Governmental Reinvention in Human Resource Management - Essay Example

GOVERNMENTAL REINVENTION AND PRIVATIZATION Governmental Reinvention in Human Resource Management Abstract Reinventing government (REGO) is an approach to theory of public management that may be the most significant and influential in the recent decades. It claims that the employment principles of traditional government, which implied merit and fitness, can coexist with bigger employee independence and enlarged managerial discretion. Reinvention also asserts that decentralization and flexibility can be combined with a system that requested high levels of equity and accountability. Numerous recommendations for government improvement are directed toward management of human resources. This paper introduces reinventing government in public management area. It begins with a description of the publications that most often have been associated with the reinvention movement. The primary purpose of the paper, however, is to review reinvention's assumptions, themes, and purposes. It concludes by presenting critical views of REGO's approach and some assumptions toward human resource reforming. Governmental Reinvention in Human Resource Management Table of Contents Introduction Reinventing Government Reports Public Policy and HRM Problems Purpose of Reinvention Reform Recommendations Criticism of Reinvention The Reform Models Conclusion References Introduction For decades the civil service, also known as the merit system, has been accused of being too narrowly focused on protecting government employees from political or personal favoritism. It also has been criticized for not adequately supporting managerial objectives and organizational missions. These kinds of complaints constitute the motivating force behind reinventing government (REGO), which one notable scholar called the most energetic and robust reform movement in the past half-century (Light, 1994, 63). Human resources constitute the most influential of all factors that bear on the quality of an organization's products and services. If employees are not well trained, focused, and committed, then high quality organizational performance is not likely to materialize. This is the basic reasoning that underpins organizational concern for how human resources are managed. It is a logic that applies to both the private and public sectors. REGO claims that the traditional public sector employment principles of fitness and merit can coexist with increased managerial discretion and greater employee independence. It also contends that flexibility and innovation can be combined with a system that demands high levels of accountability and equity. (Thompson and Riccucci, 1998) The reinvention critique extends to most areas of government, in addition to targeting many of its recommendations at the civil service. Reinventing Government Reports Management reform is not new to the federal government. At least one major reform initiative has been undertaken every decade of the twentieth century. As Shafritz et al. (2001) report, they "all began with an assumption that government . . . was broken, fragmented, badly organized, and incapable of performing at a level acceptable to the public" (p. 61). The 1980s and 1990s were times during which an extraordinary amount of government reform activity took place (Peters, 1996, p. vii). One scholar of public sector change says the period reflected the greatest pressure ever placed on the U.S. government to innovate (Light 1994, p. 63). The reform movement is not just a United States phenomenon. The National Academy of Public Administration claims that "government performance and accountability is an issue throughout the world" (1995, p. 61). In announcing the creation of the National Performance Review, President Clinton stated that one of its principal goals was "to change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency and entitlement toward initiative and empowerment" (National Performance Review, 1993, p. 1). This may be as succinct a summary of reinvention as can be found. It contains the theme of change, acknowledges the unsatisfactory condition of the status quo, projects a new and compelling vision, and identifies the essential role of organizational culture in making things different. Reinvention's principal theme contends that too much managerial discretion is circumscribed by unnecessary remnants of the overly bureaucratic form of organization. Osborne and Gaebler's (1992) critique champions initiative and freedom of action, which are subsumed under their principal managerial value, entrepreneurialism. Even though Reinventing Government does not set the private sector against or above government, it nevertheless seems to be the source of most of reinvention's themes. Osborne and Plastrik (1997) further develop the idea of reinvention by setting out five fundamental prescriptions for transforming bureaucratic organizations into being more efficient, effective and adaptable. The authors argue that bureaucratic paradigms are running into practical problems that seem anomalous because they do not fit with orthodox prescriptions. They assert that contemporary public organizations are faced with challenges that cannot be met with the traditional approaches to management. To break through the "paradigm blindness" (Osborne and Plastrik, 1997, p. 266) a variety of new strategies must be introduced to government management, including clear purpose, increased accountability, customer service, entrepreneurialism, and decentralization. Public Policy and HRM Problems The formation and implementation of public policies constitute a vast volume in the study of government and public administration. Policy problems that rise to the higher issue levels are accompanied by greater perils and doubts, and involve higher levels of government involvement. Strategic policies, which are brought to bear on these more complex policy issues, cannot be reversed or take a long time to change. Operational policies, on the other hand, deal with more discreet issues, which may involve only one level of government; their policy direction and effect usually