Introduction to Human Resource in the Public Service Sector

Introduction

Public sector human resources management (HRM) today functions more-or-less globally in a Facilitative State era in which state regime theories and practices differ significantly from those of the nine decades of the Administrative State during which the field developed. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Human Resource Management promotional strategies in the Public Services Sector in USA with a special focus on Law enforcement and educational sectors.

Overview of the Topic

There has been considerable criticism of the attempt to bring public management into line with private management. For example, Stewart and Walsh (516) argue that 'in adopting a private sector language there is a danger that organizations in the public domain will neglect the values inherent in that domain' (see also Cutler and Waine 25; Gray and Jenkins 55; Greenaway 12; Harrow and Willcocks 84; Haque 62). However, there has been little empirical comparison of managerial practices in the USA public and private sectors (a rare example is Poole et al. 20).

Human Resource Management In The US Public Service Sector

During the last decade there has been a rapid emergence of interest in human resource management (see, for example, Blyton and Turnbull 15; Storey 65; Legge 21). Most interpretations of the term may be traced to the definition of the 'Harvard School' in which HRM is seen to involve 'all management decisions that affect the relationship between the organization and employees -- its human resources' (Beer et al. 1). An important distinction in the literature is between the 'hard model' of HRM based on the premises of 'utilitarian instrumentalism' and a 'soft model' grounded in 'developmental humanism' (Legge 66). Analyses of HRM in private organizations suggest that practice is generally 'hard' rather than 'soft'. For example, Truss et al. (53) find that 'the rhetoric adopted by the companies frequently embraces the tenets of the soft, commitment model while the reality experienced by employees is more concerned with strategic control, similar to the hard model'.

Although there is a substantial literature on HRM in the private sector, the only comprehensive analysis of HRM in the USA public sector is by Farnham and Horton (41). We therefore use their framework in order to identify the 'received wisdom' on the pattern of HRM in public organizations. However, we also draw together arguments from other sources that deal with particular parts of the public sector (for example health, local government, Next Steps agencies) or specific issues (for example pay and the relationship between management and unions).

Farnham and Horton (31) argue that the traditional pattern of people management' in public services developed alongside the growth of the state during the twentieth century, and was expressed most fully during the 1960s and 1970s. They identify a number of primary characteristics of conventional HRM practices in the public sector (see also Klingner and Nalbandian 25). First, a paternalistic style of management which purported to protect and promote the well being of the workforce. Farnham and ...