Date post: | 08-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Government & Nonprofit |
Upload: | support-for-improvement-in-governance-and-management-sigma-oecd |
View: | 379 times |
Download: | 0 times |
2 Rue André Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16 France
mailto:[email protected] Tel: +33 (0) 1 45 24 82 00 Fax: +33 (0) 1 45 24 13 05
www.sigmaweb.org
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. It should not be reported as representing the official views of the EU, the OECD or its member countries, or of beneficiaries participating in the SIGMA Programme. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s).
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Public Administration Reform and reform effects in Western
Europe
Christoph Demmke
Senior Academic Advisor to the OECD
2 Rue André Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16 France
mailto:[email protected] Tel: +33 (0) 1 45 24 82 00 Fax: +33 (0) 1 45 24 13 05
www.sigmaweb.org
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. It should not be reported as representing the official views of the EU, the OECD or its member countries, or of beneficiaries participating in the SIGMA Programme. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s).
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
3
1. Introduction
The study of administrative reform in Western Europe has long concentrated on the state as a
sovereign authority and dedicated personnel with specific working conditions and ethical
requirements. The notion of the sovereign state and the need for a specific category of public
employees arose gradually and contingently during the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe. The
emerging modern concept of bureaucracy and civil service was by nature a “republican” concept that
was designed as a rational counter concept to the traditional and charismatic power structure of the
monarchist and medieval times. During the 19th century, central government employment was
increasingly linked to the rule of law doctrine, to the principle of legality and (later on) the principle
of merit. To this were added specific organizational features and working conditions in order to
achieve fairness and equity, to implement the merit principle and to protect public employees
against arbitrary administrative decisions.
In most European countries, hierarchical organisational structures, clear and rigid career paths,
lifetime tenure, full-time employment, the application of the seniority principle, specific pension
systems for civil servants, standardized remuneration systems and the prohibition to go on strike
were introduced in order to reduce as far as possible the risk of excessive political influence,
corruption, misconduct, the exercise of private interests and instability of government. Traditionally,
a hierarchical and formalised organisational structure, clear and rigid career paths, lifetime tenure,
full-time employment, seniority, advantageous pension systems and rigid remuneration systems
were introduced in order to reduce as far as possible the risk of too much political influence,
corruption, misconduct, the exercise of private interests and instability of government.
Consequently, the traditional argument for a specific organisational structure was to produce a
certain ethical status for state employees who should be committed to the public good, neutrality,
impartiality and to observing confidentiality and displaying expertise. In many countries, public
employees on central administration level were therefore working in hierarchical organisations, had
very specific recruitment procedures, specific ethical obligations, little mobility, varying working
conditions and specific social security systems.
For a long time, experts were convinced that these specific organisational structures and
employment conditions would indeed produce a certain ethical behavior and “public service
motivation” for civil servants who – in exchange for many privileges - would be committed to the
public good, neutrality, impartiality and to observing confidentiality and displaying expertise.
Yet, bureaucracy was not only supposed to be a new form of rational power, it was also believed to
be more efficient and more ethical than any other organisational form until the 19th century. Max
Weber was convinced that the classical bureaucratic model would outperform all other existing
organizational models.
Within this bureaucratic structure, most central public administrations were also closed off and
separated from society and citizens. In other words, central public employees were seen as a
different category of staff. Because of their specific treatment, public perceptions arose of civil
servants having different personalities, being motivated by different incentives, working less hard
than employees in the private sector, being more security-minded, more rule-oriented and not very
innovative.
4
Until today, central public employees are requested to do more than merely fulfilling functions in the
field of exercising state powers and safeguarding the general interest of the state. In fact, they
should exercise their role with a certain sense of integrity – a public service ethos. Consequently,
many countries legitimate the existence of specific working conditions for this specific group of
public employees.
Still, the notion of the sovereign state and the legitimacy for having dedicated personnel with specific
working conditions have changed.
In more countries worldwide, the Governments increasingly shy away, through politics or law, to
impose any particular conception of a specific public service organisational and employment
structure that differs to private sector practices. This modernist trend towards more neutrality and
more moral restraints in employment matters opens central public employment for employment
concepts in the private sector. In fact, this trend is opposite to the classical trends in the 19th century.
Another reason for the “marketization trends” in government employment is growing evidence that
specific public working conditions and organizational structures do not necessarily produce better
performance, motivate employees, less corruption and a specific public service ethos.
Moreover, government employment and specific HR structures and features (such as the principle of
seniority) are considered to be expensive. One reason for this is also due to the fact that
compensation costs have risen because of the expansion of the public sector and public sector
employment. After the Second World War, the tasks of the state evolved (especially in the social and
education sector) and more and more people were recruited as public employees. Consequently,
public employment reached a new peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s and compensation costs
soared to new levels.
Today, as a consequence of these developments, it has become less clear why public employees
should be treated differently to those in the private sector. In fact, citizens, media and politicians
expressed more and more dissatisfaction with the public sector in general and campaign against the
bureaucrats and expensive, slow, inefficient, and unresponsive bureaucracies.
On the other hand, central public administration is still considered to be a constituent part of the
system of government. Until today, no government has been completely privatised and no public
administration works like a private company. One reason for this is that, still, most experts claim that
there are important differences between the public and the private sector.
Whatever is the right answer in this dispute, the quality of life of whole populations depends in many
ways on those who work for government and on how government works as such. Furthermore,
public administrations have a democratic and ethical function; they should serve the society and the
law, protect the population as well as function in a sustainable manner. For all of these tasks and
duties many countries are reluctant to completely reverse established specific employment features
and HR policies that were founded in the 19th century in order to protect the democratic and liberal
state. Consequently, a number of differences between public and private sector employees have
been maintained in most countries. In most cases, these relate to job security, remuneration systems
and recruitment procedures.
5
Thus, in the 21st century, Government employment frameworks are still specific and different
(compared to private sector features). They are also still very ambitious. They want employment
systems that guarantee observation of the fundamental values, administrative law principles and
ensure a focus on effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. Government policies should also
ensure equal treatment and fairness, be attractive and competitive with respect to the private sector
policies while managing tax payers’ money as prudently and while also rewarding individual
performance. Increasingly, employment structures should also be diversified and representative
while ensuring the merit principle, the equality of chances and the principle of non-discrimination
(which is being defined much broader than decades ago).
Despite these specific tasks and requirements, experts are wondering whether the different
objectives are too ambitious and feasible at all? Or, have the governments become too ambitious in
their efforts to reach all of the above mentioned conflicting objectives? Should the market rule public
employment, too? Are we heading towards a privatisation of government?
Since roughly two decades, the so-called New Public Management doctrine is calling for more
private-sector like practices in the public sector and the need to focus on efficiency and outcomes.
These theories were dominated by economic, political and organisational considerations. On the
other hand, public policies such as Human Resource Management (HRM) were rather seen as a
constraint and the reform of working and employment conditions, the public law status and work
systems as such were seen as complicated, rigid and inefficient features of an old-fashioned
administrative structure.
Consequently, with the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008 nobody was really interested in
discussing the effects of budgetary constraints on administrative law, ethics, trust and on the people
working in Government. Levine already wrote in 1979 “I have no ready solutions for these hard
questions. I do not know of anyone else with solutions either” (Levine, 1980, 180). Also, the concept
of New Public Management slowly lost a lot of its appeal as the focus on “too much” managerial
thinking (and a too strong focus on rational choice theories) was revealing many negative effects. In
the meantime, reform outcomes of New Public Management theories are seen more critical and
evidence shows that many recent reforms produce many intentional or unintentional positive or
negative effects (Hesse/Hood, 2003).
Still, there is as much disagreement about the successes and failures of (New Public Management)
reforms. “A full discussion of ‘results’ therefore embraces the wider question of ‘results for whom,
defined by whom, against what objectives?” (Pollitt, 2013). Unfortunately, it is hard to assess the
results today due to the lack of empirical analysis (Lowe, 2013). Pollitt and Dan (Pollitt and Dan,
2011) discuss the difficulties around the attribution of outcomes to particular reforms, for example
reduced waiting times for services might have been caused by a given reform; or they might have
been caused by something else (more staff and resources) or by some combination of both. Overall,
the European Union Seventh Framework project Coordinating for Cohesion in the Public Sector of the
Future COCOPS (http://www.cocops.eu) observes that many reforms have improved efficiency
savings but also contributed to a loss of public sector job attractiveness and employee job
satisfaction. Also the financial crisis is considered to be of having a major critical impact on national
public administrations and on the workforce (Randma-Liiv and Riin Savi, 2014).
6
2. Public Management reforms after the financial crisis – a new turn?
In the 21st century, developments indicate a change in the pattern and exercise of state authority
from government to governance, from big government to small government, from a hierarchic or
bureaucratic state to governance in and by networks, the outsourcing of public tasks, the emergence
of new forms of public-private partnerships and hybrid organisations. Long standing features such as
the existence of hierarchical decision-making, centralized HR practices, little job autonomy, the
existence of rigid careers combined with the principle of seniority, the nature of work, public service
motivation and work ethos, the values of public servants, skills, the composition of the workforce,
contractual arrangements and age structure of the workforce are changing. To this should be added
a different understanding of the underlying reasons for organizational performance, the link between
HR and organizational success, leadership success and innovation.
Despite the existing uncertainties as regards the effects of reforms, in popular public management
literature, often, countries are praised as being reform-oriented countries, whereas others are seen
as reform laggards although it remains unclear as to the basis on which these judgements and value
statements are based. Also rating public performance and the performance of countries as such is
becoming ever more popular. However, most of these comparisons are based on qualitative and
literature research. Overall, there is very little factual and empirical evidence about reform outcomes
which covers a vast array of activities and shows a huge range of variation across countries, sectors,
organisations, work systems and HR policies.
Despite the trend towards the identification of best-practices, the field of public management reform
is loaded with theories that reflect personal opinions, images, perceptions and paradoxes.
While people support the introduction of more private sector-like mechanisms and
instruments in the public sector, they are convinced that the public and the private sector
have different tasks and objectives.
Whereas people want better individual and organizational performance, they allow for the
emergence of a new performance management and accountability bureaucracy.
While people place higher demands on the quality of service delivery, they agree to public
budgets being reduced.
While observers pledge for administrative simplification, deregulation and the reduction of
administrative burdens, people are constantly asking for new laws and rules (e.g., in the fight
against terrorism, data protection, climate change etc.).
While people criticize the existence of standardised pay systems in the public sector, they
agree that rising pay disparities and pay flexibility in the private sector led to a number of
perverse developments.
While people complain that too many rules, administrative standardisation and – often - rigid
administrative laws, standards and principles as such are having perverse consequence,
7
people support the introduction of new standards and rules as regards ethics,
whistleblowing, transparency and citizen rights.
