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 Unclassified  

Dec 31, NumberPercent of

Total NumberPercent 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 EAWProper 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

*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.

Cronbach’s Alpha = .842

HR Professionals’ Experience with EAWMisuse 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

Range of Grievable

Issues

Activist Governor

"Decline in Job

Security"

Alabama Partial No Agency specific No Yes

Alaska Centralized No Restricted Yes No Arizona Partial Yes Restricted Yes Yes

Arkansas Significant Yes

Restricted, agency specific No Yes

California Partial No Expansive Yes Yes Colorado Significant Yes Restricted Yes Yes Connecticut Partial No Expansive No No Delaware Partial Yes Expansive No No Florida Significant Yes Restricted Yes Yes Georgia Significant Yes Restricted No Yes Hawaii Centralized No Expansive No No

Idaho Partial Yes Agency specific No Yes

Illinois Partial No Expansive No Yes Indiana Recentralizing Yes Restrictive Yes Yes Iowa Significant Yes Expansive No No

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

Range of Grievable

Issues

Activist Governor

"Decline in Job

Security"

Kansas Significant Yes

Expansive, agency specific Yes Yes

Kentucky Centralized Yes Expansive Yes No Louisiana Partial No Restricted No Yes Maine Recentralizing No Expansive Yes Yes Maryland Partial No Expansive No No Massachusetts Partial Yes Expansive Yes Yes Michigan Partial No Expansive No Yes Minnesota Partial No Expansive No Yes Mississippi Partial Yes Restricted Yes Yes

Missouri Significant Yes Agency specific Yes Yes

Montana Partial No Restricted No No Nebraska Centralized Yes Restricted No Yes Nevada Partial No Expansive No No New Hampshire Partial No Expansive No No New Jersey Partial Yes Expansive No Yes New Mexico Centralized No Expansive No No New York Partial No Expansive No No North Carolina Significant Yes Restricted No Yes

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

Range of Grievable

Issues

Activist Governor

"Decline in Job

Security"

North Dakota Significant No Restricted No No Ohio Partial Yes Restricted No No Oklahoma Significant Yes Restricted No Yes Oregon Partial Yes Expansive Yes Yes Pennsylvania Significant No Expansive No No

Rhode Island Centralized Yes

Expansive, but not utilized Yes Yes

South Carolina Significant Yes Restricted No Yes South Dakota Centralized No Expansive No No Tennessee Centralized No Restricted No No

Texas Complete Yes Not

applicable No Yes Utah Partial Yes Expansive Yes No Vermont Significant Yes Restricted Yes Yes Virginia Significant No Restricted No Yes Washington Significant Yes Restricted Yes Yes West Virginia Partial Yes Restricted Yes Yes Wisconsin Partial No Expansive Yes Yes Wyoming Partial Yes Restricted No 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

Civil Service Reform and the Decline of the Commission Format

Contrary to the Overall Trend

“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)

• 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

Receivership History

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)

• 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

Receiver Accomplishments

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