HumanResourcesManagement ForEffectivePublicAdministration ·...

61Covell • Human Resources Management For Effective Public Administration

In its Introduction, United Nations Department ofEconomics and SocialAffairs, Division for PublicAdministration and Development Management

(2005) stated, “Good government requires good peo-ple” (p. 1). Good people indicate personnel with highquality and technical capacity.

In many government reports or consultancy pa-pers, there is also the emphasis that government canbe efficient and successful as well as able to respondto different social, economic, political, and globalchallenges if it can recruit and retain a talented work-force. However talented the workforce is, when itrefers to the reality of “employable skills” personneland line department setting at a government wherepersonnel who have the same knowledge and skillsare pooled together to perform multiple tasks (Mc-Shane, 1992), work in a fast-paced and competitiveenvironment, they will not produce an effective andefficient workforce. Multitasking and a competitiveenvironment create personnel who are a “Jack of AllTrades” but they are master in none while competi-tiveness creates hatred, envy, and jealousy, which arerevealed in personnel behavior and limited capacity(Segan, 2005). Aman is expert in his own field. Mul-titasking causes knowledge crisscrossing and causespersonnel to do work beyond their area of expertise.In addition, the new public management requires lesseducation but simply the basic knowledge of how todo a task and the employable skills, which are the

willingness to assist, to learn, and friendliness (Ritzer,1988; Kazilan, Hamzah, & Bakar, 2009).

This scheme results in the diminishing valuesand importance of science, knowledge, professional-ism, and managerialism in public administration. Inthe legal and political fields, employees and leadersdepend much on hunch (Nagle, 1984; Buchanan & DiPierro, 1980) and it makes the process of managinghuman resources in public administration more diffi-cult and complex. Politicians and chief executives op-erate and make decisions based not only on hunch butalso on prediction. However, prediction is a forbiddenknowledge and those who tread on prediction are un-wise (White, 1999). It is dangerous to perform man-agement based on prediction. Lao Tzu once said,“Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Thosewho don’t have knowledge predict.” Similarly, the useof feelings and emotions in hiring and recruitment isbecoming a trend in the public sector because of a lackof knowledge about the jobs in the public sector anda lack of professionalism (Kramer, 1998), which re-sults in irrational hiring decisions (Damasio, 1999).

Within line department, there are small teamsand self-directed teams, and leadership role is in-significant (Olson & Eoyang, 2003; Markulis, Jas-sawalla, & Sashittal, 2006). Then why are wequestioning the severe leadership crisis in public ad-ministration? It is because we have eliminated lead-ership roles and functions with our invention of

Human Resources ManagementFor Effective Public Administration

Caroline Covell,Walden University

Abstract: Managing human resources in public administration is difficult and complex because it is an academicfield, a field of scientific management and application, and a field of managerial professionalism, which includes legaland political processes. Effective management of human resources in public administration requires the incorpora-tion of human resources development and continuous and strategic planning for “the right person for the right job.”The contemporary public administration with personnel that possess “employable skills” belittles the government andreduces its capacity. This system has resulted in a human resource management style that is based on feelings. Thispaper argues that traditional human management is more effective and it determines the success and the strength ofthe government. The crisis faced by public administration today is the result of the reinventing the government move-ment–a system whose human resources management is based on “employable skills,” multitasking, and a fast-pacedenvironment. This system diminishes the importance of knowledge, science, and professionalism. It causes a lead-ership crisis and poor capacity governance. This paper describes the theoretical foundation of human resources man-agement in the government. This paper also discusses a comparative analysis between line-department and matrixapproach as an alternative solution to improve the capacity of public employees so that they can perform effectivelyand maximize their potential.

62 Chinese Public Administration Review • Volume 6, Number 3/4 • September/December 2011

small teams and self-directed teams. Janz (1999) ar-gued that small teams and self-directed teams intro-duced by past scholars, as a method of restructuringwith a promise of improving organization perform-ance, job satisfaction, motivation, and personnel co-operation has never materialized beyond a smallpiece of autonomy.

Market personalization elevates feelings ratherthan professionalism, but feelings are deceitful anddesperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). With the adop-tion of competitiveness, market personalization ofhuman resources management in public administra-tion breeds corruption, other unethical practices, anddiscrimination that will linger in the system andspreading chronically across sectors and spill overinto society. Discrimination in human resources man-agement antagonizes the true characteristics of pub-lic administration, which are social equity and humanrights (Bansal, 2001).

Privatization of human resources managementshould not be part of public sector practices (Berman,1998). Private recruiters do not understand the natureof the work, the work, the environment of the gov-ernment, how the process should be, and the cycle ofthe administration in the government. It weakens pub-lic leadership and over time, it reduces its personnel’scapacity, increases non-accountability, and improvesthe demand for decentralization of political power anddecision making while social problems are balloon-ing without solution.

Human resources management in public ad-ministration can only be effective if it focuses on thetheoretical and practical foundation of the public ad-ministration, which is an academic field (Ronquillo,2008), a field of scientific management and applica-tion (Van Riper, 1995); a field of managerial profes-sionalism, and a field of legal and political processes(Fry & Nigro, 1996; Drechsler, 2000). It is then wecan argue, “Good government has good people”(United Nations Public Administration and Develop-ment Management, 2005).

ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to promote changethrough the adoption of a strategic human resourcesmanagement framework that challenges the new pub-lic management style, the corporate system of publicadministration that has caused leadership, managerial,and organizational dysfunctions. This system is, arguedWeber (1947), more effective, more efficient, and moresustainable —one that will promote capacity develop-ment, democratic governance, and strong leadership.