Despite the fact that most experts have strong opinions about the pros and cons of administrative
reforms, Levine stated rightly: “We know almost nothing about what works best under different
kinds of cutback conditions. So, the first thing we need to develop is a baseline inventory of tools and
techniques for managing cutbacks along with case studies of their application. With this information
we can begin to sort out methods for scaling down public organizations and make some judgments
about their appropriateness to solve cutback problems of different types and severity. Second, we
need to find methods for solving the credibility, civility, and consensus problems that plague
organizations and governments during periods of large scale cutbacks. We need to invent and perfect
democratic processes for allocating cuts which will make cuts effective yet equitable. Third, we need
to devote a great deal of thought to the ethical dimensions of cutbacks. We need to ask, for example,
what the ethical responsibility of an organization is to its terminated employees and decoupled
clients. No one to my knowledge has systematically struggled with this problem yet. Finally, we need
to understand how cuts affect public expectations and support for government, i.e., whether
expectations about government performance will be lowered and toleration for poor services will be
increased” (Levine, 1979, 183).
In 2014, reforms are still only rarely the product of well-designed and carefully implemented
strategies. Because of this, Pollitt and Bouckaert wonder about the differences between “large
optimism about the potential of public sector reforms” and the results: tradeoffs, balances, limits,
dilemmas and paradoxes. Also Hood concluded critically: “Slowly, however, the euphoria starts to
wear off, then new heaven and new earth start to look all too much like the old ones, and the cycle
of disappointment begins again” (Hood, 2000, 190).
Despite increasing awareness as to the failures of many NPM doctrines, budgetary constraints might
encourage a renewed focus on NPM topics and instruments. When public resources are scarce, there
will be an increased demand for aggressive cost-cutting management that concentrates exclusively
on “the bottom line” and single-mindedly sweats assets and squeezes inputs rather than pursuing
more intangible and collegial objectives. That means putting primary emphasis on cutting
headcounts, reorganising services into structures that are more readily cost controllable, axing
activities with no immediate apparent payoff (such as blue-sky thinking, long-term maintenance,
training, and staff development), on more outsourcing if it can deliver short-term cost savings—in
short, a return to precisely the kind of early NPM style associated with the Thatcher (United
Kingdom) government” (Lodge and Pollitt, 2012, 83 and 84).
Whatever is the right diagnosis of “change”, the evolving models of government are not intrinsically
liberal or conservative, left or right, effective or not effective – they are simply different as the
traditional forms of public administration and thus require some careful thought on the part of those
who care about well-functioning public administration.
After the financial crisis in 2008, expenditure limits seem to be of highest relevance for public
administration modernisation in almost all EU countries. These constraints have forced governments
to implement credible consolidation plans since then. Some of these austerity plans (Blyth, 2013)
have a strong impact on the public workforce and HRM policies, for example, the implementation of
8
wage cuts and staff reductions. In the meantime, the “challenge of scarcity and public sector
contraction to the viability of our political and administrative systems should be obvious” (Peters,
2011, 76). In many countries with high budgetary pressures, the current situation increases the
probability of rancorous conflict, decrease the prospects for innovation by consensus, and complicate
the processes for building and maintaining support for administrative systems and democratic
processes (Levine, 1980).
When looking at the impact of budgetary constraints, the rhetorical notion that EU countries are “all
in the same boat” is only true up to a certain point. While all states may be said to have a common
interest in avoiding global financial meltdown, there are also striking variations in financial
vulnerability across the European countries that might be expected to lead to different pressures for
the reshaping of public services in matters of pay, competency, and responsibility. To this should be
added the existence of different institutional configurations, the power of history and culture.
Roughly speaking, few OECD countries have either chosen a “soft'' or a “hard'' situational approach.
The “soft'' approach involves a combination between the introduction of efficiency measures (such
as by not replacing retiring staff, enhancing the efficiency of HR policies, supporting voluntary
departures etc.) and a focus upon fostering employee motivation, investing in innovative workplaces,
commitment and skill development. It is an approach that acknowledges the importance of HRM and
participative approaches to the aims of the business.
The “hard'' approach views HRM as a cost factor and effectiveness as contingent upon cost
minimisation measures rather than upon investment in human resources and innovation. Often, hard
approaches concern themselves exclusively with technical bundles such as pure downsizing,
restructuring programmes, payroll cost reductions, reductions of personnel and reductions of
training budgets. No or few complementary measures are undertaken either to sustain motivation,
morale or commitment. Studies carried out by Eurofound (Eurofound, 2013) also find that many of
these reforms have been implemented without engaging unions, staff representatives and
employees in problem solving.
During the last years, many countries have chosen the hard approach. One could also say: Cost saving
measures are being successfully implemented at the expense of a demoralised workforce.
This situation is likely to stay. In fact, “we are entering a new era of public budgeting, personnel, and
program management. It is an era dominated by resource scarcity. It will be a period of hard times
for government managers that will require them to manage cut- backs, trade-offs, reallocations,
organizational contractions, program terminations, sacrifice, and the unfreezing and freeing up of
grants and privileges that have come to be regarded as unnegotiable rights, entitlements, and
contracts. It will be a period desperately in need of the development of a methodology for what I call
"cutback management (Levine, 1979, 179).
Governments need to balance budgetary constraints with the need to have productive,
satisfied, innovative and high performing employees.
Organisations are required to become more efficient while also needing legitimacy amongst
the workforce.
HRM is becoming more important while being a cultural guardian and an architect of a new
culture (Ulrich, 1997, 47). Currently, HRM tries to distance itself from its stuffy and
9
traditional welfare image and confirms its significance for corporate profitability,
performance and innovation (Pinnington/Rob Maqcklin/Tom Campbell, 2007, 1) while
balancing different employee’s and employer’s interest with the need for change, discipline
and stability.
Thus, during the next years, public administrations must aim at the impossible: attracting and
retaining skilled, motivated, engaged and competent staff while supporting organisational strategies,
implementing Governmental Strategies and supporting business approaches.
Of course, all of this yields the emergence of more than less paradoxes and tensions that must be
acknowledged. Consequently, in the future, it is most likely that change as such does not mean that
we are taking a step forward towards solving problems and offering better solutions. In fact, most
reforms continue to produce paradoxical reform outcomes.
Still, budgetary constraints, restructuring programmes and effects of austerity measures have still
not been sufficiently a subject of rigorous scrutiny as regards the impact of HR policies and public
employment trends. Similarly, the effects of public management reforms on work systems and HR
bundles have not been studied either.
Ideally, one requirement should be that, given the legal, political and economic importance of central
public administration, reforms should be supposed to be much more the outcome of a rational
decision making process. However, current reforms are embedded in an increasingly turbulent
environment which makes it difficult to follow a clearly defined rational reform trajectory. As already
discussed, the current reform process is characterised by competing values and reform objectives,
ever changing reform pressures, silo-thinking, too little integration of reform thinking and newly
emerging reform priorities on the political agenda.
Still, budgetary constraints are likely to stay the most important reform pressure in the future.
Consequently, it is likely that also in the future, the financial crisis will lead to the introduction of
many ad hoc and hasty reforms. On the other hand, too little is done in order to study the outcomes
of reforms. Politt claimed already in 2002: “Overall, therefore, it appears that for most EU and OECD
management reform programmes, most of the time, we have precious little good information about
results. There is an ocean of literature but only a trickle of high quality data on efficiency and
effectiveness (….) .To put it another way, humility is undersung as a management reform virtue –
globally” (Pollitt, 2002, 4 and 5).
Most striking is the lack of empirical evidence as regards the effects of administrative reforms and
budgetary constraints on the public workforce, organisational structures, workplace behaviour,
fairness perceptions and trust levels.
Despite all differences in detail, there are at least four core claims to which most public management
scholars, organisational experts and HRM professionals subscribe.
First, budgetary pressures have placed additional performance pressure on organizations to be more
strategic in their management of employees. Whilst some sector differentiation is made, it is through
employees that enhanced efficiency and performance levels can best be developed.
10
Second, there has been a shift away from traditional Taylorist management practices that involve the
attempt to control employees towards those which seek to win employee commitment and generate
motivation. The essence of this argument is that Taylorist labour management practices, with their
emphasis on mechanistic work systems and a focus on controlling employees, simply do not work in
an environment where organizations must develop the competences, skills and motivation of their
workforces.
Third, both workers and managers can increasingly be beneficiaries of the new approaches to work
and employment. This is because in an environment where employee skills and commitment are
central to organizational success, it is precisely by motivating and involving employees more that
organizations will gain more. Increasingly, HRM is based explicitly or implicitly on a pluralist
perspective of competing, but containable interests amongst the different actors. Successful
strategies therefore rely on the ‘principle of aligning employer and employee interests’ (Cordery and
Parker, 2007, 187-209).
Fourth, in many OECD countries, innovation and renewal of work systems have tended to be
overlooked by the dominant innovation literature which has focused on technology studies. In the
meantime, there is an increased interest in linking theories on learning organisations and innovative
work systems with the renewal of HRM.
The four claims implicitly assume that – at least in theory - there has been a move from classical
hierarchical control structures and to commitment as ‘command and control’ and coercion and rules
are displaced by values, trust, and self-direction as a means of coordination. Another implicit
assumption is that, despite budgetary pressures and the need to consolidate public finances, it is
possible to increase efficiency, effectiveness, innovation and productivity by the way of changing
work systems and employment practices.
In the following we will discuss the changes taking place and the impact of recent reforms on the
people working in the public sector?
3. Linking organisational- and HR reforms with reform effects
Organisational theory and HR literature increasingly focuses since roughly twenty years on the link
between HRM, individual motivation and individual and organisational performance. For example,
the AMO model (Boxall and John Purcell, 2011, 3), underlines the need to influence at least three
variables positively:
a) Employees ability to perform (they have the right skills, knowledge and aptitudes),
b) Employees motivation (m) to perform (they will do the job because they are incentivized)
and
c) Employees opportunity to perform (the work structure, processes, values and culture
provide the necessary support).
Current budgetary constraints and HR reforms influence individual ability (A), motivation (M), and
the opportunity to perform (O).
This model is still doing well and is “alive”. The essence of the model can be described as:
11
Performance = f (employees’ Ability, Motivation, and Opportunity to participate).
Although nobody knows the precise relationship between these three variables, it is clear that
measures taken in the context of the financial crisis (such as reducing budgets for skill development,
dismissals, reducing job protection, longer working hours etc.) may have significant side-effects on
these variables. Thus, the ideal HR model in the context of the budgetary crisis would be one that
delivers on the basis of the AMO model and combining these with the need for more efficiency,
innovation and organizational learning. The model argues that organisational interests are best
served by an HR system that attends to employees‟ interests, namely their skill requirements,
motivations, and the offered job opportunities.
Nowadays, human resource management theories are increasingly linked with organisational and
work system theories as well as with employer’s and employee’s interests. Researchers and
practitioners have found that organizational performance is substantially improved by organisational
systems that leverage the above mentioned AMO variables while supporting organisational interests.