are changeable. Concerns with personnel practices--such as recruitment, leave-sharing, or testing--are minor issues and seldom would be viewed as strategically important. On the other hand, problems relating to HRM's organizational mission would be considered along with those of finance and procurement. Reinvention recommendations for improving human resources management generally are not of a kind that will engender strategic solutions. They have thus far remained at the operational level. This largely is attributable to the reason given above, which is that reinvention deals with procedural issues. According to the National Performance Review (NPR), a Clinton Administration reform initiative which incorporated many REGO themes, "Our job was to improve performance in areas where policymakers had already decided government should play a role" (1993, p. ii). Reinvention's aim is not to restructure government; rather its efforts are directed at removing barriers to incentive and innovation. Unlike most of its predecessors in a long line of reform proposals, reinvention attempts to improve public organizations from the inside out. The role of HRM traditionally has been oriented toward process. It entails contributions such as deciding on selection standards, recruiting, choosing training methods, and determining pay rates. If these functions are performed efficiently and skillfully, they contribute to improved organizational performance. The generic problem confronting HRM transcends sectors. Human resources management generally is seen as being too narrowly focused on taking care of personnel related processes and not addressing larger organizational needs. As such, it often is held in rather low regard by organizational leadership. According to Thompson and Riccucci, it "possess much in common and suggest four themes that comprise the core or reinvention thinking" (1998, p. 235). The four basic ideas are: (1) deregulation will remove many internal prescriptions that limit managerial discretion; (2) performance measures will help managers to be more accountable for results; (3) decentralization will remove hierarchical structures and controls that preclude empowering employees; and (4) customer-oriented standards and market-like mechanisms will enhance customer service (1998, 237-238). Various distinctions can also be found among the reinvention reports, but on balance there are more similarities than differences. If a common theme were to be singled out, it would entrepreneurialism. Purpose of Reinvention Reinvented government is entrepreneurial government. Several observers agree this is the reigning idea behind reinvention (Moe 1994, p. 112; Shafritz et al. 2001, p. 61). Entrepreneurialism is a market oriented term, even though the energy, creativity, and problem solving it connotes are valued in both the private and public sectors. The concepts denoted by reinvention and entrepreneurialism are tightly linked, but they are not synonymous. The former precedes and is a necessary condition for the latter. Specifically, traditional approaches to public administration must be reinvented in order for governments to become entrepreneurial. As the deputy project director for the NPR writes, the "basic premises of orthodox public administration" reflect a fading paradigm, which is characterized by "hierarchical control, specialization, efficiency, reduced duplication, and clearly defined rules and procedures" (Kamensky, 1996, p. 250). As for the evolving paradigm, Osborne and Gaebler write: "We use the phrase entrepreneurial government to describe the new model we see emerging across America" (1992, p. xix). Reinvention is about replacing bureaucratic systems with entrepreneurial systems. It is about creating public organizations and systems that habitually innovate, that continually improve their quality, without having to be pushed from outside. It is creating a public sector that has a built-in desire to improve (Osborne and Plastrik, 1997, p. 14). The NPR states that entrepreneurial governments "empower those who work on the front lines to make more of their own decisions and solve more of their own problems" (1993, p. 7). And the Winter Commission, which does not use the word entrepreneurial, vigorously supports decentralization, which will be "staffed by a new kind of employee . . . who will be strongly encouraged to abandon the play-it-safe style of working in favor of taking risks" (1993, p. 39). The objective of the REGO reports is the refashioning of government so as to create a culture for entrepreneurialism. The publications endorse efforts to create an environment compatible with enterprising action, one in which the pathways between service providers and customers are much less cluttered than generally are thought to be found in traditional, monopolistic bureaucratic institutions. (Osborne and Pastrik, 1997) In a similar vein, the National Performance Review states, "The mission of the review is to reinvent the system of government, redesign agencies and programs to make them more responsive to their customers, and streamline the government" (1993). Reform Recommendations The reform movement's principal publications, such as Osborne and Gaebler's (1992) and the National Performance Review's (1993), virtually ignore the classic writings in management and organization theory. The same criticism has been leveled at public personnel administration. In this section, therefore, several concepts tied with body of knowledge about organizations, will be brought to bear on the reinvention reform recommendations. Decentralization Reinvention theory is premised on the notion that employees are an untapped resource. Their current circumstance too often finds them frustrated by an overly regulated, risk-averse centralized environment. If they are given greater discretion to engage in meaningful and challenging work, then they will respond by performing at a higher, more productive and innovative level. Decentralization, which distributes responsibilities to lower organizational levels, can be viewed as a form of work redesign. It adjusts the interaction of job and employee characteristics