job Satisfaction of Employees vis-a-vis Performance Factors
in Indian Overseas Bank” (A Public Sector Bank in India), Ph.D. Thesis, Periyar University,
September 3, 253 p, Salem, Tamil Nadu.

6. BCG, IBA and FICCI Research Reports on “Indian Banking 2020; Making the Decades
Promise Come True”, 2010.

7. Bhattacharayya Dipak Kumar (2007), Human Resource Research Methods, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

8. Blessing White Global Reports on “Employee Engagement” for the Year 2011 and 2012.

9. Chakrabarty K C (2012), “Need to Revolutionize Banks’ HR Management”, Text of Address
at the HR Conference of Public Sector Banks at Mumbai, June 1.

10. Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh (2013), “Private Banks won’t Help Financial Inclusion”,
Business Line, April 15th.

11. Compendium of Conference Papers on Indian Banking, BANCON- 2010-2013.

12. Deshmukh M (2004), “Human Resource Management: Need for Pragmatic Approach
Indian Banking-Managing Transformation”, Vol. 1, The ICFAI University Press, Hyderabad.

13. Goyal K A and Vijay Joshi (2012), “Challenges Faced by Indian Banking”, Industry
International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM).

14. Indian Overseas Bank Platinum Jubilee Book titled IOB @ 75.

15. Jagirdar (2011), “Performance of Public Sector Banks – An analysis”, Journal of Indian
Banker, December.

16. Joshi and Little (1996), “India’s Economic Reforms”, E-Book, pp. 1-31, Oxford.

17. Judge Timothy A and Bono Joyce E (2001), “Relationship of Core Self-Evaluations
Traits—Self-Esteem, Generalized Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control and Emotional Stability—
With Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis”.

18. Kavitha D (2009), “Job Satisfaction of Employees in Select Commercial Banks”, Ph.D.
Thesis, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, January.

19. Khandelwal Committee Reports on “HR Issues of Public Sector Banks”, 2010.

20. Krishnamoorthy T S (2012), “Take Public Sector Banks Out of the CVC Purview”, The
Hindu, November 25, Chennai.

21. Locke E S (1973), “Satisfiers and Dissatisfies Among White Collared and Blue Collared
Employees”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58, p. 67ff.

22. Mahalingam C (2013), “Employees Valued, Yet Ignored”, Business Line Daily,
January 1.

23. Majumdar Shyamal (2013), “Why HR Leaders Need to Think Like Economists”, Business
Standard, April 25, Deloitte Study.

24. Meena M L and Dangayach G S (2012), “Analysis of Employee Satisfaction in Banking
Sector”, International Journal of Humanities and Applied Sciences (IJHAS), Vol. 1,
No. 2, ISSN. 2277-4386.

25. Nayar Vineet (2013), “Employees First, Customers Second”, Times of India – Ascent,
May 22.

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201664

26. Payal Chanania (2012), “The Power of Social Recognition”, The Hindu, July 18.

27. Saiyadain Mirza S (2009), Human Resource Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company Ltd., New Delhi.

28. Selladurai (1991), “Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction and Job Performance Relationship”,
American Business Review, pp. 16-21.

29. Sharma J D (2012), “Pilot Study on Globalization, Technology and HR in Banks”, The
Management Account Journal, October, pp. 1204-1209.

30. Shilpi Singh (2013), “Face of HR Practices in Today’s Scenario in Indian Banks”,
International Journal of Application and Innovation in Engineering and Management,
Vol. 2, No. 1.

31. Shiva Kumar D (2013), “New Gen Employees”, Business Line, October 12.

32. SHRM Global Study Reports on “Job Satisfaction and Engagement Surveys”, from 2007
to 2012.

33. Sinha D and Sharma K C (1962), “Union Attitude and Job Satisfaction in Indian Workers”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 247-251.

34. Spector Paul E (1992), Summated Rating Scale Construction; Quantitative Application in
Social Sciences, An Abstract, Sage Publications.

35. Spector Paul E (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and
Consequences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

36. Spector Paul E (2007), “Instructions for Scoring the Job Satisfaction Survey”, pp. 56-60.

37. Viswanathan R (2002), “What Ails Public Sector Banks”, The Hindu, Chennai, January
25.

38. Wiggins J D and Moody A (1983), “Identifying Effective Counsellors Through Client
Supervisor Ratings and Personality-Environment Variables”, Vocational Guidance Quarterly,
Vol. 31, pp. 259-269.

39. Wood O R (1973), “An analysis of Faculty Motivation to Work in North Carolina
Community College System”, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

Appendix

Questionnaire

Please fill up the following with a tick mark in the box.

Name of the employee: (optional):

1. Gender:

Male Female

2. Age (in yrs):

20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60

3. Marital Status: Married Unmarried

4. Qualification: Not a Graduate Graduate Postgraduate

MBA/ MCA JAIIB CAIIB

5. Designation Mother Tongue:

6. Branch Manager: Yes No

7. Present Scale: Sub-Staff Clerical JMG I

MMG II MMG III SMG IV

AGM DGM GM

8. Native State:

Name of Present Workplace:

9. Workplace and Category:

Metropolitan

Administrative Office Branch Urban

Semi urban

Rural

Part I: Personal Information

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201666

Appendix (Cont.)

10. Experience:

Less than 5 years 6-10 years

11-15 years 16-20 years

21-25 years 26-30 years

Above 30 years

11. Workplace and Place of Residence:

Same Less than 100 KMs

More than 100 KMs

12. Salary per Month ( ):

Less than 20,000 20,000 to 30,000 30,000 to 40,000

40,000 to 50,000 Above 50,000

13. Family Status: Number of dependents

14. Spouse Employed:

Yes No

15. Living Status:

Living with Family Living Alone

16. Property Status:

Own a House/Flat Do not have own house anywhere

17. Other Assets:

Do not own any vehicle Own a 2-wheeler

Own a 4-wheeler Computer

18. Economic Condition of Your Family:

Surplus Adequate

Balanced Deficit

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

1. I feel I am being paid
a fair amount for the
work I do.

2. Chances for
promotion are
less on my job.

3. My supervisor
is quite competent
in doing his/her job.

4. I am not satisfied
with the benefits
I receive.

5. When I do a good
job, I receive the
recognition for it
that I should receive.

6. Many of our rules
and procedures
make doing a good
job difficult.

7. I like the people I
work with.

8. I sometimes find my
job meaningless.

9. Communications
seem good within
this organization.

10. Raises in the pay
are too few and
far between.

11. Those who perform
well on the job stand
fair chance of being
promoted.

12. My supervisor is

unfair to me.