These systems are often called “high-performance work systems” (HPWSs). Numerous studies have
demonstrated that organizations adopting HPWSs will have better operational and financial
performance through enhanced intermediate outcomes such as increased job satisfaction and
productivity and also reduced turnover and less absenteeism (Posthuma/
Campion/Masimova/Campion, 2013, 1184 and 1185).. “HPWSs can be viewed as coordinated
bundles of High Performance Work Practices (HPWPs) that create synergistic effects in which certain
practices reinforce one another to increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness” (Posthuma/
Campion/Masimova/Campion, 2013, 1184).
In the meantime, an established body of literature suggests that highly performing work organisation
require integrated business and HR strategies, considerable job discretion, problem-solving activity,
job engagement, involvement in decision-making, communication and the ability to develop skills on
the part of employees.
If evidence can be hardened about the relationship between HRM, innovative work systems,
leadership styles and organisational performance, this could also have significant implications on the
future design of work systems and HR policies in the public administrations in European countries. It
could also be a way to better combine organisational- and HR reforms with the need to consolidate
public finances.
As already discussed, today, most experts believe that organisational trends are towards a move to
non-Taylorist learning work organization and agree upon the proposition that new forms of HR
strategies and HR practices are associated with superior performance (Eurofound, 2013). However,
current changes take place in very different contexts and in many different forms. Because of the
bureaucratic heritage and the still existing specific features in central public administrations (as
discussed in this study) , many work systems still differ considerably from the discussed theoretical
scenarios.
12
In fact, in most public administrations, organisational differences range from lean-, traditional-,
hierarchical-, bureaucratic-, tayloristic-, professional- to highly innovative- and learning
organisations.
Current research in organizational behaviour is interested in exploring how employees’ perceptions
of organisational structures, HR policies and leadership influence their work-related thoughts and
behaviours and how transformational and transactional leadership supports organisational
performance. Also, literature on engaging employees (Gruman and Saks, 2011, 123-136; MacLeod
and Clarke) has become popular and advocates the link between engagement levels and
organisational performance. The latter is the more interesting as different engagement levels seem
to correlate with individual performance, organisational performance and levels of innovation. There
is also an emphasis on engagement that encourages and rewards learning and is positively linked to
organisational performance. However, the level of engagement is depending on many variables such
as the design of the work organisation, leadership, work environment, working conditions and the
psychological contract between the employee and the employer.
Thompson and Harley (2007) suggest that the trend is not towards one best-practice work system
model but towards a hybridization of HR strategies and a hybridization in work organization. They
argue that many discussions on change in the field of work organisation rests on a dichotomous
distinction between high performance forms of work organisation (Kirkman/Kevin B. Lowe/Dianne P.
Young (1999) and a more traditional and hierarchical “bureaucratic”, “lean production” and/or
“taylorist” form. In fact, many organisations on central public administration level combine many
elements of high performance work systems with established tayloristic-, rule-bound, hierarchical
and traditional bureaucratic models. Also different type of employees work in different work
systems. For example, whereas top-civil servants increasingly enjoy modern work system contexts,
this is not the case for lower level employees. As regards different occupations, Eurofound concludes
that in many European nations, and for the EU15 on average, there has been a slight downward
trend over 1995-2005 in the percentage of employees having access to work settings characterised
by high levels of learning, complexity and discretion (Eurofound, 2013). This trend is alarming as
evidence is hardening about the link between innovative workplaces, learning organisations, high
performance workplaces and organisational performance.
Cordery and Parker (Cordery and Parker, 2007) distinguish between three existing grand archetypal
work system configurations): a) mechanistic’ work systems, b) motivational’ work systems and c)
concertive’ work systems.
The content of work activities within the mechanistic work system is typically characterized by high
levels of job specialization, tight constraints on the manner in which work is performed (low
discretion), and little variation in the tasks performed (low variability). For these reasons, jobs that
arise within such configurations are frequently described using adjectives such as ‘simplified,’
‘narrow,’ ‘deskilled,’ ‘fragmented,’ or ‘standardized.’ Furthermore, work activities are invariably
organised with an individual (rather than a group) as the focus of task performance and
accountability (low interdependence). Mechanistic work systems clearly have the primary objective
of delivering efficiency-related outcomes.
In contrast to the mechanistic archetype, ‘motivational’ work system configurations are founded
upon prescriptions for work content that are seen as being intrinsically motivating or psychologically
13
empowering for those performing the work - that is, the work involved satisfies innate psychological
needs such as those for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Concertive work systems are sometimes referred to as team-based or high-involvement models of
work organization. They form a part of the definition of High Performance Organisations. The aim of
the ‘concertive’ work system is to put in place a participative model of working arrangements.
“Overall, the mechanistic model is characterised by its focus on efficiency, simplicity, low levels in job
discretion, variability, feedback, and interdependence” (Cordery and Parker, 2007, 203). The
motivational work system is focused on job motivation and job commitment with high job discretion
and the concertive work system emphasizes high levels of job engagement and team working.
So far, the empirical analysis of variables for work organisations has generated evidence to which
employees in certain mechanistic models (which are characterised by an absence of autonomy, high
degree of repetitive work, little job control and high internal and external constraints) express the
greatest dissatisfaction with the work. On the other hand, variables such as job autonomy,
teamwork, participation, involvement, communication, problem solving activities, ethical,
transformational and transactional leadership seem to suggest that these variables produce higher
levels of performance, job satisfaction and job commitment as distinct from the mechanistic model
practices of traditional Taylorist systems of management (Eurofound, 2012, 10).
We can only speculate that there is a great variety of work systems amongst countries and even
within public administrations. Consequently, it would be wrong to qualify one country as reform
laggard and another country as best-practice country.
In reality, some organisations in some countries will correspond more to one model whereas others
will correspond more to another. There is no clearly superior model as each model is offering a
distinctive value and advantages and disadvantages for individuals and organizations. Even the
mechanistic work system may be more efficient and less stressful in some cases but offers few
motivational incentives. The concertive approach may be motivating but is also more complex and
bears the risk of more job intensity. Moreover, there is no automatism to which both the
motivational and concertive approach offer more flexibility, innovation and performance outcomes
as their overall effect on organizational effectiveness has been less consistently demonstrated”
(Cordery and Parker, 2007).
As regards concertive work systems the literature focuses on the development of teams that are
relatively autonomous and in which the members are heavily engaged and committed.
In fact, evidence suggest that many concertive work practices which include innovative work
practices, autonomous teamwork, flexible job assignments, intensive communication and training
achieve higher levels of productivity than more traditional approaches, including the mechanistic
model (Eurofound, 2012, 50). The reason for this is basically that providing employees with the
autonomy to control their own work is linked to psychological and physical health and, by extension,
to increased productivity through lower absenteeism and sickness rates (Chandola, 2010; cited in
Gallie, 2011) (Euroffound, 2012, 32). The intrinsic effects derived from concertive work systems such
as teamwork and job complexity can also lead to higher levels of job motivation, engagement and
satisfaction.
14
Concertive and cooperative styles of management are increasingly en vogue and also gaining ground
in the design of performance management systems. At least in theory! This is in accordance with the
main body of management literature which positively links engagement, participation and teamwork
to motivation. However, this should not be interpreted in the sense of ‘the more participation the
better’ since participation and teamwork also have implications with regard to cost, time and power.
Still, other models seek to explain organisational performance by evaluating the levels of stress
experienced by staff with reference to the level of job control. Here, control refers to how much
discretion employees have over the tasks they perform and how they undertake them. However, it
can also be that employees within the mechanistic system experience more job control, less stress
and less job intensity than employees in the concertive work system.
Without going too much into detail, it is important to mention that the term High Performance Work
Practice (HPWP) is linked to some aspects of the concertive work system (and including variables
such as discretionary learning, autonomy and job control) whereas “lean production”, the
hierarchically structured Taylorist form and the “traditional” organisation are described as aspects
from the mechanistic model based on a simple management.
Still, the definition of HPWP is useful but need further refinement of indicators (Cordery and Parker,
2007, 202). Moreover, discussions on HPWP and concertive work systems require a more realistic
approach, as reality is mostly a mix between the three models. To convince organisations of the
benefits of specific types of work systems and HR bundles, it is essential to invest in more research
on the impact of different sub-aspects of work systems on organisational performance.
Terms like “teamwork”, ‘participation’, engagement” or ‘involvement’ come with different meanings
in different administrative cultures. For example, whereas ‘participation’ - especially in countries with
a tradition of co-determination such as Austria and Germany - can be understood as a legal and
formal concept, in other countries it is understood in the sense of ‘staff consultation’. However, in
most cases participation is different to consultation which normally implies that lower-level staff is
simply asked to provide data, knowledge, information etc.
Thus, engagement, participation, staff involvement and communication cannot be implemented
through top-down directives. Superiors have to believe in the benefits of engagement and
participation and ‘live’ it on a daily basis. In addition, they must be convinced that taking into account
opinions from the staff will have positive effects. At the same time employees must show trust in
their superiors ́ willingness to involve their subordinates – and not only because of formal
obligations.
A study from Szabo (2007) indicates that participative forms of management differ across cultures.
According to this comparative study, Sweden has the highest degree of management participation
followed by Germany, Austria and The Netherlands. On the individual level, it seems that older
managers tend to be more participative than younger ones, and female managers more than male
(although as regards to the latter, evidence is less clear). However, the degree of allowing
participative forms of leadership also depends on the question how far managers want to avoid
feelings of insecurity. The more the managers want to control things in order to avoid such feelings
the more they will restrict staff involvement, communication and staff participation in setting and
revising targets.
Despite such positive evidence the ‘the devil is in the details’. While everybody seems to agree about
the need for more and better communication, staff involvement, engagement and participation, the
15
practical implementation of these concepts in daily administrative life at central administration level
may be quite different. In fact, participation, engagement, involvement of staff and feedback in many
cases seem to be more preached than practiced. Already in 1970 Levinston (Levinston, 1970, 16) in
his publication „Management by whose objectives?“ pointed out that “top management typically
assumes that it alone has the prerogative to a) set the objectives, b) provide the rewards and targets,
and c) drive anyone who works for the organisation” (Levinston, 1970).
It somehow remains questionable whether top managers (are able and willing to) take enough time,
communicate and involve their employees sufficiently in the decision-making process. In fact, it
seems that top-managers still prefer top-down approaches instead of participative approaches
(Demmke/Hammerschmid/Meyer, 2008). Sometimes also for understandable reasons: "The field of
organization development teaches that the best way to manage change is to encourage the
maximum amount of participation by all affected parties. But, a rational cutback process will require
that some people and programs be asked to take greater cuts than others. By encouraging
participation, management also encourages protective behaviour by those most likely to be hurt the
most. The participation paradox confronts management with a nearly insolvable problem: How does
one single out units for large sacrifices who have people participating in the cut process? The usual
answer is to avoid deadlocks or rancorous conflict and allocate cuts across-the-board” (Levine, 1979,
181).