to improve productivity and enhance the work experience (Hackman and Oldham, 1989, p. 328). Deregulation Reinvention proponents contend that most public sector HRM practices are not contributing to organizational productivity and effectiveness. Selection procedures usually top the list of culprits, with classification close behind. Reinvention offers an alternative. One of its principal remedies for bureaucratic excess is deregulation, which is a relaxation of standardization and control. Its purpose is to "enlarge the discretion of government employees" (Dilulio, 1994, p. 2) Employee Involvement and Labor-Management Relations Reinvention proponents consistently argue that involving employees in decision-making will release the creative and productive energy needed by high performance organizations (National Performance Review, 1993, p. 91). Reinvention's principal concern with labor-management relations is that the tradition of antagonism cannot support an organizational culture oriented toward customer service and high performance (National Performance Review 1993, p. 87). Management bears most of the responsibility because it exerts the greatest influence on relations with employees. Thus, Osborne and Gaebler (1992) argue that labor problems usually are "a symptom of bad management" (p. 263). Performance Measurement Reinvention proponents believe more attention needs to be paid to results and outcomes so that the administration of public programs can be directed better toward achievement, which is a reaction to government's historic emphasis on inputs and processes. Many of the approaches to evaluation have not yet fully matured or, more importantly, become accepted as standard tools of managing an organization. (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) Privatization Privatization and outsourcing introduce market-type mechanisms to government service delivery. Reinvention theory contends that competitive pressures will force public sector agencies to be more innovative and expedient about their methods and practices, which will result in heightened efficiency and effectiveness. This is the argument that rests at the core of what is known as public choice theory. Exponents of public choice, believe that public services should be contracted to market-oriented, profit-seeking organizations. (Osborne and Pastrik, 1997) Training and Development Reinvention proponents are unified in their views about training and development. They believe it to be absolutely essential. However, it is difficult to discern from the REGO publications what they mean by training, which is a complex subject with many definitions and methods. Criticism of Reinvention Moe (1994) charged that the NPR follows the pattern of many government reform efforts of not explicitly enunciating the theories or assumptions that underlie their recommendations. Instead, the supporting paradigms must be gleaned from the actions sanctioned by the reports. He alleged the same reform motif characterizes Osborne and Gaebler's appeal to reinvent government. However, in unwrapping the assumptions, Moe discovered unfounded premises about the expendability of middle managers and the preference for an alternative to the traditional administrative paradigm. He argued against NPR's recommendation that approximately 250,000 federal employees be eliminated from the ranks of middle managers, the largest proportion to be taken from human resources management. In his view, this will reduce agencies' capacity to properly manage their programs, including the growing ranks of government contractors. (1994, p. 114). Gawthrop (1999) sympathizes with both REGO proponents and critics, believing as he does that entrepreneurialism and reinvention are closely associated, and that the entrepreneurial spirit in public administration is not necessarily antithetical to the ethical-moral values of the spirit of democracy (p. 75-76). The basic question he poses, however, reflects the concern of reinvention criticism. "To what extent does entrepreneurship engage the public sector in a process that sharply attenuates and jeopardizes the primary function of public servants in a democratic polity" (Gawthrop, 1999, p.75) The problem between entrepreneurialism and democracy rests with the tendency of entrepreneurialism to overshadow the goals of democracy. Striving for profit, efficiency, and performance quotas are prone to becloud the ultimate values of democracy, such as benevolence, justice, and unselfishness. Gawthrop (1999) also believes that entrepreneurial government is likely to degrade both citizens and civil servants. Citizens and bureaucrats are partners and participants in the democratic process of daily governance, which carries a greater responsibility than simply being consumers and providers of services (p. 77-82). The Reform Models As discussed earlier, reinvention is the latest in a long line of administrative reforms. It represents a continuation of the antibureaucratic trend of the past 50 years, yet it is unique in its emphasis on managerialism and entrepreneurialism. The societal values associated with reinvention are efficiency, responsiveness and accountability, as contrasted with merit, equity and neutrality, which are the values affiliated with the traditional model. The traditional civil service system generally is described as being highly centralized, hierarchical, rule-driven, compliance-oriented, and innovation-averse (Carnevale, 1992, p. 22-23). The reform models are: Streamlined: Modernizing civil service systems and processes; simplifying hiring, classification, pay, rewards, and appraisal functions in order to reduce delays, complexity, and paperwork. Decentralized: Decentralizing and delegating personnel functions to agency managers so they have more control and flexibility over employee selection, compensation, appraisal, discipline, etc. Reduced: Retrenchment of central control by cutting back on the scope of civil service protections so that employee staffing, dismissals, transfers, or length of contracts are easier and faster to accomplish for agencies. Terminated: Ending or abolishing civil service so