13. The benefits we
receive are as good
as most other banks
offer.

S.
No.

Statement Strongly
Agree

Agree Slightly
Agree

Don’t
Know

Slightly
Disagree

Disagree Strongly
Disagree

Appendix (Cont.)

Part II: Job Satisfaction

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201668

Appendix (Cont.)

S.
No.

Statement Strongly
Agree

Agree Slightly
Agree

Don’t
Know

Slightly
Disagree

Disagree Strongly
Disagree

14. I feel that the work I
do is not appreciated.

15. Very rarely my efforts
to do a good job is
blocked by redtapism.

16. I have to work harder
and harder at my job
because people who
work with me are
not competent.

17. I like doing the things
I do at work.

18. The goals of this
organization are not
clear to me.

19. I feel unappreciated
by the organization
when I think about
what they pay me.

20. People get promotions
as fast as in other
banks.

21. My supervisor
shows too little
interest in the feelings
of subordinates.

22. The benefit package
we have is equitable.

23. There are few rewards
for those who work
here.

24. I have too much to do
at work.

25. I enjoy being with my
co-workers.

26. I often feel that I do
not know what is
going on in the
organization.

27. I feel a sense of pride
in doing my job.

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

Appendix (Cont.)

S.
No.

Statement Strongly
Agree

Agree Slightly
Agree

Don’t
Know

Slightly
Disagree

Disagree Strongly
Disagree

28. I feel satisfied
with my chances for
salary increases.

29. There are benefits we
do not have which
we should have.

30. I like my supervisor.

31. I have too much
paperwork.

32. I don’t feel my efforts
are rewarded the way
they should be.

33. I am satisfied with my
chances for promotion.

34. There is too much
commotion and
fighting at work.

35. My job is enjoyable.

36. Work assignments are
not fully explained.

Part III: Bank Policy Dimensions

1. Training is given to
employees who do
their job well.

2. Training given to
employees is not
adequate.

3. Training programs
offered are motivating.

4. Training given to
employees is
effective.

5. Feedback from
superiors and top
management.

6. PMS is linked to
rewards and
recognition.

7. Overall satisfaction

of PMS.

The IUP Journal of Bank Management, Vol. XV, No. 4, 201670

S.
No.

Statement Strongly
Agree

Agree Slightly
Agree

Don’t
Know

Slightly
Disagree

Disagree Strongly
Disagree

Appendix (Cont.)

8. Qualification is
recognized for
promotion.

9. Taking risk and
responsibility is
recognized in the
promotion policy.

10. The policy of
transfer and posting
is satisfactory.

11. The policy of transfer
and posting is
transparent.

12. Transfers take place
at fixed intervals.

13. Job performance is
recognized for
promotion.

14. Transfer of an
employee above 55
years of age is not
acceptable.

15. Transfer of an
employee to a far off/
other language area
is not acceptable.

16. All employees are
fully aware of Ghosh
Committee
recommendations
on transfer.

17. The activities of
Trade Union/Officers’
Association are
satisfactory and focused
on individual’s growth.

18. The functioning of
Trade Union/Officers’
Association parties
is a hindrance to the
growth of organization.

The Influence of HR Policy Dimensions on the Job Satisfaction
of Employees of Public Sector Banks: A Study on Indian Overseas Bank

Appendix (Cont.)

S.
No.

Statement Strongly
Agree

Agree Slightly
Agree

Don’t
know

Slightly
Disagree

Disagree Strongly
Disagree

19. I will be motivated to
improve my
productivity if trade
unions do not interfere
in my transfer and
promotion.

20. Trade Unions only
can get me transfer to
my preferred place.

21. Government policies
on promotion and
transfer hamper my
career growth.

22. Government policies
on promotion and
transfers shape an
employee into a full-
fledged banker.

23. Individual banks
should be allowed
to frame promotion/
transfer policies.

24. Interference/Influence
are curtailed when
there is a common
government policy
on promotion and
transfers.

25. Staff Accountability
Policy of the bank is
a demotivating factor
for employees.

26. Staff Accountability
Policy of the bank is
satisfactory.

27. Banks need not have
Staff Accountability
Policy as there is
comprehensive
‘Conduct and
Disciplinary Rules’.

Reference # 10J-2016-11-04-01

Copyright of IUP Journal of Bank Management is the property of IUP Publications and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 1/23

 BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction: Public Human Resource Management in the 21st Century

By:

In: Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

Chapter DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483395784.n1

Subject: Human Resource Management (general), Human Resources, Public Management

Introduction: Public Human Resource Management in

the 21st Century
Human resource management is an essential part of any organization, encompassing a wide

range of activities and functions, including sta�ng and recruiting, administration of bene�ts

and payroll, workforce planning, training and development, performance appraisal,

discipline, labor-management relations, and overall employee well-being. In fact, most

employer-employee relations in any organization involve some aspect of human resources.

This is true regardless of whether the organization is in the public sector (government), the

private sector (for-pro�t companies), or the nonpro�t sector. However, public human

resource management (PHRM)—human resource activities at the federal, state, and local

R. Paul Battaglio Jr.

Show page numbers

Summary

ContentsContents

Subject index

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management

https://dx.%3Cwbr%3Edoi.%3Cwbr%3Eorg/10.4135/9781483395784.n1

javascript: void(0);

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 2/23

levels of government—can be particularly challenging, as it often entails complex legal

guidelines that apply exclusively to public sector employees and public organizations;

guidelines that human resource managers must understand, abide by, and enforce. It is the

policies, regulations, and practices of PHRM that are the focus of this book.

Furthermore, this text takes a contemporary approach in its coverage of PHRM, recognizing

that over the last few decades, traditional PHRM has given way to quite a di�erent

landscape, one that looks increasingly like the private sector. Beginning in the late 1970s, a

series of reforms has aimed at improving the e�ciency of public services. The impetus for

these reforms has been a critical view of traditional public management practices, especially

of human resource practices. These have often been depicted as archaic and rule bound and

as epitomizing the convoluted practices typical of bureaucracy. Traditional PHRM espoused

democratic ideals and values, emphasized fair and equitable treatment of all public

employees, and protected public employees’ rights. However, traditional PHRM also

conformed rigidly to rules and regulations and was based on a hierarchical structure,

wherein a central personnel o�ce set policy and made decisions that then �ltered down to

divisions or subordinate o�ces. Thus, making hiring and termination decisions in the public

sector was widely viewed as unnecessarily time-consuming. A classic example of the

byzantine human resource process was the rules and procedures governing federal

government hiring outlined in the ten-thousand-plus page Federal Personnel Manual

(Mesch, Perry, and Wise 1995).