The concept of “communication” and ‘feedback to the staff’ also causes considerable challenges
(Demmke/Hammerschmid/Meyer, 2008). Despite the positive meaning and the importance of
communication and feedback in practice people avoid feedback because they do not wish to be
criticised (Demmke/Hammerschmid/Meyer, 2008). In addition to this, many superiors are also afraid
of bringing bad news in difficult times. Another problem is also obvious: particularly in times of
financial constraints, downsizing and political turbulence, many employees regard concepts such as
job engagement and motivation management rather cynical and as a call for working harder in a
tough context.
All these difficulties and challenges clearly do not mean that attempts to introduce innovative work
systems and more communication, job engagement, feedback and staff involvement should not be
pursued. The critical experiences should only illustrate that reality occasionally looks different,
however. Popular ideas of the developments towards more teamwork, job engagement and
participative approaches have to be freed first of all from all too naive and normative expectations.
Administrative reform should also be aware of trendy management advisers who often spin an
unrealistic yarn about administration by giving the impression that hierarchic and bureaucratic
administrative structures have long since ceased to exist. In reality, almost all administrative models
continue to be based on the principle of ‘hierarchy’ and bureaucracy.
4. What empirical evidence tell us
Overall, Eurofound studies in the public and private sector confirm European wide trends towards
hybrid work organisations and no development towards one best-practice innovative learning model.
Eurofound revealed that new forms of work organization, at least partly, fail to enhance employee
discretion and lead to enhanced managerial control and more work intensification. At the same time,
16
many Taylorist approaches to work remain widespread (especially in the field of accountability and
performance management) and new forms of work organization have not necessarily displaced
traditional approaches. Moreover, tough austerity measures have also shown that much of the
above mentioned theoretical assumptions only mask other trends towards traditional mechanisms of
bureaucratic rationalization, work intensification, and aspects of scientific management. “The
rhetoric of devolved decision making and ‘working smarter not harder’ was countered by qualitative
research showing work intensification and multi-tasking under modified traditional methods, dubbed
variously democratic Taylorism or participative rationalization. To gain competitive advantage
through interactive service work, companies frequently seek to generate high commitment and
shared identity, but these interventions are built on top of traditional controls (Thompson and
Harley, 2007, 153). Thus, overall change seems to be towards the increased hybridity of control
structures as environments and organizational structures become more complex (Thompson and
Harley, 2007, 153).
These trends are confirmed by Demmke and Moilanen who measured the (non-) existence of
traditional bureaucratic features (as described by Max Weber) in the national central public
administrations in the EU Member States) (Demmke and Moilanen, 2010). They used a set of
fourteen indicators and measured whether HR policies and organisational structures can still be
considered as bureaucratic systems. They concluded that the national central public administrations
(civil services of the EU Member States) are a rather heterogeneous group of countries with different
structural characteristics. Organisational structures range from (still very) bureaucratic features in
Greece to post bureaucratic features in Sweden.
Traditional bureaucracy – post-bureaucracy continuum score by EU Member State
0% = traditional bureaucracy, 100% = post-bureaucracy
Member State Score
Greece 7.2
Luxembourg 7.2
Cyprus 9.8
Ireland 13.6
Portugal 16.3
France 16.3
Germany 16.6
Belgium 18.6
Spain 19.1
Romania 19.8
Italy 20.4
Hungary 22.9
Austria 23.7
Lithuania 24.3
Poland 27.7
Bulgaria 28.9
17
Malta 29.3
Slovenia 29.5
Estonia (*) 38.8
Latvia (*) 40.2
Netherlands (*) 47.1
Slovakia (*) 51.0
Finland (*) 53.4
United Kingdom (*) 64.1
Denmark (*) 68.2
Czech Republic (*) 73.0
Sweden (*) 81.4
Mean 32.2
(*) Non-career system country
Source: Christoph Demmke & Timo Moilanen, Civil Services in the EU of 27, op. cit., pp. 187-188.
If the traditional bureaucracy is slowly disappearing, what will happen to the bureaucrats, the civil
servants? The decline of classical bureaucratic systems and the changing values and societal norms
reveal the urgency of a new discussion: How is public employment changing in times of government
restructuring and changing into Governance? What are the effects of changing employment
patterns? Do we still need civil servants with a specific public law status? Should there be fewer
differences between public and private sector employment? If not, for whom and in which sectors
should distinctions be upheld? Do we live the emergence of an entirely new public employment
model?
According to Demmke and Moilanen, in the 21st century, issues such as innovative and high
performing work-places have become quasi sacrosanct principles. Nothing seems more attractive
than novelty and flexibility. This is a counter-reaction to the overly rigid, hierarchical and
bureaucratic times until the end of the 20th century. However, in the meantime, awareness is
growing that too much flexibility, decentralisation and deregulation also has negative side-effects.
Thus, many countries aim at the right mix between flexibility and organisational stability, mobility
and expertise, a strong public service ethos, decentralisation, outsourcing and professional
coordination structures, coherence and integration.
It has also been shown in many cases that job stability and clear career perspectives can have a
strong and positive impact on organisational performance, individual motivation and the
attractiveness of public sector employment.
In the future, it seems that the real challenge is to find the right mix between stability, security,
rigidity, flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, Demmke and Moilanen conclude that current
developments do not allow for the conclusion that the times of bureaucratic civil services are over.
Instead, what seems to be more important is to discuss the quality of the ongoing hybrid reform
trends and the related reform outcomes. And what can (should) we learn from this?
18
Mayer-Sahling has also concluded in his analysis of the civil service systems in central and eastern
European states that there is “considerable variation” (Mayer-Sahling, 2009, 65) Moreover, there is a
difference between the existence of formal rules and an “implementation gap”. (Mayer-Sahling,
2009, 68) “Clearly, the trends within the last two decades went into the direction of post-
bureaucratic models” (Demmke and Moilanen, 2010). According to Mayer-Sahling, the large
differences imply “that the CEE region can by no means be seen as one world of civil service
governance. Instead, we can identify different groups of countries in CEE that share broad
characteristics, levels of fit with European principles of administration, and recent reform
trajectories. This finding contradicts the expectation associated with the notion of the European
Administrative Space, whereby administrative systems in the EU should converge on the basis of
certain principles of administration” (Mayer-Sahling, 2009, 75 and 76).
Mayer-Sahling concluded: “It remains to be seen whether the conditions for investment in civil
service professionalisation are currently improving or worsening. The current economic and financial
crisis has hit the new CEE Member States particularly hard and has ambiguous consequences for the
future of the civil service in these countries. On the one hand, it puts a further squeeze on public
finances, which is bad news for civil service reformers, especially when taking into account the need
for increased investment in civil service salary systems. For instance, several countries have already
reduced salary levels and put off further salary reforms, which may be inevitable from a fiscal point
of view but is unlikely to support the further professionalisation of state personnel. On the other
hand, it is conceivable that a new role for the state in the economy will affect the perception of the
civil service by the public and by political actors. If a change in perception is accompanied by the
recognition that the quality of the civil service can make a real difference, in terms of both the
efficiency and effectiveness of the public sector and the intervention of the state in the market, then
it is also conceivable that the conditions for reform of the civil service will improve in the years to
come” (Mayer-Sahling, 2009, 82).
4.2. Theory and the need for more empirical evidence
Despite the popularity of new approaches, there have been few empirical and comparative studies
which have sought to test their assumptions in a systemic or integrative way. There is no existing
comparative study world-wide that analysis how organisations at central public administration
correspond to the above mentioned models, for example as suggested by Cordery and Parker.
Therefore, we suggest that, in the future, more research should be invested in the analysis of work
systems at central public administration level.
In large part, the consistent evidence of positive effects of new work systems and employment
practices reflect the interdependence between work organization, the choice of HR bundles and
other contextual elements. “Aligning these subsystems to be coherent and internally consistent is
difficult, especially when implementing motivational and concertive work systems that often require
a quite radical departure from traditional mechanistic practices” (Cordery and Parker, 2007, 203).
Thus, the current challenge is not to show that certain work systems and HR practices are related to
organisational performance. The real challenge is to explain why these practices are not fully
implemented and the identification of the main obstacles to achieve a better situation. These issues
involve a set of related “path dependency” questions. For example, why should countries like France
and Germany abolish their traditional civil services other than for budgetary reasons? In both
19
countries, the civil service is a two-hundred years old constituent and a highly performing part of the
system of government.
Still, we also wish to warn of the need for precaution. Especially in times of tough austerity measures,
reform of work systems, change, reform and alignment of employment conditions may have an
adverse effect on – rather than improve – working conditions, performance and motivation. Also the
proponents in favour of innovation, change and alignment may view the civil service status as an
obstacle to realising cutbacks in terms of personnel in the civil service. Especially given the current
pressure on public expenditure, innovation, reform and ‘normalisation’ could be seen as a way to
achieve budgetary cutbacks.
5. Budgetary constraints and current HR reforms
Literature on public management reform continues to downplay the vital role of organizational
theory and HRM which not only affect the relative performance of organisations but the way
democratic governments is managed as such (Boxall and Purcell, 2011). Only few studies study the
transformation of Government and the impact on the workforce and vice versa: The link between HR
reforms and governmental effectiveness, innovative organizations and workplace performance.
On the other hand, too much of the HRM literature is dominated by discussing isolated HR policies
and practices and fails to pay sufficient attention to the bigger picture, such as the importance of
political, organizational and economical contexts for the way HR reforms are implemented, the
impact of leadership skills and different leadership styles on individual and organisational
performance, the link between professional HRM policies and learning organisations and the effects
of public management reforms on HR reform outcomes as such.
So far, budgetary constraints, restructuring programmes and effects of austerity measures have not
been a subject of rigorous scrutiny as regards the impact on individual HR policies and public
employment trends. In the past, the focus of attention has been entirely on issues like the reduction
of employment levels and the development of wages.
Effectiveness of public employment restructuring and dimensions on public employment
Structure Size Composition Status
From unified Civil
Services to
differentiation,
decentralisation and
decomposition
Different categories
of staff (public and
private law)
Civil servants, public
employees, short-
term employees
Smaller
Leaner
Employment shifts to
sectors with
new/more
recruitment needs
(education, health)
Recruitment
shortages in some
areas (ICT)
More women in top-
positions
More diversity
More public employees
in civil service positions
Age management
(people stay longer)
Lifelong learning (LLL) –
focus on constant
development of
Public law status remains
Dual systems prevail,
diversity and fragmen-
tation of personnel are
characteristic in most of
the Member States
Decline of numbers of
Civil Servants, trend
towards core CS
“Hollowing out” of status
substance, alignment of
20
Shared services,
outsourcing,
agencification, PPP,
privatisation
Centralised
coordination
Attractiveness
according to
countries and
sectors is different
competences and skills
Meritocracy and
conflicts with equality,
diversity,
representativeness and
democracy
employment conditions
More public employees in
CS functions, new
“unfairness perceptions”
amongst categories of
staff
Some issues remain
specific (job security,
recruitment etc.)
