Fluent Essays

For this Assignment , review this week’s Resources. Pynes, J. E. (2013). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations: A strategic approach (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chapter 6, Recruitment and Selection (pp. 175–205)Exercise 6.2, Barring Discrimination against Unemployed Applicants (p. 207)Llorens, J. J., & Battaglio, R. P. (2010). Human resources management in a changing world: Reassessing public human resources management education. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30(1), 112–132. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. Focus on the selection tools used to hire qualified applicants. Review the article by Llorens and the Exercise 6.2, “Barring Discrimination against Unemployed Applicants” in the course text (page 207). The assignment must be 1 page and include A response to either question 1 or question 2 of Exercise 6.2, “Barring Discrimination against Unemployed Applicants” in the course text (page 207). Justify your response based upon the readings and what you have experienced in your government or non-profit organization. human_resources_management_in_a_changing_world_reassessing_public_human_resources_management_education.pdf pynes__pages_205___207.pdf pynes_human_resources_management_for_public_and_nonprofit_organizations__a_strategic_approach___pages_175___204.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Human Resources Management in a Changing World: Reassessing Public Human Resources Management Education Review of Public Personnel Administration 30(1) 112­–132 © 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734371X09351828 http://roppa.sagepub.com Jared J. Llorens1 and R. Paul Battaglio Jr.2 Abstract Public administration scholars have gone to great lengths to assess both the extent of personnel reform efforts across the public sector and their impact on employee attitudes toward public sector employment. However, to the degree that these reforms represent the future of public sector human resources management (HRM), the field has yet to fully address how the education of future public servants and human resources professionals should be adjusted to reflect this transformation. This article seeks to address this issue by reevaluating those subject areas and competencies that have long been considered the core of public sector HRM education, proposing what new competencies should be introduced into the core in light of the contemporary reform environment and providing a preliminary assessment of the extent to which contemporary academic and practitioner-based educational programs reflect the current landscape of public sector HRM. Keywords human resources management education, personnel reform, public administration curriculum Introduction Prior to its untimely demise in 2004, General Motors’ Oldsmobile line of vehicles launched a marketing campaign simply stating, “This is not your father’s Oldsmobile!” 1 Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA 2 Corresponding Author: Jared J. Llorens, Public Administration Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA Email: jared1@lsu.edu Llorens and Battaglio 113 In many respects, the same sentiment applies to the field of public human resources management (HRM). There was a time when finding employment in the public sector inevitably meant taking a civil service exam, when there was no ambiguity regarding pay rates because of strict classification and compensation guidelines, and when the reality of lower relative salaries was offset by the promise of job security and longevity. However, what should be clear to scholars and practitioners alike is that the days of centralization, standardization, and security are quickly coming to an end. At all levels of government, traditional civil service systems are being transformed through the implementation of personnel reforms whose primary intent is to make public sector HRM more flexible and agile to better meet the needs of today’s dynamic labor market. Now, more than ever, flexibilities such as merit pay, employment at will, privatization, and pay-banding are increasingly being used by federal, state, and local governments, and absent any major shift in public opinion toward them, one can only anticipate their expansion. To date, scholars have gone to great lengths to assess both the extent of reform efforts across the public sector and their impact on employee attitudes toward public sector employment (Bowman & West, 2006; Condrey & Battaglio, 2007; Kellough & Nigro, 2002, 2006a, 2006b). However, to the degree that these reforms represent the future of public sector HRM, the field has yet to fully address how the education of future public servants, specifically those interested in a career in HRM, should be altered or updated to reflect this transformation. On the whole, scholarship in the field has generally looked on the presence of reformed HRM systems as the exception rather than the rule, but as recent research has pointed out, relatively few contemporary public sector organizations have yet to either implement or propose some level of personnel reform (Hays & Sowa, 2006). We seek to raise and provide a preliminary answer for what we believe to be a highly relevant question for the field of public HRM: “If public sector HRM is becoming more flexible and similar to the private sector in content and character, then how should the education of future public managers and human resources (HR) professionals reflect this change?” In many respects, our aim is similar to that of contributors to the Review of Public Personnel Administration’s symposium (Fall 1994) on the general status of the personnel course. Whereas the goal of the symposium was to assess the extent to which the standard public administration personnel course addressed the “current tumultuous public management environment” related to reinvention and reengineering, we seek to address how contemporary academic instruction addresses new topics brought on by private-sector, market-oriented reforms (Lovrich, London, & Fredericksen, 1994). We do so by (a) reviewing those subject areas that have long been considered the core of public sector HRM education, (b) proposing what new topic areas or competencies might be introduced into the core in light of the contemporary reform environment, and (c) assessing the current state of HRM education in the broader public administration/public affairs curriculum. Our ultimate hope, however, is that our analysis will initiate a broader discussion on the future of the academic field of public HRM and how it will meet the needs of future professionals. 