that new hires are excluded from the system and eventually each agency will have its own excepted employees (Shafritz et al., 2001, p. 79-80). No public personnel system will fit neatly in any one of these civil service models. As for human resources management in the states, it is a composite that reflects the characteristics of these models. Its heritage is linked to the traditional system, yet many elements of the streamlined and decentralized models also are appropriate. The legacy of the traditional approach is evidenced by the fact that the central personnel office is charged with the ultimate responsibility for general policy development and oversight. (Nigro, 2003) The states also can be described as reflecting the streamlined model of reform. Streamlining does not imply deregulation or decentralization. It indicates that systems and procedures are kept current relative to internal improvements, modifications, and best practices. The decentralized model of reform is based on the notion that centrally oriented organizations do not possess the flexibility to respond effectively to customer and other environmental demands. A decentralized organization, on the other hand, is structured to make better and quicker decisions because responsibility is closer to the point of service delivery, and decisions do not pass through layers of bureaucracy to obtain approval. The retrenchment model represents the level of reform at which the range of traditional civil service protections is diminished; as a consequence, less central control is required. Some observers take a less benign view of the reforms represented by the personnel practices of the leading states. Hays, for example, contends that "professionalism, neutral competence, and expertise are being challenged by pressures for accountability and responsiveness" (Hays 2001, p. 221). He views the trend toward managerialism--represented by, for example, strong support for decentralization--as an "epic struggle" over contending values. Others think the challenge is less about seeking dominance than about finding balance. The National Performance Review (1993) and the Winter Commission (1993) support traditional merit system principles, but also argue aggressively for reform. (Thompson and Ingraham, 1996) Conclusion The contrast between the "epic struggle" and the search for balance can be likened to whether reinvention represents revolutionary or evolutionary change. Some observers believe reinvention constitutes a revolutionary wave of administrative reform (Hays, 2001). Others characterize it as evolutionary or incremental (Nigro, 2003). The government seems to fit best in the evolutionary, balance-seeking mode of personnel change. An observation made more than a decade ago captures an important part of the recent history of the states. "In the real world of civil service reform, the tortoises are winning the race" (Walters 1992, p. 30). This paper supports the notion that the HRM systems of the states are moving forward in an evolutionary fashion, but whether they are "winning" in terms set forth by reinvention is yet to be determined. References Carnevale, David G. (1992). The learning support model: Personnel policy beyond the traditional model. American Review of Public Administration, 22 (1), 19-36. Dilulio, John J. (1994). What is deregulating the public service In Deregulating the public service: Can government be improved ed. John J. Dilulio, 1-11. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Gawthrop, Louis C. (1999). Public entrepreneurship in the lands of oz and uz. Public Integrity, 1, 75-86. Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham. (1989). Work redesign. In Classics of organizational behavior (2nd edition), eds. Walter E. Natemeyer and Jay S. Gilberg, 328-335. Danville, IL: Interstate Press and Publishers. Hays, Steven W. (2001). Changing roles in human resources. In Handbook of public management practice and reform, ed. Kuotsai Tom Liou, 205-223. New York: Marcel Dekker. Kamensky, John M. (1996). Role of the "reinventing government" movement in federal management reform. Public Administration Review, 56 (3), 247-253. Light, Paul C. (1994). Creating government that encourages innovation. In New paradigms for government: Issues for the changing public service, eds. Patricia Ingraham and Barbara Romzek. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Moe, Ronald C. (1994). The "reinventing government" exercise: Misinterpreting the problem, misjudging the consequences. Public Administration Review, 54 (2), 111-122. National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). (1995). Strategies and alternatives for transforming human resources management. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration. National Commission on the State and Local Public Service (Winter Commission). (1993). Hard truths/tough choices: An agenda for state and local reform. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. National Performance Review. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better and costs less. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nigro, Loyd. (2003). The reform agenda: Where do we go from here In Public personnel administration: Problems and prospects, eds. Steven W. Hays and Richard C. Kearney. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Osborne, David E., and Peter Pastrik. (1997). Banishing bureaucracy: The five stages for reinventing government. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Peters, B. Guy. (1996). The future of governing: Four emerging models. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Shafritz, Jay M., David H. Rosenbloom, Norma M. Riccucci, Katherine C. Naff and Albert C. Hyde. (2001). Personnel management in government: Politics and process. (5th edition). New York: Marcel Dekker. Thompson, Frank. J., and Norma M. Riccucci. (1998). Reinventing government. Annual Review of Political Science 1: 231-57. Thompson, James R. and Ingraham, Patricia W. (1996). The Reinvention Game. Public Administration Review 56(3), 291-298 Walters, Jonathan. (1992). How not to reform civil service. Governing (November). Read More