Overall: Identity crisis of
specific civil service,
public employees and
private employees
exercise public powers
New discussions on need
of specific working
conditions
Source: Demmke and Moilanen, Governmental Transformation and the Future of Public
Employment, Peter Lang, Frankfurt/M., 2013
A major obstacle to giving more prominence to the reform outcomes in public administration has
been the difficulty of linking organizational reform to service delivery, organizational performance
and innovation and to show that any HR reform will inevitably have an impact on governance as
such. The same difficulties exist as regards the link between consolidation measures and job
intensity, sickness levels, quality of work, job motivation, job satisfaction, levels of trust in the own
organisation and in leadership, job commitment, (un-) ethical behaviour and so forth.
Overall, the whole field also suffers from the existence of too many clichés and perceptions such as
that public sector workers are risk averse, not innovative, not flexible, not performing well enough
and that too much job security supports security-minded thinking and blocks innovative choices. In
the eyes of the public, central public administrators still work in an environment which is clearly
separated from the private sector. In some countries state public employees are perceived as a
protected group set apart from the outer world. They enjoy privileges, are not performing well
enough, are not innovative, too costly and risk averse because of too much job protection and
hierarchical thinking. Increasingly, people require that public employees should also not be treated
differently to private sector employees.
In reality, it becomes ever more difficult to identify differences between public- and private sector
employees. Currently, job security is being reduced, recruitment procedures are being flexibilised,
pay systems are individualised and linked to individual performance and career structures are
modified and, in some cases, even abolished. As a consequence, civil service employment differs less
from private sector employment than ever before. Moreover, the differences between civil service
employment and public service employment are becoming less clear.
21
22
Differences between civil service employment and public employment by policy issue and by EU
Member State1
(Frequencies in parenthesis)
Very much Somewhat Fairly little Not at all Cannot say
Pension system 25 (6)
BE, CY, DE,
DK, EE, ES
18 (5)
EL, FR, IT, NL,
SE
4 (1)
PT
46 (11)
BG, FI, HU, IE,
LY, LV, LU,
MT, PL, SI, SK
4 (1)
EC
Job security 17 (4)
BE, ES, FR, PL
50 (12)
BG, DE, DK,
EE, FI, HU, LV,
MT, NL, PT,
SE, SK
17 (4)
CY, EL, LT, SI
13 (3)
IE, IT, LU
4 (1)
EC
Pay systems 20 (5)
EE, FR, IT, LT,
PT
36 (9)
AT, BE, DE, EL,
ES, MT, PL, SE,
SK
16 (4)
CY, HU, IE, NL
24 (6)
BG, DK, FI, LU,
LV, SI
4 (1)
EC
Holiday
arrangements
0 (0) 32 (8)
BE, BG, EE, ES,
IT, PT, SE, SI
24 (6)
CY, DE, HU, IE,
LT, PL
40 (10)
AT, DK, EL, FI,
FR, LU, LV,
MT, NK, SK
4 (1)
EC
Working time 4 (1)
CY
20 (5)
ES, HU, IT, PL,
PT
28 (7)
BE, EE, FI, IE,
MT, SE, SK
44 (11)
AT, BG, DE,
DK, EL, FR, LT,
LU, LV, NL, SI
4 (1)
EC
Career
development
32 (8)
BE, CY, ES, FI,
FR, IT, LT, PT
12 (3)
BG, LV, MT
36 (9)
DE, EE, EL,
HU, IE, NL, SE,
SI, SK
16 (4)
AT, DK, LU, PL
4 (1)
EC
Health
insurance
4 (1)
BG
20 (5)
AT, BE, CY, DE,
ES
16 (4)
FR, MT, NL, SE
48 (12)
DK, EE, EL, FI,
HU, LT, LU,
LV, PL, PT, SI,
SK
12 (3)
EC, IE, IT
1 It is important to note here that in Luxemburg the comparison concerns public law officials and labour law officials on the central level; in
the Netherlands the comparison is between central public law officials and public sector employees with a labour law contract; in Germany
state civil servants and public employees (all incl. federal employees) are compared; in Ireland established civil servants and unestablished
civil servants are compared. Finally, in Finland the distinction is made between state employees with a public law status and central labour
law employees.
23
Right to strike 17 (4)
BG, DE, DK, EE
29 (7)
CY, ES, FI, HU,
IT, NL, SI
25 (6)
IE, LU, MT, PT,
SE, SK
25 (6)
BE, EL, FR, LT,
LV, PL
4 (1)
EC
Recruitment
procedure
36 (9)
BE, BG, CY, ES,
FI, FR, LT, LU,
LV,
32 (8)
DE, EE, EL,
MT, PT, SE, SI,
SK
20 (5)
DK, HU, IE,
NL, PL
8 (2)
AT, IT
4 (1)
EC
Ethical
obligations
12 (3)
BG, EE, LT
32 (8)
DE, HU, IT, LV,
NL, PL, SE, SK
12 (3)
BE, IT, MT
40 (10)
AT, CY, DK, EL,
ES, FI, FR, LU,
PT, SI
4 (1)
EC
Source: Demmke and Moilanen, Governmental Transformation and the Future of Public
Employment, Peter Lang, Frankfurt/M., 2013
Still, in only two Member States recruitment procedures are the same for civil servants and public
employees, job security only in three countries and pay systems only in six countries. Thus, despite
alignment trend, differences still prevail. Almost no Member States envisages a complete
harmonisation of employment features amongst the different public employment categories. This
finding is intriguing as most of the experts only focus on the so-called alignment trend but less on the
reasons why certain differences prevail.
Also perceptions that the central administrations should be seen as a “haven” of job security need
revision (Demmke and Moilanen, 2010, 178). In most EU countries the principle, that civil servants
enjoy life-time tenure and can only be dismissed for disciplinary reasons, belongs to the past.
24
Moreover, common accusations that central administrations are not innovative, not ready for reform
and suffering from reform inertia are clearly wrong. Also empirical findings contradict with popular
perceptions and long-established clichés to which the public sector is reform-resistant and public
employees inflexible (Demmke and Moilanen, 2013). Existing studies even point to the fact that
many public sector organisations have higher levels of organizational learning and innovation than
many private sector companies (OECD, 2010; Eurofound, 2012; Mazzucato, 2014). Evidence by
Eurofound shows that “learning community and professional models, both characterised by high
level of learning, problem-solving and discretion in work, tend to be characteristic of public services
and of the more knowledge-intensive private sector services” (Eurofound, 2012. These findings are in
clear contrast to established clichés and, for many observers, it even seems hard to believe them.
However, evidence seems to suggest that central public organisations are, by far, not as old-
fashioned and traditional as is often suggested.
Other popular statements suggest that many public officials are not performing well or worse than
private sector employees although this can also not be proved empirically. In both, private and in the
public sector, performance management and performance measurement systems are increasingly
linked to organisational capacity and individual performance.
25
Especially Human Resource Management in the Public Sector is considered as an isolated costly
policy which is very complex, technical and dominated by legalistic approaches. Rhetoric also
contrasts old-fashioned HR systems with new “managerial” reforms and the transformation power of
new concepts. For example, introduction of ICT is still seen (in a very modernistic perception) as
having the potential to transform government, to save huge amounts of money and to create
enthusiasm for its reform potential.
On the other hand, HRM is often considered a soft issue and not related to business strategies.
For example, Ulrich et al. (2012) claim that “the bar has been raised for HR; HR must create and
deliver value in real business terms” (Ulrich, 2012, 9).
Overall, the HR function remains among the least influential in most organizations, and competitive
strategies have not typically been based on the skills, capabilities, and behaviours of employees. The
financial crisis and the need to need to consolidate HR budgets have even led to an HRM
modernisation agenda which has even become more top-down driven with budgetary pressures as
key factor driving the modernisation agenda.
Also publications by COCOPS did not focus on reform outcomes in the field of HRM despite the
conclusion that many public management reforms have improved efficiency savings but also
contributed to a loss of public sector job attractiveness and employee job satisfaction.
The low importance of HRM in the public management discourse can also be explained by the grand
tradition of the concept of “administrative neutrality” and the dominance of managerial and
economic approaches. Consequently, the role and importance of emotions at the workplace is still
widely under-researched and, sometimes, not even recognised in the public sector
(Cropanzano/stein/Nadisc, 2011). This is surprising as changing behaviours and people is more than
difficult and cannot be accomplished by a simple introduction of new rules, standards and HR
policies.
This also suggests that good HRM can be defined not only by focusing on the management of
contexts such as technology, economics, politics, environmental issues and demographics external
constraints but encompasses also such issues like justice and fairness, leadership, ethical culture and
the broader social context of behaviour. Finally, “institutions matter”. High performing HR policies
must be embedded in high performing work systems and supportive organisational structures.
Therefore, in the following we will discuss the changing relationship between institutional structures
and the link between individual and organisational performance.
However, this is not to say that converging trends do not take place. In fact, for the first time since
the Second World War, almost all OECD countries have started to reduce public employment levels
and to implement reforms that were formerly considered as sacrosanct. For example, the
abolishment of hierarchical levels and careers, the reform of the principle of seniority based systems,
the reform of pension systems etc. Currently, long standing HRM features such as the existence of
hierarchical decision-making, centralized HR practices, little job autonomy, the existence of rigid
careers combined with the principle of seniority, the nature of work, public service motivation and
work ethos, the values of public servants, skills, the composition of the workforce, contractual
arrangements and age structure of the workforce are changing. To this should be added a different
understanding of the underlying reasons for public performance, leadership success and productive
workplace behavior.
6. Many reforms but prevailing clichés
26
Despite the discussed changes that are taking place in many countries, in the eyes of the public,
public administrators still work in an 19th century environment, in which the state and public servants
are clearly separated from the private sector and the society. In some countries the public employees
are still perceived as a protected group set apart from the outer world. They seem to enjoy
privileges, are not performing well enough, are not innovative, too costly and risk averse because of
too much job protection and hierarchical thinking.
Still, it is true that almost all countries maintain a (decreasing) number of specific employment
features for certain employment groups in the field of job security, recruitment procedures and pay
systems. Especially, the link between pay and performance is still different than in the private sector.
However, like this, also some perverse developments in the private sector could be avoided (for
example compared to the investment and banking sector, sports, culture, media etc. as to the
application of performance based rewards and merit based-principle). On the other hand, pay
disparities amongst public employees are also increasing, similarly to trends in the private sector. The
latter trend is mostly seen as positive but can also greatly enhance perception of organizational
unfairness and injustice.
As already discussed, despite the popular statement that many public officials are not performing
well or worse than private sector employees, this can also not be proved empirically. In both, private
and in the public sector, performance management and performance measurement systems are
increasingly linked to organisational capacity and individual performance. Still, it remains unclear
what kinds of systems, instruments and types are producing positive effects. Discussions about
“opening the black box” (Boselie/Dietz/Boon, 2005, 67-94) and the refinement of indicators for
measuring the link between HR, innovation and organisational performance are in full swing.