The reforms that have been implemented over the last few decades have been referred to

as “managerialist” in their focus or as “new public management.” The in�uence of private

sector practices aimed at improving productivity is a persistent theme throughout these

public sector reform e�orts. These reforms were meant to increase e�ciency and

productivity, and—in contrast to to traditional PHRM, which was more concerned with rules

and proper bureaucratic process—they were results driven. Reformers advocated adopting

greater �exibility in approaching tasks so as to be more e�cient, using more managerial

discretion, and embracing a “whatever gets the job done” philosophy. Such reformers have

become increasingly commonplace in the public sector.

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 3/23

Given the extent of reform e�orts over the last few decades, managing human resources in

the public sector has become increasingly di�cult to navigate. Changes to civil service laws

at the local, state, and federal levels of government have also created confusion among

those trying to implement human resource changes in their jurisdictions. Practitioners and

scholars are in need of some clari�cation regarding the current state of PHRM to identify just

what are best practices in public human resource management today.

The aim of this text is to provide readers with a foundational knowledge of how PHRM

operates and functions, while also highlighting the changes that have been proposed and

implemented in PHRM, the scholarly debate surrounding those changes, and the impact

they’ve had on practice. The hope is that by considering the di�culties of navigating the new

landscape of PHRM at federal, state, and local levels, scholars and practitioners will have a

better road map to guide their work and a toolkit for implementing it.

The chapters that follow will develop a concise analysis of the impact reforms have had on

routine practices, addressing changes to pay, bene�ts, employee rights and labor relations,

diversity planning and a�rmative action, and performance appraisal. To achieve this goal,

the text has distilled these changes down to �ve speci�c types of reform that have been

implemented in some form or another throughout the public sector: (1) decentralization, (2)

deregulation, (3) performance-based pay, (4) declassi�cation, and (5) privatization. We will

use these �ve common reform types, which will each be explained and discussed in turn in

the following section of this chapter, as a framework for appreciating the day-to-day impact

these changes have had on PHRM operations. Each following chapter will then utilize the

framework in light of the topic being reviewed; the �nal section of each chapter will o�er

insight into how these reforms have modi�ed practices in the speci�c human resource area

under discussion.

Each chapter will also provide information applicable to nonpro�t human resource practices

through a “Nonpro�ts in Focus” box. While not a speci�c focus of the text, nonpro�t

organizations are often considered in the broader PHRM discussion, and many readers will

appreciate the challenges that managers in these organizations face—challenges that have

intensi�ed since the economic collapse of 2008. Finally, the book will address the future of

PHRM education in graduate and undergraduate programs in light of recent reforms.

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i240.xml

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 4/23

Llorens and Battaglio’s (2010) assessment of PHRM education in master’s of public

a�airs/administration programs highlighted the shortcomings of graduate programs, which

do not always teach the skills necessary to manage in a reform environment. A continued

focus on more traditional human resource practices portends a future workforce ill-

equipped for taking on future public service challenges. This text takes on these challenges

head on.

Public HRM Reform: An Overview
The civil service system—the regulations, processes, and institutions that govern public

employment—is the foundation of public service. Chapter 2 provides a more detailed

account of the evolution of the American civil service system, but here we brie�y discuss two

landmark pieces of legislation that have been fundamental in shaping our civil service

system—the Pendleton Act of 1883 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Both of the acts

marked key points in history when civil service was rede�ned.

Historically, civil service systems based on professional merit were considered an essential

element for government performance (Kellough and Nigro 2006b; Selden 2006). This

practice was formally put into law with the Pendleton Act of 1883, which established a civil

service system that separated routine work from policy and administrative process and that

was based on merit, with open recruitment and competitive examinations (as opposed to

the patronage and nepotism that was pervasive at the time) and political neutrality. These

principles, which emulated the British tradition that had emerged in the mid-19th century,

were deemed essential for e�ective governance.

These principles held for roughly the next century. In recent decades, however, the

traditional association of civil service systems with e�ective governance has been challenged

as being too focused on rules and not focused enough on �nding the right person for the

job. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 marked the beginning of the current reform era of

PHRM, e�ecting a reorganization of the civil service system and increased managerial

�exibility. Civil service reformers insist that reforming PHRM is crucial for enhancing

government e�ciency (Elling and Thompson 2007; Kettl et al. 1996). Functions such as

planning, hiring, development, and discipline—typically centralized processes common to

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 5/23

most levels of government— have been challenged by the current wave of reforms; they are

now seen as civil service practices emblematic of bureaucratic in�exibility, ine�ciency, and

ine�ectiveness. Greater managerial latitude has been a�orded politicians and managers

alike over personnel decisions and functions. As mentioned above, �ve distinct reform

themes have emerged over the last three decades: decentralization, performance-based pay,

declassi�cation, deregulation, and privatization, and all have all challenged the traditional

core of PHRM. Table 1.1 provides a summary of the �ve reform themes. In the following

sections, we review the contemporary reform environment and its potential impact on the

traditional core functions of PHRM.

Click  here for EXCEL

Click  here for CSV

Click  here for PDF

Table 1.1 Public Human Resource Management Reform Types

Decentralization

Sta�ng and compensation decisions are increasingly being made by agency an

managers.

Termination, transfer, and demotion decisions have also devolved to lower leve

Employment-at-will environments are removing hierarchy-based rules and regu

sta�ng and compensation decisions.

Performance-
Based

Compensation is increasingly tied to performance.

Pay
There is greater appreciation for e�ective performance appraisal and job analys
annual merit increases is being used as a recruitment, retention, and motivation

Salary and bene�ts are increasingly o�ered in nontraditional manners, such as

paybanding.