This paper also conducts a comparative analy-

sis between a line-department and matrix approach asan alternative solution to improve the capacity of pub-lic employees so that they can perform effectively andmaximize their potential. In addition, this study indi-cates that as long as there is weakness in human re-sources management, it is difficult to achieve goodgovernment. It is difficult to achieve bureaucratic ef-ficiency and effectiveness because the flaws inherentin line department, teamwork, self-directed team, andhuman management policy, which are designed “alaMcDonald’s” or “alaWallmart,” are greater than whatis idolized by the market.

AnAlternative Model of ChangeToward Human DevelopmentThe restructuring process of the private sector, whichis usually introduced when firms are downsizing,promises efficiency but never produces efficiency(Janz, 1988). Then, what makes one think that re-structuring the public sector “ala private enterprise”may bring efficiency, particularly in the managing ofthe human resources?

Most public leaders and personnel know verylittle about the government (Congleton, 2004) evenabout the Constitution. Samara, a charity organiza-tion, interviewed 65 former Canadian Members ofParliament and found they do not know about theirgovernment, their jobs, and many do not have jobs de-scriptions. Wrote Samara, they are sponsored to runfor federal politics, never trained, but given only asmall booklet about constituency’s rights and respon-sibilities; and as one of the Members of Parliamentsaid during the interview, “You learn by the seat ofyour pants.” How could one work in a difficult andcomplex organization (Jones, 2003) he or she knowsnothing about and operate by “Googling” their waythrough?

In order to know the job descriptions of apolitician, one must understand the bureaucracy, itsstructure (Kvint, 1990), and the Constitution (Riggs,1994) because it characterizes the legitimacy of thegovernment (Long, 1952; Overeem, 2008), the rolesand functions of government, and the duties of theleaders (Lawler, Schaler, & Schaefer, 1998; Hartmus,2008). Understanding the Constitution is difficult be-cause it is not a simple administrative process (Rosen-bloom, 2007). It should be the priority knowledgerequirement for all public leaders and public servants(Dube, 1963).

Managing human resources in the public sectoris different from the private sector. In the private sec-tor, it is about recruiting and matching people with thejob, about people performing the task, and about


motivating people (Markman & Baron, 2003). In thepublic sector, it is about managing people and theirpractices (Berman, Bowman, West, & Van Wart,2001), managing the administration of the flow of thetasks (Lane &Wolf, 1990), about human cognitive de-velopment and personnel capacity development aswell as the building of the nation (Dube, 1963). There-fore, it requires the understanding of human develop-ment, the level of knowledge, purposes, andcontributions of science and knowledge in the work-place to achieve organization goals, and the benefits tothe society should the scientific knowledge be appliedin the task. Like public policy, human resources man-agement and human resources development requirecontinuous planning. It is a continuous and never-end-ing process (Anderson, 1991).

Human resources management and develop-ment also require public leaders and personnel to mas-ter and comprehend the Constitution (Dube, 1963)because it is the foundation of the nation and steersthe Nation’s future. Although Constitutions vary ineach country, in general, the document outlines thepower and source of power of the leaders (Palmer,1959) whose main responsibility is to guarantee thechecks and balances (Overeem, 2008) of each publicpolicy. According to Dube, public leaders and per-sonnel should go through a rigorous education aboutthe Constitution because it is through the Constitutionthat they understand the roles and functions of thegovernment. Through the Constitution, they under-stand that it is a privilege to serve the citizens, it is acalling (Heintzman, 2007).

Jobs in the public sector consist of paradoxes,which cannot be standardized, and developing the ca-pacity of its personnel means to thrive on paradoxes(Berman, Bowman, West, & Van Wart, 2001). Theygrow, spread, and emerge in the future. Gavin An-thony called them, “dying like a seed.” Each time aperson leaves the bureaucracy due to retirement, theseed he has planted germinates then grows and bearsfruit. The fruit germinates into a new plant and it fol-lows the same cycle of human development.

For decades, we have been operating accord-ing to the philosophy of “Managing by Performance.”This philosophy is influenced by the performance ofthe Hollywood actors/actresses whose biological ap-pearance and characters, and risk-taking spirit in filmsare very attractive. The movie stars have hypnotizedmany people, and even the expressions they use in thefilms are being adopted into the normal workplace.Because of their popularity, they are being appointedto lead as ambassadors for the United Nations and asleaders in commissions. George Clooney was elected

to join the Darfur Commission because of his role inthe movie Three Kings. Suzanne Sommers, an actorin Three’s Company, was elected to deliver and adviseCanadian policymakers on biological medicine. How-ever, actors’ “leadership” is simply performing. Theyact based on script. One cannot transform the filmscript into reality. Kevin Bacon, another Hollywoodcelebrity, once revealed to STAR Television, thatcelebrities are living in two different worlds: if theyapply their screen life into the real world, their life isdestroyed. He even suggested that one should nevertake advice from celebrities especially in the world ofscientific application. The glamour and success of theHollywood movies cause people to dream of beingcelebrities. Many regular people who enter the gov-ernment through political appointment are seeking theopportunity to become popular by banking on Holly-wood celebrities or just to associate themselves withthese celebrities.

Director of Titanic, James Cameron, waselected to lead NASA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion Space Exploration Project. James Cameron stud-ied physics at California State University at Fullertonbut switched to English, then dropped out. The en-thusiastic company later filed for bankruptcy andabandoned the project after spending $97 billion ofpublic money of its estimated project cost more than$250 billion because the company overestimated theabilities of its leading role and underestimated thecomplexity of the project. Such project requireshighly scientific knowledge, which James Cameronand his crews could not perform. It is difficult to trans-form entertainment into scientific reality, isn’t it? It isinteresting that, despite NASA failure, JamesCameron later became a lobbyist who lobbied theWhite House to develop a 3D camera for the MarsRover. More interestingly, he was appointed to leadthe project as a NASA adviser and would give adviceto a crew of scientists. It should be the other wayaround but his appointment was simply politically togenerate fund due to his celebrity status.