However, there is no evidence that public employees perform less well than comparable private
sector workers. As regards individual performance, for a long time, the existence of performance
related pay was supposed to be an important indicator for the existence of a professional
performance management system. Today, evidence shows that the link between performance
related pay and performance is much more complex. Even more, the assumption that modern
performance management systems have generated the necessary evidence to explain the link
between inputs and outcomes, to serve as the basis for better administrative management capacity
and enhanced performance have proven at least unfounded by facts.
In all countries, the process of public employment reduction and wage reduction is in progress. These
reductions are carried out after long years of a steady increase in public employment and wages.
Thus, one could argue that public services have become overstaffed and excessively expensive
anyway and the present trends reflect a movement to the former status quo. However, in some
countries severe salary cuts have led to an increase in the number of low paid employees. In many
cases, pay freezes were introduced and in almost 30% OECD countries bonuses were cut and
performance related pay reduced. The latter also means that, due to the lack of financial resources,
the instrument of performance related pay still exists in theory, but not anymore in practice, at least
in some countries.
Although reductions in operational expenditure are “expected to have a positive impact on the short-
term budgetary aims of government, they may also work to the detriment of government´s long
27
term capacity for service delivery” (OECD, 2012). Next, ”fiscal consolidation plans normally involve
reductions in staffing levels and in compensation of public employees, a situation that can have a
significant impact on the motivation, engagement and commitment of public servants and leadership
– which of course affects the quality of service delivery” (OECD, 2012).
Also working time is slowly increasing in some countries. A number of countries are introducing
reforms as regards sick-leave.
Whereas most countries reduce employment by the way of recruitment freezes, incentives for
voluntary departures and early retirement schemes, others also do so by dismissing the workforce
(the latter is the case by countries with high budgetary pressures such as Greece, and Portugal).
Generally, dismissals hit public employees stronger than civil servants. However, overall, the number
of fixed term employees is being reduced in most EU countries as this work group is more flexible
and easier “to get rid of”.
Combined with these trends, public tasks as such are rarely being reduced and need to be carried out
by fewer people. Consequently, workforce reductions combined with the same volume of services to
be delivered are leading to increased workloads and higher work intensity. Countries like Portugal
and Greece report about high increases in job related stress and increases in job intensity as a result
of the introduction of new HR reforms.
In most OECD countries, the process of public employment- and wage reduction is still in progress,
although there are great differences between countries with lower and budgetary constraints such as
Norway (where public employment is increasing) and countries like Portugal, Spain, the United
Kingdom and Portugal (where public employment is strongly decreasing).
In most European countries, another reform focus is in the field of training systems. Currently,
training policies do belong to the first casualties in the crisis as training budgets were the first to be
cut. The latter trend is clearly contrary to calls for more skill investments and the importance of
competency development. In fact, training opportunities are being reduced and moving up the
career ladder is made more difficult due to the freezing of promotion opportunities and a further
reduction of functions and positions in the administrative hierarchy. All these developments may
impair the attractiveness of public sector employment and lead to greater challenges in recruiting
the “most talented”.
In some cases, there is also an adverse correlation between structural, organisational and austerity
measures such as workforce downsizing operations, employment reductions, partial or total freezing
of recruitment and promotion, freezes on the departmental operating budgets, restructuring of
personnel, outsourcing, staff movement to agencies or to sub-national levels of government, wage
cuts, pension cuts etc. and the impact on job satisfaction, moral, job commitment and performance
of personnel.
Impact of austerity measures at workplace level (N=25)
Very
much
Some-
what Not at all
Hard to
say Total
28
decrease of trust in organisation 8 (2) 36 (9) 20 (5) 36 (9) 100 (25)
decrease of trust in leadership 12 (3) 46 (12) 15 (4) 27 (7) 100 (26)
perception of unfairness compared to how
private sector employees are dealt with 8 (2) 27 (7) 35 (9) 31 (8) 100 (26)
perception of unfairness compared to how
colleagues are dealt with 4 (1) 35 (9) 27 (7) 35 (9) 100 (26)
decrease in workplace commitment 8 (2) 39 (10) 19 (5) 35 (9) 100 (26)
decline of ethical values 0 (0) 27 (7) 35 (9) 39 (10) 100 (26)
lowering of job satisfaction 27 (7) 31 (8) 15 (4) 27 (7) 100 (26)
increase in inappropriate use of resources,
e.g., theft and fraud 0 (0) 4 (1) 48 (12) 48 (12) 100 (25)
unethical behaviour arising from higher
stress levels and higher job intensity 0 (0) 4 (1) 46 (12) 50 (13) 100 (26)
increase in anger 0 (0) 46 (12) 19 (5) 35 (9) 100 (26)
decrease in loyalty 4 (1) 35 (9) 23 (6) 39 (10) 100 (26)
greater tendency towards corruption 4 (1) 12 (3) 46 (12) 39 (10) 100 (26)
Source: C. Demmke/T. Moilanen, Effectiveness of Ethics and Good Governance, Peter Lang,
Frankfurt/M. 2012
The results of the Demmke/Moilanen study show a strong relationship between the introduction of
austerity measures and workplace behaviour. For example, the impact of austerity measures is
believed to be strongest in the field of lowering of job satisfaction. 83% of EU countries that have
implemented austerity measures report lowering of job satisfaction. Austerity measures will also
decrease of trust in leadership. 84% of austerity countries reported that the introduction of austerity
measures leads to distrust in leadership.
Lowering of job satisfaction by austerity measures (N=26)
Very much Somewhat Not at all Hard to say
No austerity measures 7 (1) 29 (4) 21 (3) 43 (6)
Austerity measures 50 (6) 33 (4) 8 (1) 8 (1)
Total 27 (7) 31 (8) 15 (4) 17 (7)
Source: C. Demmke/T. Moilanen, Effectiveness of Ethics and Good Governance, Peter Lang,
Frankfurt/M. 2012
Moreover, many Member States report a decrease in workplace commitment. As regards the
austerity countries, 58% reported a decrease in workplace commitment compared to 36% of the
non-austerity countries. 73% of the austerity countries observe a decrease of trust in the
organisation compared to 21% of the non-austerity countries. Also the degree of loyalty is influenced
by the introduction of austerity measures. Whereas 58% of all austerity measures mention that
loyalty levels are somewhat decreasing, only 14% of the non-austerity countries say that this is the
case.
Decrease in workplace commitment by austerity measures (N=26)
Very much Somewhat Not at all Hard to say
29
No austerity measures 7 (1) 29 (4) 29 (4) 36 (5)
Austerity measures 8 (1) 50 (6) 8 (1) 33 (4)
Total 8 (2) 39 (10) 19 (5) 35 (9)
Source: C. Demmke/T. Moilanen, Effectiveness of Ethics and Good Governance, Peter Lang,
Frankfurt/M. 2012
Overall, there is no trend towards the abolishment of the civil service status (“Beamtenstatus”).
However, differences as regards employment conditions between civil servants, public employees
and private sector workers are getting less. Thus, the substance of the status is changing as the
financial crisis leads to a hollowing out of the status. This again leads to a legitimation crisis of the
civil service status because there is very little evidence that civil servants differ in their work
behaviour to other public employees.
The most significant positive reform effect is the assumption that the crisis may lead to a much more
professional workforce planning process. However, there is little empirical research into which some
of the reported public administration reforms bring better results in this area.
7. New challenges for the future
European countries are still focusing on the introduction of reforms but not enough on generating
knowledge about the effects of reforms. Especially those countries which implement hasty
restructuring programmes, do not always carry out evaluation of the impact of these measures on
the public workforce. Still, many countries do not carry out employee surveys at all. Consequently,
they have very little evidence about the impact of reforms on employees.
Despite the overall trend towards reducing public employment, many countries attempt to increase
public employment in certain sectors (such as ICT, security, education, health). However, it is often
difficult for them to find the right experts on the labor market because of the problems with
attracting staff for public service jobs in an increasingly competitive context or simply because of
budgetary constraints, recruitment freezes and the declining attractiveness of the public sector as
employer (at least in some countries).
Hence, when anticipating ageing processes and demographic changes one of the future challenges
will consist in retaining the existing workforce longer (incl. the introduction of health management as
an entire new policy), enhancing the productivity of the workforce, introduce better anti-
discrimination policies and fight age-discrimination, professionalize work-life policies and so-called
fatherhood policies and invest in better workforce planning mechanism by placing the right persons
in the right positions at the right time.
Without any doubt, the future will see the emergence of a growing paradox. On the one hand,
budgetary constraints will force the public administrations to save costs and become more efficient.
On the other hand, new trends will also require the public services to become ever more productive,
innovative and force employers to invest in new HR policies and skill development. Of course, the
need to downsize, save costs and to enhance productivity and innovation are not mutually exclusive.
30
However, current “hard saving approaches” are unlikely to bring the anticipated positive reform
outcomes.
Many Governments, politicians and experts alike agree as to the importance of skills, knowledge,
education, training and long life learning for national prosperity, social cohesion and individual well-
being. Unfortunately, most countries are rather reducing than increasing budgets for training, skill
development and competency management. This means that countries that continue to invest in skill
development policies will become ever more competitive whereas countries that cut budgets will fall
behind. On the other hand, de-skilling trends and the discussed reductions in training budgets will
have various negative effects.
Similarly to the notion of “skills policies”, the term leadership is becoming a buzzword. In fact,
effective leadership remains a huge challenge. But what is it? It is often claimed that leadership
contributes to management capacity, organisational and country performance. However, it is rarely
explained what types and styles of leadership. For example, it can very well be that a strong
charismatic leadership or different leadership styles can have negative effects.
Moreover, Leadership´s success and effectiveness is seen as contingent upon the demands imposed
by the changing external and internal situation as well as by the changing relationship between
leaders and employees. A contingent leader effectively applies his/her own style of leadership to the
right situation. This means that there is not any more one best way to lead. In fact, leaders must
constantly develop new skills and competencies to adapt to their particular context, needs and
challenges such as:
Endogenous changes to the workforce, such as composition/age structure, culture, worker
expectations, and how this is affecting the relationship between leaders and employees
Exogenous challenges, for example the changing nature of the work undertaken by public
servants, and changing citizen expectations such as demands for greater transparency and
accountability and
Structural challenges, for example the changing nature of public sector organisations,
processes, resources and power, and the changing legal status of civil service work.
Little is known yet about skill development needs and trends in leadership in public administration,
despite the popularity of the topic. Still, current trends show a decrease and not an increase in trust
levels in leadership and in public organization (Demmke and Moilanen, 2012).
However, leadership, organizational culture and individual performance are strongly interconnected.