Classic step-in-grade classi�cation and compensation is eschewed in favor of les

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 6/23

Decentralization

Traditionally, all sta�ng decisions for a jurisdiction were typically made by a central

personnel o�ce. This process could be time-consuming, as all decisions needed to be sent

up and down the organizational hierarchy for approval. Decentralization entails HR

functions being demoted to the lower agency (i.e., division or department). Turning over

personnel decisions to agency-level HR directors and political appointees is seen as making

government more responsive and e�ective. Decentralization strategies provide managers at

the agency level greater latitude over management issues; they can make decisions more

quickly and independently and do not need to wait for approval. This downward transfer of

responsibility increases managerial �exibility where it is needed most—at the front line.

Decentralization strategies, with their focus on improving innovation and accountability for

personnel decisions at lower agency levels, have been a hallmark of public management

reform in recent decades (Brudney, Hebert, and Wright 1999; Coggburn 2001; Kettl 2000;

Thompson 2001).

At the federal level, decentralization has involved the transition of many programs to lower

levels of government, replacing centralized, rule-bound systems with more agency-speci�c,

manager-centered systems. Decentralization of PHRM functions has been advocated by

reform proponents since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. This act abolished the Central

Personnel O�ce, which had previously overseen the civil service, in favor of a streamlined,

management-centered agency—the O�ce of Personnel Management (OPM)—under the

president’s purview. Since the creation of OPM, the federal decentralization trend has

continued, with greater authority over sta�ng decisions moving to individual federal

agencies while broader, higher-level planning issues remain with OPM.

In the 1990s, reform was spearheaded by the Clinton administration’s e�orts under the

National Performance Review (NPR). Spearheaded by then vice president Al Gore, the NPR

was a task force of intellectuals and practitioners of public management whose purpose was

to o�er recommendations for improving government performance. Initially, the agenda was

ambitious, recommending the delegation of recruitment, examinations, position

classi�cation, salary adjustments, performance management, due process procedure

modi�cations, and changes to the dismissal process to federal agencies (Gore 1993;

Thompson 2001). However, political opposition—led by members of Congress sympathetic

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 7/23

to civil service and labor—prevented any widespread change and resulted in more modest

changes, coming primarily from reductions in the OPM and the elimination of the Federal

Personnel Manual (Na� and Newman 2004).

During the George W. Bush presidency, initiatives at the federal level continued the push for

decentralization. Legislative exemption from Title V of the US Code— the federal legislation

governing civil service protections for federal employees— provided many agencies with the

ability to develop more �exible systems, which in some instances resemble private sector

practices (Woodard 2005, 113). For instance, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 signi�cantly

increased personnel �exibility within the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and

Defense (DOD), giving the secretaries of both agencies greater latitude in managing labor

relations and sta�ng (Brook and King 2008).

A number of state governments have also decentralized HRM decision making, with

variations in which functions (e.g., classi�cation, recruitment, selection, training, labor-

management relations) have been targeted and to what extent (Selden, Ingraham, and

Jacobson 2001). Voter sentiment for improved accountability in government has been a key

component in the demand for greater decentralization, although this force has been

tempered by the political environment and the degree of unionization in the respective

states (Hou et al. 2000).

Decentralization is not without its drawbacks. Hou et al. (2000) asserted that decentralization

at the state level has increased the support, planning, and supervision responsibilities of

state personnel o�ces, overburdening them. Recently, Hays and Sowa (2006) surveyed all

�fty states to determine to what extent the HR function was decentralizing. The authors

found that a majority of states reported some degree of decentralization, often coupled with

additional reform e�orts. Given the extent of decentralization reform, it seems prudent to

take stock of its rami�cations for practice. Each chapter of this book will review the merits of

decentralization in light of the topic under discussion.

Performance-Based Pay

Traditionally, PHRM pay structures were based on longevity or time-in-service, focusing on

career management and advancement instead of employee performance. High-performing

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 8/23

civil servants were not rewarded, and underperforming employees were not given incentives

to improve. Since the 1980s, the push for greater accountability has resulted in a greater

focus on performance management by rewarding superior performers with pay increases.

Performance-based pay structures have proven to be an attractive alternative to

traditional PHRM practices. Appealing to the logic of market-like mechanisms, proponents of

compensation reform suggest that performance-based pay systems have the potential to

increase employee performance and therefore organizational productivity. A number of

performance-based pay schemes have been implemented by linking individual, team, and/or

organizational performance measurement to �nancial incentives. Financial incentives can be

distributed as increases to base pay (i.e., merit pay), one-time bonuses, or a combination of

the two (Kellough and Nigro 2002, 146). According to Kellough (2006),

Presumably, such a policy would prevent resentment or alienation of the best

employees that could result when their superior contributions are not recognized,

and they receive the same pay as their less-productive colleagues. At the same time,

poorer performers are o�ered an incentive to improve their levels of productivity.

(184)

The federal government tested performance-based pay systems from 1981 to 1993

(Kellough and Nigro 2002). However, government-wide attempts during this period, which

relegated performance-based pay to individual agency-level decisions, proved unsuccessful.

An inability to distinguish poor performance from other levels of performance, inadequate

�nancial support, and insu�cient evidence to con�rm improved performance led to the

demise of federal performance-based pay systems (Perry, Eingbers, and Jun 2009; Perry,

Patrakis, and Miller 1989). More recently, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 granted

authority to DHS and DOD to implement performance-based pay systems. According to

Brook and King (2008), approximately 90,000 of the total 2.7 million federal civilian

employees were covered by performance-based pay systems by 2005 (10).

Despite its problematic history at the federal level, numerous jurisdictions at the state level

have continued to pursue performance-based pay systems (Hays 2004). Hays and Sowa

(2006) noted that more than half of the states they surveyed indicated either implementing

or planning some form of pay reform. GeorgiaGain, the performance-based pay reform in

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 9/23

the state of Georgia, has garnered signi�cant attention from both practitioners and

academics as a result of implementation problems (Kellough and Nigro 2002, 2006b). Like

pay reform initiatives elsewhere, the Georgia reforms were politically popular, but they failed

to achieve demonstrable evidence of success among state employees. Even though

implementing GeorgiaGain has proven problematic, the state has continued to rely on

performance-based pay for improving employee and agency productivity. In Georgia, as with

in many states, this is often the result of the government’s desire to demonstrate legitimacy

to the public—that is, while the evidence for success is sparse, the continued pursuit of

accountability policies in itself is attractive to a public that feels cynical about traditional

government e�ciency (Perry, Engbers, and Jun 2009). Thus, politicians are encouraged to

continue advocating performance-based policies as long as citizens are convinced that

government is broken.