We are also living in the era of aristocracywhere jobs and leadership positions in the private sec-tor are frequently based on “hand me downs” (Schorr,1997). As government is operating in a businesslikemanner, this practice is being adopted into the publicsector as well. In terms of leadership, many youngpeople are very attracted to leadership roles becausethey perceive such positions as being a celebrity. Theylove to perform and see themselves talking on TV, butall are artificial (McLaren, 2006). Many of them, eventhe adults, dare to take the risk of becoming execu-tives, managers, directors, or analysts without


adequate intellectual and professional grooming andwithout undergoing proper cognitive development,but simply performing as what the Canadian Mem-bers of Parliament admitted in their interview withSamara. Unfortunately, managing by performance hasbeen one of the contributing factors to the corporatebankruptcy (Daft, 1998) across the globe. It is alsoone of the causes of the flaws in the government today(Rosen, Boothe, Dhalby, & Smith, 1999).

Human Development vs.Human Resources ManagementManaging human resources is not an easy task(Heames & Harvey, 2006), especially in the govern-ment. It is time consuming because it requires con-stant planning and is very complex (Lam, 2002) –from the recruitment (Varette & Zussman, 2008) totesting, selection, training, placement, succession, andso forth (Lane &Wolf, 1990) – all require continuousplanning. It requires the understanding of human de-velopment and the importance of knowledge and ed-ucation. It requires long-range thinking for thesurvival of future generations (Wellisch, 2000). Thisindicates that a person who is in charge of human re-sources management should be a person who has gonethrough the process of cognitive development, hasknowledge and education, and that he or she has beengroomed professionally and intellectually. Withoutthese skills, it seems difficult to recruit, match, andplace the right person for the right job for today andthe future.

A human resource manager should be highlyeducated, have high cognitive development, and havegone through professional development and have ex-perience in the field. The manager must understandthe value of knowledge and its contribution to the suc-cess of an organization and that of a community.Through his or her professional experience, the personknows what knowledge and experience are requiredfor a particular job and at which level the candidateshould be placed or assigned. Within a line depart-ment, clerical staff are quickly placed at the executiveposition and empowered to perform duties similar tothe administrative staff because the manager does notunderstand the job of an executive.

A young administrative staff at the OntarioHuman Rights Tribunal was advanced to the positionof a judge (vice chair) to the Ontario Human RightsTribunal without going through the process of devel-opment to become a judge. In the hearing room, shebrought in her laptop and transcribed every word ut-tered by the parties in disputes and the witnesses. Shenever read any summation, never read any material

facts, never read the case, and never took into accountthe bundles of proofs submitted but made her decisionbased solely on ”who appeared to be telling the truth”,which she called it the “evidence.” Her analysis wasbased on the parties’ demeanor during the hearing,which she called “credibility.” Yet, people lie in thecourt even though they put their hands on the Bible.They camouflaged their demeanor and acted as if theywere telling the truth (Hahn, 2008) but it was indeeda big lie.

In the new public administration, the “WallMart” system emphasizes that education is no longerconsidered significant. Simply a little experience, de-spite the sector, the employable skills, and some basicknowledge of doing a task, even though the public andthe private sectors are vastly different (Yu, 2008;Noble, 2006). The public and private sectors are dif-ferent in every aspect (Reed & Swain, 1990), operatedifferently (Van der Gaag & Štimac, 2008), and thenature of their work is different in every way. ThomasJefferson once stated, “Education is the most impor-tant factor for the success of the organization.”

Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, describedthat human cognitive development is limited to his orher level of maturity, intelligence, and education. Theaptitude for decision-making is similarly tied. Imagineif a human resource manager, who makes the hiringdecisions, is a person with only a high school or a two-year college diploma and the candidates have degreesfrom higher learning institutions. Regardless of his orher level of education and cognition, the person whodoes the hiring will rely solely on his or her feelingsor emotions. Hiring decisions are based on “likeness”or “they have to like you,” stated Professor Oreopou-los, who did a study on discrimination in Canada,

In his study, Professor Oreopoulos found thatfirms “don’t value degrees from prestigious foreignuniversities or master’s degrees but simply the appli-cant’s name matters considerably more than his or heradditional education, multiple language skills, and ex-tracurricular activities.” He concluded that firms donot value the qualifications and credentials of the can-didates but their hiring decisions are based on howstrong the candidates make emotional contact with theinterviewers. This conclusion sounds like the candi-date is looking for a date.When government contractsits hiring to the private sector, it receives personnelwho are hired based on these criteria such as howgood the person makes emotional contact with the in-terviewers, rather than their knowledge or educationand professional experience or what they can con-tribute to the success of the organizations.

In Canada, the priority qualification for hiring


in the public sector is fluency in French language. Thecandidates’ experience, education and professional-ism are insignificant. Since the hiring manager at thePublic Service Commission has a limited level of cog-nition or a limited level of education, the computerdecides who would be hired and the candidates are se-lected randomly based on name criterion. It causes thegovernment to overlook the important qualities andcapacities of the candidates (Dowlen, 2009). Indeed,the irrelevance of intellectuals in the government hasbeen one of the main sources of government failurearound the world.

A young, two-year Facility Management grad-uate from Algonquin College was hired as a branchmanager at Robert Half International Inc. to act as ahuman resources manager and consultant for privatecompanies and the government. She interviews thecandidates and makes hiring decisions within 5 min-utes after interviewing the candidates. She claimedthat the people she hires are executives with CA,CMA, CGA, and other high education credentials aswell as people who have adequate professional expe-rience. However, those she hires and sends to compa-nies and the government is ones who are lacking inthese credentials. Interestingly, résumés produced bythe candidates are often falsified in both experienceand education to make them qualified for higher-levelpositions. They are paid according to their rate but thecompany bills the clients according to the price for theposition plus 87% markup.

