Personnel Offices the Personnel Function Reaction Paper

The guardian bureaucracy, for example, goes all the way back to the writings of Plato. Patronage/spoils goes back to the founding of the United States, which is not a surprise, since loyalty was a predominant value post-revolution. Agencies in the United States value "merit and confidence" and merit principles are the core values of the majority of systems.

Cayer moves on to listing the organizational questions that must be asked when choosing a personnel system, including which type of board is desirable, whether there is a centralized personnel office, and who has the final authority over personnel functions and the pros and cons of each decision. Bipartisan or nonpartisan commissions are the dominant choice for governance in the U.S. And have been since 1883. The main alternative to this model is the central personnel office which reports directly to the top executive and takes a role in leadership and management. Most systems combine a centralized and decentralized approach to minimize the associated pros and cons. Central agencies are largely responsible for policy-making, while the decentralized agencies tend to specific local concerns. The past decade has seen much more consolidation or even the elimination of civil service agencies as governments deal with budget defecits.

A species of their own, career bureaucrats (appointees) are often exempt from personnel office decisions as the personnel staff can't afford the political trouble that would result from such efforts. Career civil servants, on the other hand, have tenure and continue from one administration to the next. Systems for these employees are either open or closed. Closed systems promote from within; open systems recruit from both inside and outside the current agency.

Senior Executive Service organizes the personnel function so that matches up managers and administrators to work with each other; improves communication across units; improve public services image; improve administrators performance with rewards. Studies conflict about whether or not SES is effective.

Rank-in-person and rank-in-job are yet two more systems of personnel. Rank-in-person evaluates the person on performance. Rank-in-job means that the agency is structured around the work to be done -- position classification is key. This system makes advancement difficult, as individuals are not evaluated on their own merits.

Cayer concludes with the reminder that federal government requirements greatly influence the smaller jurisdiction personnel offices. Merit systems are often requirements for Federal funding, and many smaller offices feel overwhelmed by all of the rules. However, Cayer points out that these rules protect older workers, people with disabilities, and other groups that a local government may not take an interest in.