Transcript Document

Civil Service Reform:
The Enduring Conflict Between
Neutral Competence and
Responsiveness
Stephen E. Condrey, Ph.D.
University of Georgia
“One thing seems clear: that the principles of
merit and the practices whereby they were given
substance are changing and must change a good
deal more to remain viable in our society.”
Human resource management systems “should be
decentralized and delegated to bring them into
more immediate relationship with the middle and
lower managers whom they serve.”
- Frederick Mosher (1968)
The Constant Tension Between “Neutral
Competence” and “Responsiveness”
“Since the rise of merit systems in the United States, civil
service processes have been designed in large part to insulate
public servants from politics and partisanship…The
challenge has always been to find a way to temper the control
and flexibility that are required with appropriate levels of
protection for public employees.”
- J. Edward Kellough & Lloyd G. Nigro (2006)
Three Cases of Civil Service Reform:
• State of Georgia
• Jefferson County Personnel Board, Alabama
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security
State of Georgia
• State merit protections abolished for new hires in 1996.
• Decentralized state human resources administration.
“I will also bring you legislation to revise the State Merit System,
which was established more than 50 years ago to create a professional
workforce that was free of political cronyism…But too often in
government, we pass laws to fix particular problems of the moment,
and then we allow half a century to roll by without ever following up
to see what the long-term consequences have been…A solution in
1943 is a problem in 1996. The problem is governmental paralysis,
because despite its name, our present Merit System is not about
merit…It can take six to eight weeks to fill a critical position in state
government. It takes a year to a year-and-a-half to fire a bad worker,
because of the mountain of endless paperwork, hearings and appeals.”
- Former State of Georgia Governor Zell Miller (1996)
Percentage of Unclassified versus Classified Employees*
State of Georgia: 1999 - 2008
Classified
Dec 31,
Number
Unclassified
Percent of
Total
Number
Percent of
Total
Total
1999
39716
51.34%
37641
48.66%
77357
2000
34906
44.78%
43047
55.22%
77953
2001
31132
39.08%
48524
60.92%
79656
2002
28116
34.49%
53393
65.51%
81509
2003
25349
31.37%
55465
68.63%
80814
2004
22445
27.88%
58068
72.12%
80513
2005
19861
24.30%
61877
75.70%
81738
2006**
17830
21.67%
64452
78.33%
82282
2007**
15769
19.22%
66266
80.78%
82035
2008**
13818
17.21%
66495
82.79%
80313
*Headcount totals for full-time equivalent (FTE) employees for each year were pulled as available from PeopleSoft
HR System as they existed 03-11-2009.
*For purposes of consistency from year-to-year, FTE employees are defined as all regular, benefit-eligible employees
on non-temporary pay plans.
**Records for 2006 and forward are under current review by State Personnel as some may have been affected by the
most recent PeopleSoft upgrade.
Georgia – A Perfect Storm?
Factors Influencing the Legislative Success
of the Georgia Reform
• Right-to-work state with weak public employee unions
• Gubernatorial success in passing his legislative agenda
• Editorial support of the state’s largest circulation
newspapers
• Support of the state’s bureaucratic leadership
HR Professionals’ Experience with EAW
Proper Use of At-Will Employment*
%
Agree/Disagree
Mean
Factor Loading
Employees have been
terminated at-will because
of changing managerial
priorities/objectives
40.7/35.0
3.02
.655
Employees have been
terminated at-will in order
to meet agency budget
shortfalls
46.0/37.2
3.09
.902
Employees have been
terminated at-will in order
to meet agency downsizing
goals
47.3/35.9
3.14
.924
Cronbach’s Alpha = .842
*Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with survey statements related to
employment at-will using the following scale: 1 = “Strongly Disagree”; 2 = “Disagree”; 3 = “Neither
Agree/Disagree”; 4 = “Agree”; and 5 = “Strongly Agree.” Percentages reported in the table do not sum to 100
percent due to rounding and omission of “neither agree or disagree” responses.