This practice is common in the consulting in-dustry and the nongovernmental organizations aswell. Even in the international world, consulting firmsand nongovernmental organizations take the creden-tials of the qualified candidates from their roster forgovernment tender but the candidates they send to dothe work do not have such qualifications. Using re-sult-based report, they could easily cut and paste fromother reports and present the result as their own work.Interestingly, without having done the work, they havea report to present to the government done through cutand paste. In the field, they talk more as McLaren(2006) put it, they “shoot their mouth” and demandfor entitlement, but all are artificial. Norman VincentPeale, the author of The Power of Positive Thinking,stated they talk more to cover what is lacking in theirjob performance. The knowledge they have is whatthey learn along the way or during seminars and con-ferences but without the foundation. The result of theirwork is non-sustainable.

The marketing or advertising culture of the pri-vate sector has infected public sector in terms of re-cruitment as well but it promotes waste of public

resources. In 2009, Canada National Resources De-partment conducted its recruitment for policy analystsand economists. Candidates were flown from all overthe world to write exam and tour the department fa-cility at the capital City of Ottawa. During the 2-dayevent, all their transportation, hotels, and meals of thecandidates were paid by the department. The firstnight involved a briefing that was followed by wineand cash. Day 2 was the exam, which involved writ-ing a two-paragraph summary of a report based onfour bundles of reports and a one-page memo. Candi-dates from all levels of education were given the sameexam. After the exam, the candidates were given atour around the facility and taken to a restaurant forlunch and cocktails. Hundreds of thousands of dollarswere spent on this event, but most candidates hiredwere friends, colleagues, relatives, temporary person-nel, students, or even volunteers who had been work-ing in the department. Like the observation of Laneand Wolf (1991), career policy analysts and careerpublic servants were not selected in favor of thosewith a business background, as stated by one of themanagers. This manager believes that only those withbusiness background could bring efficiency to thegovernment.

Unfortunately, the belief that business bringsefficiency to the public sector is a delusion (Seddon,2008). It is a politics of control (Harel & Partipilo,1996). This politics of control is transformed throughhuman resources management practices, in which re-cruitment process is a celebration event, hiring is doneby private contractors, decision making is lowered tothe front line as suggested by Schorr (1997). As poli-tics of control, according to Harel and Partipilo,youths are being elevated to the executive positionsand those without knowledge or education back-ground are placed as the managers or leaders at thegovernment organizations because they can easily beshaped by external influence. Knowledge, education,and experience are not significant because they canlearn by doing (Samara, 2010). This practice is,charged Williams (2000), seriously flawed, mislead-ing, outright harmful, and should be corrected.

According to Piaget, people make decisionsbased on the limits of their level of cognitive devel-opment. Then we wonder why government has such apoor human capacity. Government has poor capacitybecause knowledge and professionalism have beenabandoned while feelings and emotions are gratified.Government is becoming like most nongovernmentalorganizations, Kramer (1998) argued, which are lowin professionalism and high in emotions. The field ofscientific knowledge (Randma-Liiv & Connaughton,


2005) and professionalism are transformed into a fieldof practicality where anything goes as long as it makescommon sense (Sayer, 1992).

Another delicate scenario occurs when the hir-ing manager is a young person. Horn (1970) found inhis study that younger individuals tend to score betterin fluid intelligence, which is a native capacity for rea-soning, problem solving, and memorization. They em-phasize the importance of feelings (Kramer, 1998),common sense, and practicality (Sayer, 1992) ratherthan scientific realities. Mature individuals, on thecontrary, use both formal professionalism and educa-tion, and rely more on wisdom, which Horn describedas crystallized intelligence. This indicates that for ahuman resources manager to evaluate and make a de-cision, he or she must have not only knowledge andeducation but also maturity, professionalism, and haveexperienced a higher human development process, aswell as wisdom. It takes wisdom to place the right per-son for the right job. It takes wisdom to prepare can-didates for future placement because one of theinherent roles of government is to build the nation(Groeneveld &Van DeWalle, 2010). This process re-quires continuity because the government is designedas social development organization (Kaplan, 1968)and for the survival of civilization (Appleby, 1954).

Politically managed government (Moore,1983) and the privatization of its human resourcesmanagement increase the degree of low-skilled work-ers and workers without knowledge and technical ca-pacity in the government, and the greater is the macroand micro mismanagement of the bureaucracy (Cov-ell, 2004). Among Canadian Members of Parliament,many do not even understand what constitutes publicpolicy. Some consider banning the Gideon from giv-ing out the Bible to the new-sworn citizens is publicpolicy. Others consider wearing scented product in thepublic sphere or taking peanut butter sandwich toschool for lunch is public policy. None of these ruleshas merit as public policy. They are individual pref-erences and have no place in public policy (Palmer,1959) but have been adopted as public policy becausepolicy makers don’t understand public policy.

Seeing the managerial, administrative andstructural dysfunctions, and poor capacity personnelof the government today, it is essential to remove thepractice of human resources management of the pri-vate sector from the government because it is harmful(Williams, 2000).

Human resources management of the publicsector should be assessed according to Erickson andPiaget’s theories because public administration is anacademic field (Selden, 1997; Ronquillo, 2008), a

specialized scientific field application (Van Riper,1995; Styhre, 2007), a field of science and art (Fred-erickson, 2000), a field of legal and political process(Fry & Nigro, 1996), and a field of professionalismand managerial application (Milakovich & Gordon,2008; Du Gay, 2005).