Ethical leadership, a strong ethical climate and organisational fairness/justice are associated with the
values of efficiency, effectiveness, quality, trust and cooperation. A good ethical climate is also
positively linked to organisational performance. Thus, efficiency and effectiveness is reinforced by a
strong ethical climate. If an unambiguous causal connection can be established between
organisational performance and ethical leadership, then this will have significant and positive
implications for the justification of ethics and ethical leadership.
While evidence mounts that ethical leadership is related to organisational performance, significant
methodological and theoretical challenges still exist. Methodologically, there is no consensus
regarding which practices constitute a theoretically complete set of ethical leadership, how ethical
31
leadership is to be measured and the mechanism by which ethical leadership might impact on
outcomes.
Another challenge is the need to show that professional HR policies, good working conditions,
professional leadership and organizational justice are linked to organizational performance.
Otherwise, tough cost-saving measures will continue to be introduced and produce a number of
negative and/or unintentional reform effects.
The future challenge is to implement workforce productivity improvements that ensure a balance
between costs and the quality and continuity of service and to convince stakeholders that the public
sector must pursue various, conflicting objectives while efficiency is only one objective.
8. What comes after bureaucracy and New Public Management - Towards a new administrative
model or towards more differentiation?
Due to the difficulties involved in obtaining reliable data and carrying out applied empirical research,
many theories about public management reform reflect personal opinions, images and perceptions.
Often, some countries are praised as being reform-oriented countries, whereas others are seen as
reform laggards although it remains unclear as to the basis on which these judgments and value
statements are based. Overall, it is risky to measure and rate the management capacity or
performance of countries, sectors or employment groups as such, given the variety and
diversification of forms of work organisations, reform policies, instruments and measures taken by
different levels of government, for different categories of staff, in different sectors and in different
policy areas.
Moreover, different historical traditions and cultures as well as different HR systems have a
considerable impact on public management modernization paths and on the outcomes of HR
reforms. The relevance of context and diversity in public administrations also has critical implications
for the concept of mutual learning and the possibility to “import” so-called best practices from one
country to another. On the other hand, it is ever more difficult to resist popular demands (especially
by the media) to rank countries as regards all sorts of policies, instruments and indicators.
However, often the pure ranking relies on the assumption that countries, organisations, structures,
individuals have stable attitudes and a stable identity. For example, the typology of “Napoleonic
states”, “bureaucratic states”, “NPM countries” or “career systems”. In reality, the concept of
national or global typology or national ranking implying coherence and homogeneity within
countries, and geographical typologies, is increasingly being put in question. In many cases, it is not
very helpful to classify countries in reform laggards and forerunners as it remains unclear and what
kind of value judgments and criteria these general classifications are based and how the term
performance is defined. Often, evaluations/ratings also contain some personal judgments and are
based on convictions that some reform trajectories are better than others. In reality, it is doubtful
whether the so-called reform laggards, if existing at all, perform better or worse than reform
oriented countries. As already discussed in this paper, the link between HRM, Leadership,
performance management and organisational performance is highly complex and still not
established.
32
In the meantime, the observation of the existence of relatively traditional and bureaucratic, but still
economically and administratively successful countries have given rise to the hypothesis of various
viable models of public sector performance and management capacity (Eichhorst/Marx/Tobsch,
2009). Also reform policies and reform outcomes increasingly vary across sectors (civil service, public
service, public administration, services of general interests), organisations, staff categories (civil
servant, public employees etc.) and governmental levels (central public administration, regional
administration and local administration).
Countries and organisation focus on different policies and instruments and can be considered as
reform laggards and/or forerunners at the same time, in different areas, policies and as regards the
use and choice of different instruments. For example, some countries may invest considerable
resources in strategic management but do not follow up the link between strategy, strategy planning,
strategic management and the implementation of the strategy. In other cases, there may not be any
integration of HRM strategies in strategic management.
Even if best-practices and benchmarks can be identified in one country, they must fit into the
administrative context if they want to be integrated successfully. However, also here is the devil in
the detail. Take the case of performance related pay. Whereas some organisational cultures are
much more receptive to the introduction of performance related pay, others are more reluctant. The
latter is the more the case in countries with more egalitarian cultures. As a consequence, some
countries may respond more possibly as to the implementation of specific reform instruments
whereas other countries do not.
Unfortunately, there is little agreement about how effective HRM should be defined although there
is some progress in conceptualising innovative workplaces or high commitment and high
performance HR. Overall, experts agree about the need for an appropriate combination of HR
bundles that fit into the own organisational context and not the simple implementation of best-
practices.
Currently, one can observe a widening gap in reform trends. Whereas some countries like Sweden,
Norway and Germany implement “soft” HRM bundles that are primarily intended to ensure that
employee’s interests are retained in otherwise difficult budgetary reform contexts, many other
countries focus on the implementation of “tough” technical HRM bundles that reflect a focus on cost
savings and downsizing management.
So far, evidence suggests that a focus on tough technical bundles is followed by lower job
satisfaction, less job commitment and lower trust in the organisation and leadership. Moreover, the
literature on downsizing suggest that downsizing programmes are likely to produce many negative
effects if they are not combined with behavioural bundles to counteract what is commonly referred
to as ‘survivor syndrome’ – low morale and commitment among employees who escape the
downsizing exercise (Cascio, 2010, 336; Levine, 1978; Sahdey/Vinnicombe/Tyson, 1999).
9. Conclusions
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, public administrations are moving through a fascinating
but also a disorienting period. Whereas the past reform trends were characterized by a move away
33
from the classical bureaucratic model, current reforms do not indicate convergence towards a NPM
model and even the varieties of NPM thesis may be unconvincing. On the other hand, it is also
unlikely that the times of seniority, standardisation, stability and bureaucratic features will return,
despite evidence about the negative effects of many new public management reforms.
Today, it is difficult to say whether the present reform trends confirm the end of the bureaucratic
paradigm, the beginning of a new post-bureaucratic paradigm or the arrival of completely new
innovative models.
Recent public management theories suggest that some reforms in the public sector are following the
same path, whereas others are not. Some claim that partial convergence exists, whereas others are
of the opinion that even among the most similar countries, convergence has been exaggerated.
For certain, the classical bureaucracies are about to change. However, some bureaucratic features
are not vanishing. It is not yet clear what the post-bureaucratic paradigm is, apart from remedies to
the weaknesses of the classical bureaucratic model. Still, developments like decentralisation,
responsibilisation, flexibilisation, deregulation and more openness are too wide and too fluid
concepts. These developments are also full of paradoxes and ambivalences. Consequently, they
represent alternatives to the classical models. But does these also mean improvements?
Contemporary public administrations are increasingly complex. In the future, public administration
will most likely become more complicated and probably more contradictory all the time. While
expectations of government are increasing, the resources available to meet these expectations are
diminishing. Public employees of the future will have to be at ease with more complexity and
flexibility. They will have to be comfortable with change, often rapid change. At the same time they
will take more autonomous decisions, be more responsible, accountable, performance-oriented, and
subject to new competency and skill requirements. Despite the popularity to criticise the over-
emphasis on laws and rules in contemporary civil services, the primacy of law is likely to remain in
the future.
The public workforce will be better qualified and more diverse than ever before. They will also face
more value conflicts and dilemmas although they are also better aware of the existence of ethical
rules, conflicts of interest issues and conflict resolution techniques.
In the future the national civil services will look more aligned to private sector practices as was ever
the case before. To state that the times of the traditional bureaucracy are over is tempting. In fact, it
is highly unlikely that the traditional bureaucracy is coming back. However, it cannot be excluded
that specific principles and aspects may return to the agenda. For example, the current trend
towards decentralisation and fragmentation has resulted in new discussions about the need for a
new public service ethos and the need for common values. Much depends on the outcomes of
reforms. As this study shows, many HR reforms in the national civil services show problematic
results. Thus, the reform outcomes do not indicate that the post-bureaucratic times are much better
- in many cases they are simply different.
What is clearly noticeable is that the post-bureaucratic reform of the national civil services is gaining
importance in all countries. As a result, the current international reform process is leading to a boost
in innovation that could also be of great interest in the respective national practice. In fact, the new
era is likely to look at a bureaucracy lite (Hayle, 2002) which – on top of it - combines the testing of
new HR bundles and organisational models and innovations that come and go as evidence about
failures and successes is produced and agreed upon.
34
In fact, several reform trajectories and HR reform bundles exist which lead to a modernisation of
structures, processes and employment conditions, but these highlight the existence of alternative
models rather than a shift towards one common administrative reform model or emergence of
varieties of New Public Management. Neither is there a common trend towards one new universal
organisational model, one employment benchmark or best-practices in the field of organisational
performance and public sector innovation.
Still, international comparison and benchmarking provide for an increasing number of options for
learning from the experiences and problems of others, without ignoring the particularities of the
national administrative structures.
Hence, also in the future, the nature and effects of public service reforms must be seen in the
context of the different public administrative traditions, geographical and cultural differences as well
as the importance of different organisational structures. At the same time it will become easier to
compare new reforms, test new innovations and discuss popular reform trends and reform fashions.
Most countries find themselves in a difficult process of reducing public employment and saving
resources. The trend is towards a dual employment model or even a pluralisation of different
employment forms on central governmental level. Moreover, the civil service status is hollowing out
as specific employment features of civil servants are slowly disappearing. Again, despite these trends,
some issues like job security, recruitment procedures and pay remain different to the private sector.
Fascination for the private sector as a role model is slowly disappearing and discussions on public-
private comparisons are becoming more pragmatic and less influenced but clichés. For example,
many employment practices in the private sector do not serve anymore as an automatic example as
a best-practice to the public service – even contrary. In many respects, innovations and working and
employment conditions in central administrations will also serve as a role model for the private
sector, for example, working time models, work-life balance, fatherhood policies, ageing strategies,
anti-discrimination policies, remuneration policies, integrity management, health management etc.
For the future, it will be important to keep those features which are better, more productive, more
efficient, fairer and less prone to discrimination. For doing so, two conditions are important. First, a
rational discussions about the pros and cons of reforms and second, better evaluation of effects of
reforms. As regards the latter European countries need to invest in more and better employee
surveys and be ready to introduce the results. After a decade of deterioration of working conditions
in many countries, the link between specific HR bundles, professional leadership, good working
conditions and organisational performance, motivation and trust will reappear as one of the most
important agenda points within the next years.
In many countries, austerity measures had a negative impact on moral, commitment and
performance of personnel although an analysis of most of the restructuring programmes and
austerity measures effects is needed. So far, no analysis has been carried out on the link between the
above-mentioned alignment and reform trends and the development of demotivation, decrease of
organisational commitment, loss of trust in leadership, politicisation and unethical behaviour. For
example, is the trend towards less job security linked to higher levels of politicisation?
35
Working and employment conditions are still better at the central public administration level than
elsewhere in the public sector. In some countries, most jobs at the central administration level are
(relatively) good jobs. However, there is a widening gap between the situation in those countries that
are not confronted with the introduction of tough HR bundles and those who are.