Declassification

Civil service systems have typically employed hierarchical step-in-grade classi�cation

structures as a means for career management. Upon hire, public employees are typically

ranked at a particular grade (and pay) level based on their quali�cations, education, and

experience. Through time-in-service, employees are promoted to higher steps within each

grade, and eventually higher grade levels, receiving better pay as long as they perform

satisfactorily. Grades are classi�ed according to strict job descriptions in a career class

category, and each step, grade, and corresponding pay level is listed in a matrix often called

a “general schedule.”

However, the view of many reformers is that traditional classi�cation structures restrict

hiring authorities’ ability to attract applicants from outside the agency or the broader public

sector. Declassi�cation refers to the easing of the rules that de�ne pay grades in terms of

very speci�c job descriptions. Advocates argue that more open-ended job searches can

exploit a larger, more talented pool of quali�ed applicants whose résumés do not

necessarily match up exactly with the job description.

Broadbanding (or paybanding) classi�cation structures—the collapsing or combining of a

number of traditional grades into a single band—is often employed as a means for

declassi�cation. Managers then hire for jobs with broader descriptions and pay structures

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 10/23

and have greater �exibility over pay rates both at hire and during the employee’s tenure

(Hays 2004; Whalen and Guy 2008). Broadbanding emerged as a result of Title VI of the Civil

Service Reform Act of 1978, which authorized agencies to waive civil service rules in order to

develop innovative new approaches to traditional PHRM functions (Shafritz et al. 2001). It

has its roots in the demonstration projects—that is, limited rollouts of new initiatives on a

small scale before implementing them on a wider basis—commissioned under Title VI, and it

has since been used more widely in government. By compensating employees according to

their unique skills, broadbanding was intended to promote egalitarianism by removing the

distinctions accompanying traditional pay grades and by deemphasizing the centralized

personnel system’s insistence on titles and hierarchy.

Classi�cation reform during the Clinton administration was part of NPR’s mission to reinvent

OPM and the human resources function (Shafritz et al. 2001). While the Clinton

administration included language in civil service reform legislation that authorized agencies

to pursue broadbanding, labor unions resisted these proposals, viewing declassi�cation

e�orts as encroaching on union authority. As a result, the federal government continued to

rely on authorization for such measures through Title VI (201). However, civil service reform

legislation by the Bush administration post–September 11 included provisions for replacing

the general schedule with pay-banding systems for DHS and DOD (Thompson 2007). As

suggested earlier, these e�orts focus on enhancing manager discretion over compensation

and employee performance, thereby moving away from central personnel authorization.

At the state level, there is a general trend toward fewer job classi�cations (Hays and Sowa

2006; Whalen and Guy 2008). In 2008, Whalen and Guy surveyed all �fty states in an e�ort to

assess the extent of broadbanding. The authors found that civil service systems

implemented broadbanding to reduce job classi�cations as well as promote pay for

performance. While demonstrable evidence of the e�ectiveness of broadbanding is lacking,

Whalen and Guy’s work suggests that it is still part of the broader PHRM reform movement

in the states. Among those states utilizing broad-banding, twelve implemented government-

wide broadbanding, and four employed such measures on a limited scale (Whalen and Guy

2008, 1). Additionally, the authors found that eighteen states considered broadbanding but

opted against it.

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 11/23

Deregulation

Over the last few decades, there has been a general trend in eliminating personnel rules and

regulations—deregulation—in an e�ort to expedite PHRM decisions. Rules akin to the ten-

thousand-page personnel manual regulating federal government sta�ng exist in

jurisdictions throughout the country. Traditionally, civil service systems have a�orded public

employees the right to a hearing (the right to due process of law) as part of the grievance

process. In the spirit of managerial �exibility, reformers have supported severe limitations

to, or outright elimination of, employee procedural due process rights to promote greater

e�ciency and e�ectiveness in public management (Facer 1998). The elimination of the

grievance process is seen as a critical component of streamlining and expediting the

termination of poor-performing employees. The trend toward eliminating such rights

altogether has led to what some have called “radical” civil service reform (Condrey and

Battaglio 2007). These “radical” personnel systems operate under an employment-at-will

(EAW) environment in which employees may be dismissed summarily, for any reason that

does not violate employment law (Muhl 2001). Employees within EAW systems have no

expectation of continued employment, as has traditionally been the case under the

protections provided through civil service systems (Gertz 2007; Kellough and Nigro 2006b;

Lindquist and Condrey 2006). Thus, many public employees now have no guarantee of

procedural due process before discipline or removal (Kuykendall and Facer 2002).

EAW is seen as a means for increasing managerial e�ciency because it removes what some

view as the cumbersome grievance and appeals processes under traditional civil service

systems. Instead of following guidelines that might lead to a lengthy dismissal process—a

process that reform proponents suggest is a waste of taxpayer dollars—managers under

EAW need provide little or no notice before terminating an employee they perceive as

performing poorly.

During the last decade, e�orts at the federal level have sought to curb traditional civil service

system practices, especially through legislation promoted by the George W. Bush

administration in the wake of September 11 (Kellough and Nigro 2005). Federal e�orts have

generally emanated from legislation permitting exemption from Title V, OPM demonstration

projects, and legislative approval of performance-based polices (Woodard 2005, 110). At the

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 12/23

state level, e�orts to curb employee rights have occurred in Georgia, Florida, and, more

recently, Colorado and Arizona (Hays and Sowa 2006; see also Bowman and West 2007;

Condrey and Maranto 2001; Kellough and Nigro 2006a). EAW reforms in Georgia and Florida

have been the most visible (Battaglio and Condrey 2006; Bowman and West 2006; Condrey

and Battaglio 2007). Georgia has led the “radical” reform trend toward EAW by phasing out

its merit system for all “unclassi�ed” positions (i.e., those not granted protection by the State

Civil Service Board) beginning in 1996. Approximately 80 percent of Georgia’s state

employees are now employed at will (Condrey 2002; Condrey and Battaglio 2007; Facer

1998). Florida followed in 2001 with Governor Jeb Bush’s Service First initiative, which placed

senior state government managers in at-will status (approximately 13 percent of total

employees; Condrey and Battaglio 2007, 427). As will be detailed in later chapters, some

research suggests that the increased use of EAW policies has had a negative e�ect on

employee motivation and performance.