Many young people have gone through the fasttrack of obtaining the highest degree of education with-out knowing how to apply this knowledge in the realworld because they have not gone through the right pro-fessional experience. Hence, they cannot relate the the-ory to the application. Consequently, they reduce thevalue of the scholars, who have obtained professionalexperience and have knowledge specialization but arenot welcomed in the world of application.

After going through bankruptcy, the Indone-sian government realized its mistakes. Previously, ithad a surplus of unemployed higher learning gradu-ates while people with a low level of education, somewere even illiterate, and foreigners who spoke no In-donesian dominated the employment in the publicsectors.Adolescents also dominated the executive po-sitions. Many entered the bureaucracy as contract ortemporary personnel recruited by private contractorsbecause they would be paid less than the profession-als and experts. Even foreigners were recruited bystaffing agencies to work for the bureaucracy. No oneenvisions the phrase Sleeping With The Enemy be-cause it is about maximizing profits.

Industrial espionage is common in the privatesector (Choate, 1990) and it is now becoming a trendin the public sector. When the FBI agent RichardHansen was caught for espionage, 150 private em-ployees who worked in the government as contractstaffs or term employees including administrative per-sonnel at the military were also caught and chargedwith espionage (Herbig & Wiskoff, 2002). Most ofthem worked for the department of defense and ac-cording to Herbig andWiskoff’s report, they sold gov-ernment and military secrets to anyone who offeredthem money because they are not citizens but cus-tomers. In Canada as well, industrial espionage is be-coming rampant, pervasive, and aggressive in theprivate and public sectors (De Pierreborourgh &Juneaau-Katsuya, 2009).

Some scholars generalize human developmentwith social development or with an individual abilityto develop his or her skills. According to CulturalHuman Resources Council, in its Human ResourcesManagement: Recruiting the Right People, managinghuman resources is about recruiting and choosing peo-ple to fill the empty positions. However, this processis only a small part of human resources management.


This process has failed because it simply recruits andplaces people on the jobs not according to their edu-cational background or professional experience butbased on personal assessment of the candidate’s be-havior. People know to perform multiple tasks butlack important knowledge. Hence, the hiring man-agers put emphasis on feelings and emotions, whichhave no place in the public sector (Palmer, 1959). Itundermines the character of the government and itsability to solve public problems in a professional man-ner (Rosen, Boothe, Dahlby, & Smith, 1999).

Others, such as Wetzel, Inglehart, and Klinge-mann (2002), defined human resources developmentas social and economic development, value change,and change in political institution. Berman, Bowman,West, and Van Wart described this definition as theliberation of human resources management. Thismanagement system emphasizes employees’ empow-erment, job reengineering, teamwork, customer serv-ice, self-directed teams, flat organizations, anddecision-making power is at the hand of the front-linestaffs that are trained on the job. Education is in-significant as long as they are willing to learn, to as-sist, and are friendly (Kazilan, Hamzah, & Bakar,2009). However, the result has been poor productivity(Lewis, Shannon, & Ferree, Jr., 1983). This system al-lows personnel to do as they please (Boyte, 2004) andhuman resources development is emphasized on po-litical programs (Ke, Chermack, Lee, & Lin, 2006).

Human resources development as defined byWetzel, Ingehart, and Klingemann is difficult to relateto human resources management. In terms of thegrowth of political institutions, Wetzel, Ingehart, andKlingemann argued that it causes a massive rise in so-cieties’ democratic performance. On the contrary,greater political parties cause the politicians to concen-trate their effort on political survival (Covell, 2004).They concentrate on winning the election (Samara,2010) at the expense of the public, because no one un-derstands the true process of human resources man-agement and development in the government.

Piaget wrote that human resources develop-ment involves biology, sensory, mental and psycho-logical abilities, cognitive abilities, patterns ofthinking, social interaction and transmission, knowl-edge and education, maturity, and other human attrib-utes. Erik Erikson (1963), conversely, defined humandevelopment through eight stages, with a conflict ineach stage. Without this conflict, there can be no de-velopment. According to Erikson, this includes oralsensory (trust vs. mistrust), muscular anal (autonomyvs. doubt), locomotor (initiative vs. guilt), latency (in-dustry vs. inferiority), adolescence (identity vs. role

confusion), young adulthood (psychosocial develop-ment), middle adulthood (generativity vs. stagnation),and maturity (ego integrity vs. despair).

Erikson’s theory of development indicates thatadolescents (12–20 years old) are still looking foridentity, confused about individual roles, self-cen-tered, indecisive, and exhibit possible antisocial be-havior. Between the ages of 18–25 years old, althoughyoung adults begin to form relationship, they avoidcommitment to work. Between the ages of 25–45,they lack interests and commitments, and are moreself-indulgent. This explains why leaders at this agethreshold prefer performing than being committed towork and to maximize the welfare of the society. Theyare more attracted to themselves. It explains why inperforming their duties, as public officials, socializ-ing and drinking alcohol have become the culture ofthe public sector just as that of the private sector. Theydon’t care about public interests but are keen to pur-sue individual interests once they become public offi-cials. According to Erikson and Piaget, mature adultsat the age of 46–65 are more committed, more de-pendable, more willing to make meaningful contribu-tion, and have more concern for others. This theoryexplains that becoming a leader at an age below thisthreshold undermines leadership. It explains whyleaders or executives like to perform and be idolizedas celebrities. They try anything controversial to havetheir picture in the media. Ex Ontario Minister ofHealth George Smitherman even dressed in a diaper toexpress his empathy for senior citizens because theyhave to wear diapers, but for the sake of popularity.The lavish lifestyle of celebrities is contagious and un-fortunately, when it comes to public leadership, thelavish lifestyle of the executives comes at the expenseof the public.