HR Professionals’ Experience with EAW
Misuse of At-Will Employment*
%
Agree/Disagree
Mean
Factor Loading
EAW is sometimes used to
fire competent employees
so other people with
friends or connections to
government can be hired.
30.2/49.5
2.61
.806
I know of a case where a
competent employee was
fired at-will so that another
person with friends or
connections to government
could be hired
10.3/74.1
1.91
.886
Employees have been
terminated at-will because
of personality conflicts
with management
32.4/46.7
2.71
.772
Cronbach’s Alpha = .802
*Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with survey statements related to employment
at-will using the following scale: 1 = “Strongly Disagree”; 2 = “Disagree”; 3 = “Neither Agree/Disagree”; 4 =
“Agree”; and 5 = “Strongly Agree.” Percentages reported in the table do not sum to 100 percent due to rounding and
omission of “neither agree or disagree” responses.
Fundamental Flaw?
“EAW systems may have a fundamental flaw in that they may
undermine trusting workplace relationships necessary for
effective public management.”
- R. Paul Battaglio & Stephen E. Condrey (2009)
Has EAW Diffused?
Overall trend is toward lessening of employee
rights and decentralized methods of personnel
administration.
General Summary of Interview Findings: Snapshot of
Current Conditions in the States’ Personnel Systems
(Source: Hays & Sowa, 2006)
State
Level of Human
Resources
Decentralization
Expansion
of At-Will
Employees
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Partial
Centralized
Partial
No
No
Yes
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Significant
Partial
Significant
Partial
Partial
Significant
Significant
Centralized
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Partial
Partial
Recentralizing
Significant
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Range of
Grievable
Issues
Agency
specific
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted,
agency
specific
Expansive
Restricted
Expansive
Expansive
Restricted
Restricted
Expansive
Agency
specific
Expansive
Restrictive
Expansive
Activist
Governor
"Decline
in Job
Security"
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
General Summary of Interview Findings: Snapshot of
Current Conditions in the States’ Personnel Systems
(Source: Hays & Sowa, 2006)
State
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Level of Human
Resources
Decentralization
Expansion
of At-Will
Employees
Significant
Centralized
Partial
Recentralizing
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Significant
Partial
Centralized
Partial
Partial
Partial
Centralized
Partial
Significant
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Range of
Grievable
Issues
Expansive,
agency
specific
Expansive
Restricted
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive
Restricted
Agency
specific
Restricted
Restricted
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive
Restricted
Activist
Governor
"Decline
in Job
Security"
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
General Summary of Interview Findings: Snapshot of
Current Conditions in the States’ Personnel Systems
(Source: Hays & Sowa, 2006)
State
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Level of Human
Resources
Decentralization
Significant
Partial
Significant
Partial
Significant
Expansion
of At-Will
Employees
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Centralized
Significant
Centralized
Centralized
Yes
Yes
No
No
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Complete
Partial
Significant
Significant
Significant
Partial
Partial
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Range of
Grievable
Issues
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted
Expansive
Expansive
Expansive,
but not
utilized
Restricted
Expansive
Restricted
Not
applicable
Expansive
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted
Expansive
Restricted
Activist
Governor
No
No
No
Yes
No
"Decline
in Job
Security"
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Jefferson County, Alabama
• Placed into receivership by the federal courts (first
verifiable instance)
• Strong civil service system
• Emphasis on modernization, not abolition as in Georgia
Jefferson County, Alabama Personnel Board
• Established 1935
• Covers approximately 12,000 employees in Birmingham,
Jefferson County, and other cities within Jefferson County
• Very traditional civil service system – 3 member Board, citizens
commission appoints the Board
• Mayors and County Commissioners have little or no influence
over the Board
Contrary to the Overall Trend
Civil Service Reform and the Decline of the
Commission Format
“Ironically, at the same time that the federal government has been
pressuring state and local governments to adopt and strengthen merit
systems, the commission form of administering them was on the
wane for reasons similar to the abolition of the commission form at
the federal level. Put simply, independent structurally, and politically
isolated personnel agencies of a regulatory nature were having great
difficultly in serving the needs of elected executives and public
managers. They became viewed as obstacles to efficiency and
effectiveness and were often seen as unduly influenced by pressure
groups.”