Privatization

A key component of public management reform, privatization is intended to improve

accountability and quality of service (Kettl 2000; Savas 2000). According to Savas

(2000)privatization entails increased reliance on private sector and nongovernmental (i.e.,

nonpro�t) institutions—rather than government—for the delivery and production of public

sector needs. Indeed, governments at all levels have increasingly looked to the private sector

for the delivery of many HRM functions, such as payroll and bene�ts administration

(Battaglio and Condrey 2006; Fernandez, Rainey, and Lowman 2006; Shafritz, Russell, and

Borick 2007). Proponents of privatization insist that the ine�ciency of rule-bound PHRM

systems presents no alternative but to encourage the increased use of contractors who can

hire new personnel quickly and dismiss poor performers (Maranto 2001, 75).

The rationale for opting out of in-house provision of HRM services mirrors more general

reasons pro�ered for privatization within public management. HR privatization may allow

public agencies to take advantage of larger �rms’ economies of scale or the quality

advantage inherent in specializing in HRM (Fernandez, Rainey, and Lowman 2006, 220).

Moreover, by unburdening current HR employees from more mundane tasks, privatization

has the potential to provide greater �exibility to pursue core functions such as strategic

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 13/23

planning (Fernandez, Rainey, and Lowman 2006, 220; Rainey 2005). The rationales for

privatization may depend on the degree of di�culty associated with the tasks outsourced

(Coggburn 2007, 317; Rainey 2005). PHRM services associated with more mundane tasks,

such as payroll, are often outsourced as a way of saving money and freeing up personnel to

focus on more strategic functions (Coggburn 2007, 317; Kellough and Nigro 2006a, 320;

Rainey 2005, 706). Looking to the private sector to provide functions such as workforce

planning and performance management, on the other hand, may be oriented not so much

toward saving money as toward tapping expertise not readily available in the public sector

(Coggburn 2007, 317; Rainey 2005, 706). This is especially true when functions are

outsourced to consulting companies (e.g., Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, The Segal

Company), which have entire divisions dedicated to workforce planning.

While the push for private sector involvement in the delivery of public services has received

considerable attention in recent decades, the demonstrable evidence regarding public HRM

privatization (or outsourcing) is scant. Although the public sector has experimented with

outsourcing HRM functions such as payroll and bene�ts administration, consulting, wage

and salary surveys, job analysis, and job evaluation, little is known about the perceived

e�ciency gains from such activities (Coggburn 2007, 316). More recently, the George W.

Bush administration sought to rely more heavily on the private sector through privatization

programs such as the Competitive Sourcing Initiative (CSI), which encouraged government

agencies to consider outsourcing to private contractors. In fact, in 2004 the Bush

administration outsourced the management of the federal government’s workforce

recruitment system, USAJOBS, to a private �rm (Llorens and Kellough 2007; Shafritz, Russell,

and Borick 2007, 423).

Governments have sought to outsource some, if not all, of the HR function as a means to tap

private sector know-how and quality. For states, outsourced activities range from speci�c

functions to agency HRM services to HR functions for the entire state. Indeed, state HR

privatization activities have been much more pervasive than those at the federal level. For

example, the �rm Convergys, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, was awarded lucrative contracts to

provide HR functions to the states of Florida and Texas (see Battaglio and Condrey 2006;

Coggburn 2007; Condrey and Battaglio 2007). In the case of Florida, Convergys was awarded

a $350 million, nine-year contract to perform transaction and process functions related to

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 14/23

bene�ts, payroll, and sta�ng (Battaglio and Condrey 2006, 122–25). In Texas, Convergys was

awarded an $85 million, �ve-year contract with the state’s Health and Human Service

Commission to provide many HR-related functions, such as performance management,

recruitment and selection, bene�ts, payroll, and compensation and classi�cation

administration (Coggburn 2007, 319). Coggburn (2007) suggested that these e�orts in Texas

and Florida have motivated private sector interest in soliciting government business and

public sector interest in outsourcing state functions. In both instances, however, the

expenses associated with misuse of public funds, cost overruns, and monitoring proved

detrimental to overall e�ciency. Given the trend toward outsourcing to the private sector,

there is a critical need for managers in the public sector who can e�ectively coordinate

contractual relationships.

Implications for Public HRM
Each of these reforms has to some extent dramatically altered the traditional core functions

of PHRM related to merit and equity (Thompson 2001), and they suggest the need for a

signi�cant reassessment of PHRM education. For example, as governments decentralize HR,

moving it out of central personnel o�ces, HR professionals at the agency level are now

burdened with more responsibilities. Without the expertise of central personnel sta�, HR

professionals need extensive training to cope with these new responsibilities. Moreover,

these tasks may be particularly cumbersome for HR professionals in smaller agencies who

lack the greater resources of larger organizations (Coggburn 2001; Hou et al. 2000). With

performance-based pay systems, HR policy makers face di�culties in creating a government-

wide standard given agency di�erences (Hays and Sowa 2006; Kellough and Nigro 2002). HR

professionals need better training in designing and implementing an e�cient performance

appraisal system that accurately rewards the behaviors that contribute to success in the

absence of clear standards. Criticism related to broadbanding often cites the potential for

decentralized pay decisions to lead to increased costs, legal liability, problems with pay

comparability, and a disconnection with the labor market (Hays and Sowa 2006; Shafritz et

al. 2001; see also Whalen and Guy 2008). Thus, HR professionals need adequate training in

competitive compensation practices, salary negotiations, performance appraisal, budgeting,

and labor market analysis.

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i173.xml

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 15/23

The push to further diminish public sector job security through EAW has the potential to

exacerbate recruitment and retention problems. With job security no longer a viable

incentive for public sector employment, HR professionals need to be skilled in novel

methods for marketing to prospective employees, as well as motivating and retaining

employees. For example, federal agencies have begun to use student loan repayment

incentives to recruit younger employees who carry ever-increasing levels of educational debt

(US O�ce of Personnel Management 2008). Guidelines for the student loan repayment

program state that agencies may o�er up to $10,000 in loan repayments per calendar year

but are not to exceed $60,000 in total payments per employee. However, deciding the extent

of payments to be o�ered and whether or not to pair payments with service requirements

necessitates the use of skill sets not commonly covered in the traditional PHRM curriculum.

Also, given the limited or outright removal of due process rights, HR professionals will also

need to be aware of the legal environment of EAW systems (Kuykendall and Facer 2002;

Lindquist and Condrey 2006). Last, privatization of HR functions requires more extensive

knowledge of cost-bene�t analysis and contract management, and HR professionals charged

with contract management need tools to ensure accountability through monitoring, legal

restrictions, competition, cost accounting, and overall evaluation (Siegel 1999, 2000).