Regardless of how adolescents mimic thecelebrities’ lifestyle or how they mimic the adults inthinking, adolescents “still tend to be egocentric andnaïve in some of their thoughts” (Buskist & Gerbing,1990, p. 405). Piaget also stated that things that aresimple to adults are complex to children. Similarly,things that are simple to a person with higher degreelearning who has professional experiences are com-plex to those without higher learning and profes-sional experiences. Consequently, these individualstend to rationalize things (Ritzer, 1988) to meet theirlevel of cognition. In hiring Canadian federal publicexecutives, for example, job requirements are madeto suit the candidates’ experience rather than select-ing the candidates’ according to their qualificationsand the job requirements. Similarly, the exam ques-tions for the higher learning candidates are similar to


those of the high school-educated and undergradu-ate-educated candidates because education is not im-portant as long as the candidate is able to performsimple mathematics and read and write (Lane &Wolf, 1990) English or French.

In terms of job performance, many are brag-ging or boasting about their abilities to perform in afield they are not trained for such as businesses claimthey are able to bring efficiency in the government.Many even claim they know better how to lead andmanage public resources and are crossing over intopublic policymaking through a Think Tank group.This is, as Rosen, Boothe, Dahlby, and Smith (1999)argued, very misleading. The saying goes, “Emptybarrel sounds louder than a full barrel.” Business peo-ple and accountants are crossing the boundary ofknowledge and entering public policy, becoming ex-perts in organization efficiency or in ethics and ac-countability. Towne (in Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2005)once stated, when there were some dysfunctions inthe organizations, never ask business, accountant, oradministrative clerk to fix the dysfunctions but havepeople who are trained in the field to fix the dys-functions. According to Piaget, people tend to takeshortcuts when the matter is beyond their compre-hension. This is one of the greatest weaknesses ofleadership in the public sector. Some leaders take toomany shortcuts because they are, said Mao Tse-tung(1970) and Rotberg (2006), knowledge illiterate andas managers they accumulate the greatest dysfunc-tion in the government.

In the private sector, human resources man-agement is about job performance. Bechel (2009) de-fined human resources management as a “set of toolsto recruit employees, form and organize their profes-sional career, and ensure that employees are assignedto do the adequate tasks and that the overall perform-ance of the administration is aligned well with thegeneral and particular objectives that it seeks to ac-complish” (p. 3). Specifically, she added, human re-sources management is “a set of tools which makes itpossible to undertake a search for the best possible as-signment of people to the required tasks, and a searchfor the best possible service delivery given the humanfaculties present” (p. 4).

In the public sector, human resources manage-ment is about commitment to serve the public withhigh-quality service (Wu, 2008), high professionalmanner, high significance of serving the public, ac-countability of actions, responsibility toward socialwelfare, equity and fairness, transparency, and amodel of excellence (Department of Public Serviceand Administration, 1997) to achieve the mission of

the government as defined and characterized by theConstitution (Palmer, 1959). The Department of Pub-lic ServiceAdministration also stated it is about man-agerial responsibility, authority, and fairness ofaccessibility to government officials and public re-sources. It is about human and social development,developing leadership, building professional man-agers, building human capacity using scientificknowledge and professionalism (Wellisch, 2000) tosolve public problems (Heald, 1985; Kemp, 2003),and leading and serving the public democratically.

Human resources are the most valuable assetsand the cornerstone of the government, argued Heald(1985). They are the source of capital (Rosen, Boothe,Dhalby, & Smith, 1999) and power because govern-ment is from the people, to the people, and for thepeople (Boyte, 2004). The greatest charge against thegovernment is inefficiency even though there is no ap-parent evidence that government is inefficient (Rosen,Boothe, Dahlby, & Smith, 1999). This charge is adelusion (Schwarz, 1983; Ryals & Rogers, 2006) andmisleading (Rosen, Boothe, Dahlby, & Smith, 1999)because management differs across sectors (Denhardt,Denhardt & Aristigueta, 2002).

The charge of government inefficiency isoverly stressed (Fu-Lay, 2008), although it is basedon, what Mantsios and Murphy stated, in their In thePublic Interest: Debunking the Myths about Govern-ment, Government Workers, and Unions, myths.Scholars and activists are comparing apples to oranges(Graham, 2007), but the independents, liberals, andconservatives alike are overwhelmed by the pervasivemood of discontent with the government’s ability toimprove the people’s standards of living (Schwarz,1983). The policy to reduce government’s assets be-comes the new sounding principles and objectives ofthe government, which are its human resources.

Today, like in the Reagan era, the claim re-mains that government is the problem (Shafritz &Russell, 2000) and the policy of the past is so dis-credited as the effect of the present (Schwarz, 1983)that although a change is being made, the blame con-tinues even after the millennium—we are still livingin an era of blaming (Simmons, 2005). Blaming hasbeen the political culture of the private enterprise,which causes organizational dysfunction (McShane,1992). It causes the government, particularly the Fed-eral government, to become very dysfunction (Dobbs,2006) because, as McShane stated, it would cause thegovernment to concentrate its effort on fixing theblame and ignoring its most important roles. Whilegovernment is busy fixing the blame, lobbyists andprivate interest groups are bribing the bottom line


staffs to pursue their interests (Nowness & Osborn inMcGrath, 2009).

With very little knowledge about the govern-ment (Congleton, 2004), many leaders adopt the neweconomic philosophy of reinventing the government.Entrepreneur politicians sing their political anthem,government should operate in a businesslike manner,as sung by John Tory, the ex Ontario ConservativeParty leader during 2006 Canada Club meeting in Ot-tawa, in order to be more efficient, to deliver servicewith higher quality, greater professionalism, provideservices with less resources at a reduced cost, and todeliver services digitally (Fox, 2003).All these prom-ise the world (Clawson, 2003) but deliver inequality,discrimination, economic oppression, social deprava-tion (White, 1999) and cause political conflicts, laborand economic polarization, even social exclusion.