- Norma M. Riccucci & Katherine C. Naff (2008)
Receivership History
• Failure to produce valid civil service examinations
• Federal judge calls director “incompetent”
• Ronald Sims (Management Professor at The College of
William & Mary) appointed as receiver on July 8, 2002
• Released from receivership on November 20, 2008
Receiver Findings
• PBJC mired in the past
• Organizational problems – Structure & Personnel
• Outdated Technology
“Only a few employees could access the information and only then generally for the
limited purpose of manual data entry. Other member jurisdictions had no electronic
access to the information. There were virtually no analytical tools, no query-building
capabilities, and no logical relationships between data structures. Office shelves were
crowded and floors were littered with binders of outdated reports and stacks of
continuous-feed papers reflecting information housed in an otherwise inaccessible
database. The staff was generally not computer literate. Few desktop computers existed
in the organization. In short, the Receiver believed that the lack of infrastructure
contributed to PBJC’s struggling to execute its basic statutory responsibilities.”
- Ronald R. Sims (Forthcoming, 2009)
Receiver Accomplishments
• Replaced or trained existing staff
• Modern HRIS system
• New pay plan
• New organization structure
• Remodeled offices
• Revamped rules
• Met requirements for professional examination and testing
division
PBJC Outcomes
• Rebuilt 1935 Cadillac
• Complaints of responsiveness by Mayors
• Released from litigation dating from the 1970s
PBJC in Perspective
• Attempt to professionalize from the “bottom-up”
• No attempts for “top-down” professionalization
• Corrupt County Commission
• County near bankruptcy
• Strong mayor form of government
• Legislative push for a county manager
Department of Homeland Security
“Change through crisis has been ongoing theme in
American government. In a system designed to
move hesitantly and incrementally, emergencies, not
grand theory, are what often spark the energy for
significant action.”
- Camilla Stivers & Ralph P. Hummel (2007)
Decentralization Trend Seen in States Continues
In Federal Government
• Thompson terms this “disaggregation”
• Related to private sector and aligning strategy and mission
• DOD and DHS are examples:
“A direct consequence of these new systems, however, is
the disaggregation of the federal personnel system into
multiple, agency-specific systems. Disaggregation, in turn,
represents a fundamental threat to an institution whose
viability is contingent on its inherently collective nature.”
- James R. Thompson (2006)
DHS Overview
• Created October 8, 2001
• Afforded greater flexibility with labor relations,
compensation, etc.
• Union opposition
• Political rollercoaster – 2002 election & 2006 election
Public HRM is Necessarily Political
“In sum, the election results of 2002 suggest that the
Bush administration effectively reframed the debate over
the human resource system in the DHS from an issue of
management flexibility versus employee rights to an
issue of national security versus self-interested union
power.”
- Norma M. Riccucci & Frank J. Thompson (2008)
Obama Administration
• Reverses diminution of public employee rights
• Will abolish the National Security Personnel
System (NSPS) at the Department of Homeland
Security
Obama Agenda
• Move toward recentralization of HR functions
• Possible consolidation of pay systems and overhaul of the
Federal General Schedule
• Improved Labor/Management relations
• Possible introduction of pay-for-performance
Obama Agenda Continued
• Possible unified performance management system
• Increased recruitment – “Make Government Employment
Cool Again”
• Increased emphasis on training and development
• In-sourcing and a reduction in privatization
Conclusions
• There are lessons to be learned from extremes – State of
Georgia and Jefferson County
• DHS case points to the power of unions in mitigating
extreme management philosophy
• There is no “one best way” to structure civil service
systems
• Organizations should seek a proper balance between
employee rights and managerial flexibility
• Obama agenda still forming – John Berry most activist
OPM Director in recent history