Organization of the Book
The book is divided into three parts: Foundations, Functions, and The Future. In Part I of the

text—Foundations—the material reviews the underpinnings of modern PHRM, beginning

with this chapter’s review of the trends in public service reform: decentralization,

performance-based pay, declassi�cation, deregulation, and privatization. In Chapter 2,

“Evolution of the Public Service in the United States,” the focus is the development on the

modern civil service system. The chapter argues that public service as we know it in America

would not exist without the foundation of civil service law and employee protections,

buttressed by merit-based employment, neutral competence, an open and competitive

examination process, equal pay, and protection against redress for disclosing malfeasance in

government. Chapter 3, “Employment Law in the Public Sector,” reviews current and

previous precedents in statutory law and case law regulating public employment, as well as

the legal implications of recent reforms at the federal and state levels. Public HR managers

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i240.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i340.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i577.xml

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 16/23

will need to be knowledgeable in this area if they hope to avoid signi�cant costs associated

with settling disputes in court. The �nal chapter in Foundations, “Equal Employment

Opportunity, A�rmative Action, and Diversity Planning,” details how PHRM functions have

incorporated policies to promote and enforce equal employment opportunity (EEO),

a�rmative action, and diversity management. For many public employers, legal uncertainty

and �scal constraints require practical solutions for implementing diversity policies. The

chapter reviews the research in this area and legal precedents for public employers, o�ering

pragmatic advice for coping with the legal environment of diversity.

Part II—Functions—addresses routine activities of PHRM in light of the current era of reform.

Chapter 5, “Recruitment and Selection,” highlights the di�culties of recruiting and

maintaining quali�ed personnel an in increasingly reform-oriented environment. Recruiting

the future public service will be a challenge for HR directors in a declassi�ed and deregulated

climate. In Chapter 6, “Pay and Bene�ts,” e�orts at reforming public sector compensation

have sought to institutionalize performance-based pay and broadbanding, despite evidence

that these approaches may not be the most e�ective (Perry, Engbers, and Jun 2009). The

chapter reviews these e�orts along with the foundation of modern compensation in the

public sector—job analysis. Chapter 7, “Performance Appraisal,” examines PHRM reforms

that have retooled the performance appraisal process. The chapter o�ers insight into how

HR managers might use such approaches in their workplace. “Managing Motivation in the

Public Service,” Chapter 8, looks at e�orts to get public employees to be more performance

oriented. Performance-based pay and employment-at-will are frequently employed to

improve motivation in the public service. However, recent research suggests that these tools

are not as motivationally oriented as previously proposed. Chapter 9, “Labor Relations in the

Public Sector,” reviews the challenges public sector unions and collective bargaining face at

the state and local levels in the contemporary environment of PHRM reform.

In the third and �nal section of the text—The Future—the chapters focus on those issues

that will in�uence future PHRM practices. Chapter 10, “Privatizing Human Resource

Functions in the Public Sector,” considers the increased reliance on both private and

nonpro�t �rms to provide HR functions in a bid for greater e�ciency. To be sure,

outsourcing has proven to be productive in many instances. However, in a number of

instances, public/private sector arrangements have not proven fruitful, resulting in both

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i581.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i688.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i814.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i908.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i1010.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i1137.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i1242.xml

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 17/23

waste and legal complications. The chapter means to improve upon the best of what

government and business have to o�er the public service. In Chapter 11, “Human Resource

Information Systems,” the impact of information technology on PHRM is considered,

especially in light of the trend toward knowledge management as a key component of

successfully navigating the information age. HRIS has proven to be an important tool for

public HR managers who are tasked with human capital management and workforce

planning. Thus, HRIS has the potential to serve as a vital tool in public sector e�orts to think

strategically—the topic of Chapter 12, “Strategic Public Human Resource Management.”

While the literature on strategic human resource management (SHRM) is broad and

expansive, this chapter seeks to provide an introductory overview of the potential

contribution of a human capital management approach to the public sector. The chapter

considers the merits of strategic planning, improving internal processes and employee

capacity, workforce planning, and accountability—features now considered essential to the

future of PHRM. Chapter 13, “Public Human Resource Management Education,” considers

the reevaluation of those subject areas and competencies that have long been considered

the core of PHRM education. The chapter explores new HRM competencies and the extent to

which contemporary academic and practitioner-based educational programs re�ect the

current landscape of public sector HR management. Finally, Chapter 14, “Conclusion:

Challenges and Opportunities,” assesses the potential challenges and opportunities public

HR managers will face in the 21st century, tying together the analysis of PHRM reforms in

each chapter into an overall assessment.

Often included in the broader discussion of public sector HRM are personnel activities in

nonpro�t organizations. The recurring “Nonpro�ts in Focus” boxes will provide insights into

how the issues raised in each chapter a�ect nonpro�ts. While nonpro�ts are frequently

included in the public a�airs curriculum, they are also governed by a distinct set of legal

guidelines. This is indeed the case for human resources in the nonpro�t sector, where

personnel rules and guidelines do not always mirror those of federal, state, and local PHRM.

References
Battaglio R. Paul Jr., and Condrey Stephen E.. 2006. “Civil Service Reform: Examining State
and Local Cases.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 26: 118–38.

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i1327.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i1436.xml

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i1549.xml

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 18/23

Bowman James S., and West Jonathan P.. 2006. “Ending Civil Service Protections in Florida
Government: Experiences in State Agencies.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 26:
139–57.

Bowman, James S., and West Jonathan P. eds. 2007. American Public Service: Radical Reform
and the Merit System. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

Brook Douglas A., and King Cynthia L.. 2008. “Federal Personnel Management Reform: From
Civil Service Reform Act to National Security Reforms.” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 28: 205–21.

Brudney Je�rey L., Hebert F. Ted, and Wright Deil S.. 1999. “Reinventing Government in the
American States: Measuring and Explaining Administrative Reform.” Public Administration
Review 59: 19–30.

Coggburn Jerrell D. 2001. “Is Deregulation the Answer for Public Personnel Management?
Revisiting a Familiar Question: Introduction.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 20:
5–8.

Coggburn Jerrell D. 2007. “Outsourcing Human Resources: The Case of Texas Health and
Human Services Commission.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 27: 315–35.