Thus, nothing suggests being against aligning public sector employment practices to those which are
applicable in the private sector, and vice versa. Still, we wish to mention that many current
developments in the private sector (for example in the field of applying the merit principle, fairness
issues, the link be-tween pay and performance) may contradict the objectives of the state as an
employer. Government needs employment systems that guarantee adherence to the core values,
administrative law principles and ensure a focus on effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. They
must ensure equal treatment and fairness while ensuring the merit principle and the equality of
chances. They must be attractive and competitive with respect to the private sector policies while
man-aging tax payers’ money as prudently as possible. To sum up, presently government
employment systems are corresponding better to a Rawlsian principle of justice than current trends
in the private sector which produce many forms of injustice and sometimes perverse developments
in the rewarding of individual performance. Another interesting paradoxical feature of the current
reform discussion is the discrepancy between the reform speed in many areas on the one hand and
the reform inertia in other areas on the other hand.
Still, some important features have not changed in importance. The objective of public
administration and public officials is to be independent from particular and personal interests and
should aim to establish and guarantee a democratic society based on the principles of the rule of law,
protect the society and achieve fairness and equity in times of growing inequalities in the societies.
For these reasons, employment conditions and employment structures will remain distinctive to the
private sector. In the future, government will be required to become ever more efficient and
innovative. Still, despite growing difficulties to distinguish between public and private sector
management, some differences remain. Despite the change of Government, as discussed in the
beginning of this paper, it is not a private company - money cannot buy everything2.
2 Michael J. Sandel (2012), What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
36
Bibliography
1. Mark Bltyth, Austerity, Ox Ford University Press, 2013
2. Paul Boselie/Graham Dietz and Corine Boon (2005), Commonalities and contradictions in
research on human resource management, and performance, in: Human Resource
Management Journal, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 67–94, July 2005
3. Peter Boxall, John Purcell, and Patrick M. Wright (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Human
Resource Management, Oxford University Press
4. Peter Boxall/John Purcell (2011), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Palgrave, 3rd
edition, London
5. Bob Carter/Andy Danford/Debra Howcroft/Helen Richardson/Andrew Smith and Phil Taylor
(2011), Lean and mean in the civil service: the case of processing in HMRC Public Money and
Management, Vol. 31, No 2, pp. 115-122
6. Wayne F. Cascio, Downsizing and Redundancy, in: Adrian Wilkinson/Nicolas Bacon/Tom Redman and Scott Snell (Eds.) (2010), The SAGE Handbook of Human Resource Management, London, 2010, pp. 336-349
7. John Cordery and Sharon Parker, 2007, Work Organization, in: Peter Boxall, John Purcell, and
Patrick M. Wright (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford
University Press, pp.187-209.
8. Russel Cropanzano/Jorgan H. Stein/Thierry Nadisc, Social justice and the experience of
emotion, Routledge, New York, 2011.
9. Colin Crouch, David Finegold, and Mari Sako (2001), Are Skills the Answer? The Political
Economy of Skill Creation in Advanced Industrial Countries, Oxford Press, Oxford.
37
10. Christoph Demmke/Gerhard Hammerschmid/Renate Meyer (2008), Measuring Individual and Organisational Performance in the Public Services of EU Member States, Office of Official Publications of the EU, Luxemburg 2008
11. Christoph Demmke/Timo Moilanen (2013), Governmental Transformation and the Future of
Public Employment, Peter Lang, Frankfurt/M.
12. Christoph Demmke/Timo Moilanen (2012), Effectiveness of Public Service Ethics and Good
Governance, Peter Lang, Frankfurt/M.
13. Christoph Demmke/Timo Moilanen, Civil Services in the EU of 27, Peter Lang, Frankfurt/M.,
2010.
14. Werner Eichhorst, Paul Marx and Verena Tobsch (2009), Institutional Arrangements,
Employment Performance and the Quality of Work, Institute for the Future of Labor,
Discussion Paper No. 4595, November 2009
15. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2013),
Working Conditions in Central Public Administration, Dublin
16. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and working Conditions (2012), Work
Organisation and Innovation, Dublin
17. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2012), Impact
of the crisis on working conditions in Europe, Dublin
18. Irena Grugulis and Steven Vincent (2009), Whose skill is it anyway? Soft skills and
polarisation, in: Work, Employment and Society 23 (4) pp 597 – 615, December 2009
19. Jamie Gruman and Alan M. Saks, Performance Management and employee engagement
(2011), in: Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 123-136.
20. Shahidul Hassan/Bradley E. Wright/Gary Yukl (2014), Does Ethical Leadership Matter in
Government? Effects on Organizational Commitment, Absenteeism, and Willingness to
Report Ethical Problems, in: Public Administration Review, 2014, Vol. 74, Issue. 3, pp. 333–
343
21. Colin Hayle (2002), Bureaucracy-lite’ and Continuities in Managerial Work, in: British Journal
of Management, Vol. 13, pp. 51–66
22. Joachim Hesse/Christopher Hood/Guy Peters (Eds.) (2003), Paradoxes in public sector
reform: An international comparison, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin.
23. Christopher Hood (1998), The Art of the State, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
38
24. Ann Hutchison/Peter Boxall (2014), The critical challenges facing New Zealand’s chief
executives: implications for management skills, in: Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
Vol. 52, 23–41
25. Bradley L. Kirkman/Kevin B. Lowe/Dianne P. Young (1999), High Performance Work
Organizations, Center for Creative Leadership
26. Charles H. Levine (1978), Organizational Decline and Cutback Management, in: Public
Administration Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 316-325
27. Charles H. Levine, More on Cutback Management: Hard Questions for Hard Times, in: Public Administration Review, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1979), pp. 180
28. Levinston, (1970) Management by whose objectives? In: Harvard Business Review, (July-
August), 125-134
29. Martin Lodge and Christopher Hood (2012), Into an Age of Multiple Austerities? Public
Management and Public Service Bargains across OECD Countries, in: Public Governance, Vol.
1, pp. 79-101.
30. Toby Lowe (2013), New development: The paradox of outcomes—the more we measure, the
less we understand, in: in: Public Money and Management, 2013, Vol. 33:3, pp. 213-216
31. David MacLeod and Nita Clarke, Engaging for Success, Report to Government, no year
32. Mark J. Martinko/Michael Gundlach/Scott Douglas (2002), Towards an integrative theory of
counterproductive workplace behavior: A casual reasoning perspective, in: International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, No. 1-2/2002, pp. 36-50.
33. Mariana Mazzucato (2014), The Entrepreneural State, Anthem Press, London
34. Jan-Hinrik Mayer-Sahling, 2009, Sustainability of Civil Service Reforms in Central and Eastern
Europe Five Years After EU Accession, SIGMA-Papers No. 44, OECD, Paris.
35. Peter G. Northouse (no year), Leadership, Theory and Practice, Sixth Edition, Sage Publishers
36. OECD, Restoring Public Finances, 2012 Update, Paris
37. OECD (2012), Public Sector Compensation in Times of Austerity, OECD Publishing, Paris
38. OECD (2012), Public Servants as Partners for Growth: Towards a Stronger, Leaner and More
Equitable Workforce, OECD Publishing, Paris
39. OECD (2012), Better Skills, better Jobs, better Lifes, OECD Publishing, Paris
40. OECD (2011), Divided we stand: Why inequality keeps rising? OECD Publishing, Paris.
39
41. OECD (2010), Innovative Workplaces, Making better use of skills within organisations, OECD
Publishing: Paris
Jonathan Payne (2000), The unbearable lightness of skill: the changing meaning of skill in UK
policy discourses and some implications for education and training, in: Journal of Educational
Policy, Vol. 15, pp.353-369
42. B. Guy Peters, Governance responses to the fiscal crisis—comparative perspectives, in: Public
Money and Management, January 2011 p.76
43. Ashly Pinnington/Rob Macklin and Tom Campbell (eds.) (2007), Human Resource
Management, Ethics and Employment, Oxford University Press, Oxford
44. Christopher Pollitt (2013), What do we know about Public Management reform? Concepts,
Models and some approximate Guidelines, Paper supporting a presentation to the
conference and workshop ’Towards a comprehensive reform of Public Governance, Lisbon,
28‐30 January 2013.
45. Christopher Pollitt Back in the OECD...An Oblique Comment on the World Bank’s “Better
Result from Public Institutions” (2012)
46. Christopher Pollitt/Geert Bouckaert (2011), Public Management Reform: A Comparative
Analysis - New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, 3rd
edition,Oxford University Press
47. Christopher Pollitt/Sorin Dan (2011), The Impacts of the New Public Management in Europe:
A Meta-Analysis, Cocops Work package 1, Deliverable 1.1, 14 December 2011,
www.cocops.eu ( last time checked on 9 September 2014).
48. Christopher Pollitt/Sorin Dan (2011), The Impact of New Public Management (NPM) Reforms
in Europe, in: COCOPS European Policy Brief, December 2011.
49. Richard A. Posthuma/ Michael C. Campion/ Malika Masimova/ Michael A. Campion , A High
Performance Work Practices Taxonomy: Integrating the Literature and Directing Future
Research Journal of Management Vol. 39 No. 5, July 2013, pp. 1184
50. Tiina Randma-Liiv and Riin Savi. 2014. Introduction to the Special Issue: The Impact of the
Fiscal Crisis on Public Administration, in: Administrative Culture, Vol 15, No. 1, pp. 4-9
51. Kusum Sahdev/Susan Vinnicombe and Shaun Tyson (1999), Downsizing and the changing role
of HR, in: The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10, 906-923
52. Michael J. Sandel (2012), What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, Farrar, Straus
and Giroux
40
53. de Schrijver/K. Delbeke/J. Maesschalck/S. Pleysier (2010), Fairness perceptions and
organisational misbehaviour: An empirical study, in: The American Review of Public
Administration, Vol. 40, No. 6/2010, pp. 691-703
54. Erna Szabo (2007): Participative management and culture. Frankfurt/M.
55. Paul Teague/William K. Roche (2014), Recessionary bundles: HR practices in the Irish
economic crisis, in: Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 24, no 2, pages 176–192
56. Paul Thompson and Bill Harley, HRM and the Worker: Labor Process Perspectives, in: Peter
Boxall, John Purcell, and Patrick M. Wright (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource
Management, Oxford University Press
57. Dave Ulrich, Human Resource Champions, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, 1997.
58. Dave Ulrich/Jon Younger/Wayne Brockbank/Mike Ulrich (2012), HR from the Outside in, Mc
Graw Hill
59. Hugh Weinberg (2014), Ethical Leadership in Public Service: A Solid Foundation for Good
Government, in: Public Administration Review, 2014, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 344–345
60. Adrian Wilkinson/Nicolas Bacon/Tom Redman and Scott Snell (Eds.) (2010), The SAGE
Handbook of Human Resource Management, London, 2010.