The hierarchical system of government, whichShafritz and Russell (2000) and Weber (1947) de-scribed as the traditional system of government, isbeing revamped. Leadership management and humanresources management in the bureaucracy can be veryeffective if the system is well designed, arguedShafritz and Russell, but without its power of humanresources with intellectual capacity, the system is par-alyzed. Because elected officials had very littleknowledge about the government (Congleton, 2004),its power is diminishing (Austin, 2000). As govern-ment’s power diminishes, its control also becomeslimited, added Austin.

In early 1990s, following the study of LindaDuxbury, under the leadership of Prime Minster JeanChrétien, between 45,000 and 65,000 Canadian fed-eral employees were laid off through a buyout pack-age or attrition, and others went through job changesthrough contracts, temporary assignment, seasonal, orvolunteerism (Condrey, 1998). Even at the municipallevel, government employees were laid off. Amunic-ipal office has about three employees with two coun-cilors and a mayor who is also called Chief ExecutiveOfficer and President. Public servants who were laidoff but had political influence could quickly gain em-ployment in the private sector or were quickly cap-tured by the market to work for their advantage as“agents of influence” or lobbyists for foreign enter-prises to represent foreign interests or to promote theinterests of the local enterprises (Choate, 1990). Oth-ers found it difficult to get back into the workforce(Condrey, 1998) and had to live on a pension or strug-gled to find any kind of employment. Prime MinisterStephen Harper froze hiring the public to preserve cer-tain positions at the public sector for military person-nel and their family members. The former military

members were destined to be put on a “priority list”for hiring as public employees at the bureaucracyupon returning from their military duty in troubledcountries. General Romeo Dellaire even declared thatsenate positions are deemed for the military rankedofficials who enter retirement. Charged Dube (1963),this process of managing human resources in the gov-ernment can only exist because of a lack of under-standing about the Constitution and the bureaucracyas a whole.

The new economic policy emphasizes the be-lief that the government’s programs had often been in-effective in dealing with the nation’s problems. Oncethe excessive burdens of governmental interventionwere removed, the private enterprise system couldgenerate a level of prosperity that would help the un-employed (Schwarz, 1983). With focus-oriented mar-ket behavior, cases of unemployment andunderemployed become chronic, which the govern-ment cannot control because it is experiencing diffi-culty facing the pressure of privatization, has beenchronically dependent on the market solution, and ishaving poor capacity personnel.

Although there is no apparent evidence that thegovernment is inefficient (Rosen, Boothe, Dhalby &Smith, 1999), the movement to reengineer the gov-ernment is becoming rampant and pervasive(Schwarz, 1983) even extreme (Bradbury &Waechter,2009). Human resources management is revamped torepresent market design even though Condrey (2004)said they should not. Jobs are being contracted outand outsourced to a third party, from the third partyto subcontractors, from subcontractors to sub-sub-contractors, and from sub-subcontractors to sub-sub-subcontractors. As time goes by, contracting out andoutsourcing are becoming more aggressive—from theclerical jobs up to the managerial positions and fromthe federal government down to the municipal gov-ernment. These schemes contribute to the dysfunc-tional system of government (Dobbs, 2006) and poorcapacity government. The field of scientific and pro-fessional application becomes a field of practicality(Bradbury & Waechter, 2009) while decisions aremade based on political pressures (Boyne, 1998) andcommon sense (Sayer, 1992). Financially, thisarrangement causes massive fraud of public funds,theft, and contractors are not held accountable. Somecontractors use the opportunity to milk money fromthe public and become wealthy (Rixin, 2010), or forpersonal enrichment (Jenkins & Page, 2004).

Ellen White (1999) stated that people who arenot trained in the field of healing are not fit to serve inthe ministry of healing. Similarly, those who have no


knowledge and training in the government are not theright agents to renovate the government. If a personsays you are inefficient, you do not hire that person toprove that you are efficient (Covell in Pinkowski,2008).Added Covell, that person would prove you areinefficient even though it is based on lies. Those whocast the stone are those who commit the crime.

The pressure for privatizing government func-tions promises cost saving and greater efficiency (DeBettignies & Ross, 2004), but it never materializes(Lewis, Shannon, & Ferree, Jr., 1983). Too often, pri-vatization or contracting comes “at the expense ofplans for improved human resources” (Winninger,Aarts, & Burch, 2010, p. 4) training and development.

Obsessed with the delusion of market effi-ciency (Schwarz, 1983), the Hon. Richard McTigue(2004), in front of the House of Representative at theWhite House claimed, he can reinvent the governmentby transforming the engines of the machinery of gov-ernment into small business units and turning bureau-crats into plutocrats. Many leaders have gone too farwith the delusion of efficiency (Schwarz, 1983) andare going further to rob the system of its stability.They nurture the political anthem that governmentshould operate in a businesslike manner. However,said Milton Friedman, entrepreneurs are not in thebusiness of public policy or social welfare but maxi-mizing profits (Hooker, 2004).