Condrey Stephen E. 2002. “Reinventing State Civil Service Systems: The Georgia Experience.”
Review of Public Personnel Administration 22: 114–24.

Condrey Stephen E., and Battaglio R. Paul Jr. 2007. “A Return to Spoils? Revisiting Radical Civil
Service Reform in the United States.” Public Administration Review 67: 424–36.

Condrey, Stephen E., and Maranto Robert eds. 2001. Radical Reform of the Civil Service.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Elling Richard C., and Thompson T. Lyke. 2007. “Dissin’ the Deadwood or Coddling the
Incompetents? Patterns and Issues in Employee Discipline and Dismissal in the States.” In
American Public Service: Radical Reform and the Merit System, edited by Bowman James S.,
and West Jonathan P. 195–217. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.

Facer Rex L. II 1998. “Reinventing Public Administration: Reform in the Georgia Civil Service.”
Public Administration Quarterly 22: 58–72.

Fernandez Sergio, Rainey Hal G., and Lowman Carol E.. 2006. “Privatization and Its
Implications for Human Resources Management.” In Public Personnel Management: Current
Concerns, Future Challenges, 4th ed., edited by Riccucci Norma M. 204–24. New York:
Longman.

Gertz Sally C. 2007. “At-Will Employment: Origins, Applications, Exceptions, and Expansions in
Public Service.” In American Public Service: Radical Reform and the Merit System, edited by
Bowman James S., and West Jonathan P. 47–74. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 19/23

Gore, Al. 1993. Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less: The Report of the
National Performance Review. New York: Plume.

Hays Steven W. 2004. “Trends and Best Practices in State and Local Human Resource
Management: Lessons to Be Learned?” Review of Public Personnel Administration 24: 256–
75.

Hays Steven W., and Sowa Jessica E.. 2006. “A Broader Look at the ‘Accountability’ Movement:
Some Grim Realities.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 26: 102–17.

Hou Yilin, Ingraham Patricia, Bretschneider Stuart, and Selden Sally Coleman. 2000.
“Decentralization of Human Resource Management: Driving Forces and Implications.” Review
of Public Personnel Administration 20: 9–22.

Kellough J. Edward. 2006. “Employee Performance Appraisal in the Public Sector: Uses and
Limitations.” In Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 4th ed.,
edited by Riccucci Norma M. 177–89. New York: Longman.

Kellough J. Edward, and Nigro Lloyd G.. 2002. “Pay for Performance in Georgia State
Government: Employee Perspectives on GeorgiaGain after 5 Years.” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 22: 146–66.

Kellough J. Edward, and Nigro Lloyd G.. 2005. “Radical Civil Service Reform: Ideology, Politics,
and Policy.” In Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government, 2nd ed., edited
by Condrey Stephen E. 58–75. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kellough, J. Edward, and Nigro Lloyd G. eds. 2006a. Civil Service Reform in the States:
Personnel Policy and Politics at the Subnational Level. Albany: SUNY Press.

Kellough J. Edward, and Nigro Lloyd G.. 2006b. “Dramatic Reform in the Public Service: At-Will
Employment and the Creation of a New Public Workforce.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 16: 447–66.

Kettl Donald F. 2000. The Global Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of
Governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Kettl Donald F., Ingraham Patricia W., Sanders Ronald P., and Horner Constance. 1996. Civil
Service Reform: Building a Government That Works. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institute.

Kuykendall Christine L., and Facer Rex L. II 2002. “Public Employment in Georgia Agencies:
The Elimination of the Merit System.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 22: 133–45.

Lindquist Stefanie A., and Condrey Stephen E.. 2006. “Public Employment Reforms and
Constitutional Due Process.” In Civil Service Reform in the States: Personnel Policy and
Politics at the Subnational Level, edited by Kellough J. Edward, and Nigro Lloyd G. 95–114.
Albany: SUNY Press.

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page

2/18/22, 11:10 AM CQ Press – Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century

https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/public-human-resource-management/i177.xml 20/23

Llorens Jared J., and Battaglio R. Paul Jr. 2010. “Human Resources Management in a Changing
World: Reassessing Public Human Resources Management Education.” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 30: 112–32.

Llorens Jared J., and Kellough J. Edward. 2007. “A Revolution in Public Personnel
Administration: The Growth of Web-Based Recruitment and Selection Processes in the
Federal Service.” Public Personnel Management 36: 207–21.

Maranto Robert. 2001. “Thinking the Unthinkable in Public Administration: A Case for Spoils
in the Federal Bureaucracy.” In Radical Reform of the Civil Service, edited by Condrey
Stephen E., and Maranto Robert 69–86. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Mesch Debra J., Perry James L., and Wise Lois Recascino. 1995. “Bureaucratic and Strategic
Human Resource Management: An Empirical Comparison in the Federal Government.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5: 385–402.

Muhl Charles J. 2001. “The Employment-at-Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions.” Monthly
Labor Review 124: 3–11.

Na� Katherine C., and Newman Meredith A.. 2004. “Symposium: Federal Civil Service Reform;
Another Legacy of 9/11?” Review of Public Personnel Administration 24: 191–201.

Perry James L., Engbers Trent A., and Jun So Yun. 2009. “Back to the Future? Performance-
Related Pay, Empirical Research, and the Perils of Persistence.” Public Administration Review
69: 39–51.

Perry James L., Petrakis Beth Ann, and Miller Theodore K.. 1989. “Federal Merit Pay, Round II:
An Analysis of the Performance Management and Recognition System.” Public
Administration Review 49: 29–37.

Rainey Glen W. 2005. “Human Resources Consultants and Outsourcing: Focusing on Local
Government.” In Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government, 2nd ed.,
edited by Condrey Stephen E. 701–34. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Savas, E. S. 2000. Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships. New York: Chatham House.

Selden Sally Coleman. 2006. “The Impact of Discipline on the Use and Rapidity of Dismissal in
State Governments.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 26: 335–55.

Selden Sally Coleman, Ingraham Patricia W., and Jacobson Willow. 2001. “Human Resource
Practices in State Government: Findings from a National Survey.” Public Administration
Review, 61: 598–607.

Shafritz Jay M., Rosenbloom David H., Riccucci Norma A., Na� Katherine C., and Hyde Al C..
2001. Personnel Management in Government: Politics and Process. New York: Marcel
Dekker.

CQ Press 


Menu


Signed in


Search

Tools On this page