114 Review of Public Personnel Administration 30(1) Table 1. Traditional Core of Public Human Resources Management (HRM) Planning Acquisition Development Sanction • • • • • • • • • • • • • Job analysis Classification Compensation Workforce planning Recruitment Assessment Selection Equal employment opportunity/Affirmative action Training Performance management Safety and health Employee relations Labor relations/Collective bargaining The Traditional Core of Public HRM Reflective of the traditional standardization of public sector HRM, many introductory texts within the field focus on the history and functions of HRM found common at all levels of government. For ease of discussion, Klingner and Nalbandian’s (2003) PADS (planning, acquisition, development, and sanction) acronym serves as a useful tool for categorizing these functions, which are given in Table 1.1 Those functions listed under “Planning” have traditionally focused on describing the process of composing a position description, analyzing the duties and required competencies for classification purposes, linking classification systems to compensation systems that reflect the relevant labor market, and more recently, taking a strategic look at workforce planning to address any skills gaps or future staffing challenges. Those functions under “Acquisition” have primarily focused on outlining the unique process of recruitment, assessment, and selection in what has traditionally been an extremely rule-bound and standardized context. Additionally, most introductory texts also address how these functions have adapted to the introduction of equal employment opportunity, affirmative action, and diversity management policies in the public sector. Functions listed under “Development” have centered on ensuring that employees are adequately trained to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of their positions, operate in work environments that are safe and healthy, and that processes are in place to adequately assess the performance of employees as well as provide an avenue for improved performance. Finally, functions listed under “Sanction” have focused on working with employees who do not meet expectations for either work-related or personnel issues as well as the management of such employees under a collective bargaining agreement. Although the list of functions is by no means exhaustive, we do believe that it accurately reflects those areas long considered the core of the field. We now turn to a discussion of how these core functions have been affected by the current reform environment and the implications for public HRM education. Llorens and Battaglio 115 Public HRM Reform: An Overview The reform movement under way in public HRM is directed at curtailing traditional civil service system practices. Civil service systems have been targeted by opponents critical of their supposed bureaucratic inflexibility, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness. Traditionally, a professional civil service was deemed essential for government performance (Kellough & Nigro, 2006a; Selden, 2006). However, that association has been challenged by the incidence of civil service reform at the federal and state levels. Proponents of new public management and reinventing government insist that reforming public HRM is crucial for enhancing government efficiency (Elling & Thompson, 2007; Kettl, Ingraham, Sanders, & Horner, 1996). During the last two decades, the objective of reform has been to provide greater managerial latitude over personnel decisions to politicians and managers alike. In an effort to enhance managerial latitude, reformers have pursued policies aimed at decentralizing and deregulating the core functions of public HRM—more specifically, decentralizing the rules and procedures associated with these core functions through efforts such as broadbanding and employment at will (EAW). In addition, public HRM reformers have adopted marketlike mechanisms such as merit pay and privatization in an attempt to improve productivity. In the following sections, we review the contemporary reform environment and its potential impact on the traditional core functions of public HRM. Decentralization and Deregulation In an effort to make the government more responsive and effective, decentralization and deregulation strategies have been a hallmark of public management reform under the rubric of new public management and reinventing government (Coggburn, 2000; Kettl, 2000; Thompson, 2001). At the national level, decentralization has involved the transition of many programs to lower levels of government. The decentralization of public HRM systems is part of this reform strategy, specifically transferring responsibility within public agencies in an effort to increase managerial flexibility at the frontline. Influenced by the philosophy of reinventing government, the National Commission on the State and Local Public Service (The Winter Commission) in 1993 intended to improve innovation and accountability at lower levels of government through decentralization efforts (Brudney, Hebert, & Wright, 1999). Specifically, decentralization efforts are aimed at substituting centralized, rulebound systems, which exemplified traditional public HRM practices, with a more agency-specific, manager-centered system. At the federal level, decentralization of public HRM functions has been advocated by reform proponents since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. In the 1990s, reform was spearheaded by the Clinton administration’s efforts under the National Performance Review (NPR). Initially, the agenda was quite ambitious, recommending the delegation of recruitment, examinations, position classification, salary adjustments, performance management, due process 116 Review of Public Personnel Administration 30(1) procedure modifications, and changes to the dismissal process to federal agencies (NPR, 1993; Thompson, 2001). However, political opposition led to most of the reform coming from reductions in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the elimination of the Federal Personnel Manual (Naff & Newman, 2004). During the Bush presidency, initiatives at the federal level continued the push for deregulation and decentralization. Legislative exemption from Title 5 of the U.S. Code has provided many agencies with the ability to develop more flexible systems, which in some instances almost resemble private sector practices (Woodard, 2005). For instance, HRM reforms included as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 promise to significantly increase personnel flexibilities within the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense (DHS and DOD, respectively; Brook & King, 2008). A number of state governments have decentralized HRM decision making from the central personnel office to agencies, with variations in the extent and specific functions being targeted (Selden, Ingraham, & Jacobson, 2001). Although tempered by the political environment and extent of unionization in the respective states, citizen dem­ and for services has been a key component in the demand for greater decentralization (Hou, Ingraham, Bretschneider, & Selden, 2000). Hou et al. (2000) assert that decentralization at the state level has increased the support, planning, and supervision responsibilities of state personnel offices, suggesting a need for greater complementarity between centralization and decentralization. Recently, Hays and Sowa (2006) surveyed all 50 states to determine whether EAW policies were expanding and whether decentralization of the HR function was taking place. The authors found that EAW had diffused to a majority of state governments (28 states; 56\%). Additionally, of the 28 state governments reporting EAW policy expansion, 25 (89\%) also reported some degree of decentralization of their personnel systems. Performance-Based Pay Since the 1980s, performance-based or merit pay schemes have been an attractive alternative to traditional public HRM 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 organizational productivity. A number of performance-based pay schemes have been implemented by linking individual, team, and/or organizational performance measurement to financial incentives. Financial incentives can be distributed as increases to base pay (i.e., merit pay), one-time bonuses, or as a combination of the two (Kellough & Nigro, 2002). By moving away from the traditional practice of rewarding pay based on longevity, performance-based pay systems seek to improve employee performance by rewarding superior performers with pay increases. 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, Llorens and Battaglio 117 and they receive the same pay as their less-productive colleagues. At the same time, poorer performers are offered an incentive to improve their levels of productivity. (p. 184) The federal government tested performance-based pay systems from 1981 to 1993 (Kellough & Nigro, 2002). However, systemwide attempts during this period proved unsuccessful, relegating performance-based pay to agency-level decisions. 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. More recently, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 granted authority to the DHS and the DOD to implement performance-based pay systems. Despite its problematic history at the federal level, numerous jurisdictions at the state level continue 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 classification and pay reform. GeorgiaGain, the performance-based pay reform in the state of Georgia, has garnered the most attention (Kellough & Nigro, 2002, 2006a). Although implementing GeorgiaGain has proved to be problematic, the state has continued to rely on performance-based pay for improving employee and agency productivity. Broadbanding Broadbanding (or pay-banding) has its roots in the federal demonstration projects commissioned under Title VI of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Title VI authorized agencies to waive civil service rules in order to develop innovative approaches to traditional public HRM functions (Shafritz, Rosenbloom, Riccucci, Naff, & Hyde, 2001). The goal of these projects was to promote more flexible classification systems by combining grade levels into broader categories or pay-bands. Thus, the trend toward broadbanding involves collapsing a number of traditional grades into a single band, giving managers greater flexibility over pay rates in hiring and promotion (Hays, 2004; Whalen & Guy, 2008). By emphasizing compensation for employees according to their unique skills, broadbanding moves away from traditional position management’s emphasis on step and grade plans. Its simplification of the traditional job classification system is intended to promote egalitarianism by removing the distinctions accompanying traditional pay grades. Broadbanding is also meant to complement reform features such as empowerment, performance-based pay, and customer service by deemphasizing titles and hierarchy within position management. Classification reform during the Clinton administration was part of NPR’s mission to reinvent OPM and the HR function (Shafritz et al., 2001). NPR recommendations included language advocating a reform of the general classification schedule and base pay through broadbanding. Although the Clinton administration included language in civil service reform legislation to authorize agencies to pursue broadbanding, the 118 Review of Public Personnel Administration 30(1) measures never passed, resulting in continued reliance on Title VI. However, civil service reform legislation post–September 11 by the Bush administration included provisions for replacing the general schedule with pay-banding systems for the DHS and the DOD (Thompson, 2007). As suggested earlier, these efforts are focused on enhancing manager discretion over compensation and employee performance. At the state level, it would seem that there is a general trend toward fewer job classifications (Hays & Sowa, 2006; Whalen & Guy, 2008). In 2008, Whalen and Guy surveyed all 50 states in an effort to assess the extent of broadbanding. The authors found that civil service systems implementing broadbanding did so to reduce job classifications as well as to promote pay for performance. Among those states using broadbanding, 12 states use a full-scale system, whereas 4 use only a limited scale (Whalen & Guy, 2008). Additionally, the authors found that 18 states considered broadbanding but opted against it. Employment At Will In the spirit of managerial flexibility, reformers have also supported severe limitations to, or outright elimination of, employee procedural due process rights to promote greater efficiency and effectiveness in public management (Facer, 1998). To achieve this goal, proponents aim to reduce employee access to grievance and appeals procedures or eliminate such access. The trend toward eliminating such rights altogether has led to what some have called “radical” civil service reform (Condrey & Battaglio, 2007). These “radical” personnel systems operate under an EAW environment where employees may be dismissed summarily, for any reason not contradictory to employment law (Muhl, 2001). Employees within EAW systems have no proprietary interest in their positions and thus no expectation of continued employment (Gertz, 2007; Kellough & Nigro, 2006a; Lindquist & Condrey, 2006). Thus, public employees now operate within a system where there is no guarantee of procedural due process prior to discipline or removal (Kuykendall & Facer, 2002). Diminishing public employee access to traditional dismissal rights procedures is considered a key feature of current public HRM reform efforts. EAW is seen as a means for increasing managerial efficiency by removing cumbersome grievance and appeals processes under traditional civil service systems. As noted earlier, efforts to curb employee rights have increasingly occurred in a number of governments (Hays & Sowa, 2006; see a ... Purchase answer to see full attachment