As the engines of the machinery of governmentbecome small business units and bureaucrats becomeplutocrats (McTigue, 2004), the working environmentin the government is hybridized (Bakvis & Juillet,2004; Daft, Fitzgerald, & Rock, 1992) so is its humanresources. People who work at a government officerepresent an army as in a manufacturing company andthe government is becoming like a McDonald’s-stylesystem. Personnel work in a fast-paced environment,jobs and all administrative procedures are standard-ized, the working environment becomes competitive,personnel compete with conflicting priorities, and in-formation technology becomes their tool for makingdecisions (Ritzer, 1988). Karl Marx called this the“labor machine.” They also work in small teams, self-directed teams, and everyone does the same kind ofwork (McShane, 1982) but their main priorities are toserve the clients’ needs (Schorr, 1997) not to serve thecitizens (Boyte, 2004; Schorr, 1997). This hybrid sys-tem eliminates knowledge, specialization, profes-sionalism, and intellectual capacity. At higher-leveljobs, almost everything is quantified and the value ofgovernment service is monetized (Ritzer, 1988).Transparency, accountability, authority, and responsi-bility are also diminishing while democracy becomes

autocratic or dictatorship (Dube, 1963). The princi-ples and characteristics of the government are alsodisappearing when the government operates in a busi-nesslike manner.

Personnel are mobile from the private sector tothe public sector or vice versa and work under con-tract, temporary assignment, volunteer, job sharing,and other schemes (Condrey, 1998). Their sense of se-curity is soon replaced by feelings of insecurity. Withthe elimination of job security, employees compete,raising petty jealousy among the employees (Ben-ze’ev, 1990). It takes away the sense of obligationamong the personnel to serve the public impartially.

After having experienced in small teams andself-directed teams at the bottom level, more peopleprefer the advisory to executive positions (Hunt,1987). Education and knowledge are becoming in-significant as long as the person has extensive expe-rience in the administrative procedures. Since they arelacking in professionalism and education, jobs de-scriptions for executive positions are created to suitthe experience of the chosen candidates who enter intothe bureaucracy through the “revolving door” or thepolitical party. Sometimes, said Maria Barrados, Pres-ident of Canadian Public Service Commission, job re-quirements for an executive position are created tomeet the handpicked candidate’s experience ratherthan the candidate’s qualifications to meet job re-quirements. Sadly, after the assignment, this newlyappointed or elected executive’s main job is perform-ing because most decisions and jobs are done at thebottom level. Consequently, these executives don’tstay long. The highest turnover rate in the Canadianpublic sector is among the executives and political ap-pointees.

Shafritz and Russell (2000) asked, “Can busi-ness government work?” Previous City of OttawaMayor O’Brien’s vision is to invent the City to be-come a business unit and act like a retail store. Thisconcept shocked city council and staff. They work“with tensions of diversity and divergences in pointsof view that are inevitable part of collective activitybut are now routinely turned into a mere power strug-gle and the uneasy truces of compromise” (Briggs &Peat, 1999). Over time, councilors become consult-ants to private enterprises, which do business with theCity for fees. In contracting the jobs, most IT jobs goto Larry O’Brien’s firm Calian Technology with andwithout proper tender. In addition, since he knewnothing about the job of a mayor, he carried the Citywork to Calian Technology office and had his staff todo the work for him. This is, as Williamson (2000)stated, harmful and unacceptable.


The price of the reinventing the engines of themachinery of the government has been weak govern-ment, leadership deficit, a diminishing power and lim-ited control of government (Austin, 2000), failinggovernment, while public service is experiencing ca-pacity deterioration. In Canada, for example, govern-ment is severely lacking experienced professionals,scientists, scholars, engineers, auditors, and other spe-cializations (Winninger, Aarts, & Burch, 2010). Ac-cording to Aijala (2001), some of the contributingfactors are “unflattering impression of public sector,poor recruitment strategies, employees demanding in-dividualized approaches to work, amorphous careerpaths, meager employee development and opportuni-ties for learning” (p. 11–12).

Human development defined by psychologistsis more suitable to be adopted into human resourcesmanagement. Human “management development is ahybrid of training and selection… conscious effort onthe part of an organization to provide a manager withthe skills needed for future duties. … Workers aretrained so that they can better perform their presentduties; managers are developed so that they can be ofgreater organizational value in both present and futureassignments … and to provide them with the kinds ofassignments and experiences that will allow them togrow professionally” (Shafritz & Russell, 2000, p.371). This must be inhibited in public sector’s effortsof recruiting and hiring.

In her interview with Witzel (2006), ProfessorDanica Purg discussed the trend of declining leader-ship skills, which plagues not only the business sectorbut also the public sector. Many workers jump intoleadership roles with enthusiasm because they areyoung, full of energy, and are risk takers, but they donot have the leadership skills, wisdom, and experienceto guide the organization successfully. They jumpfrom the bottom level to the executive level withoutproper intellectual and professional development.Hence, they become fatigued in a short time. The highemployee turnover rate in Canada is among publicleaders. They leave the bureaucracy just as quick asthey enter the bureaucracy.

One of the reasons of the decline in capacityand leadership skills in the public sector is the trans-formation of the hierarchical structure of the bureau-cracy into a line department, designed by thereinventing government innovators (Shafritz & Rus-sell, 2000). This system is poorly crafted, politicallydriven, or politically motivated and internally incon-sistent (Hays & Kearney, 1999). When it comes to E-Government, this arrangement poses a tremendouschallenge to not only privacy and accountability but

also theft of public funds and no one is accountablebecause the system has been designed to fail.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

Line DepartmentAdopted from the retail industry or private structure,line department has become fashionable in the pub-lic service. Some consider that line department,which emphasizes “know-how,” service perform-ance, a fast-paced work environment with compet-ing priorities, fast response, and “customer service”type performance, is becoming an important issue inthe government. Line department never suits thepublic sector.

According to Condrey (1998) and Berman(1998), the practice and management of the privatesector should not be transferred into the public sector.It weakens public leadership and over time, it reducesthe personnel’s capacity, increases non-accountabil-ity, and increases the decentralization of politicalpower and decision making while social problemscontinue to balloon without a solution. Line depart-ment or functional structure has become an importantissue and is widely promoted as a “know-how” tool inthe government (Bakvis & Juillet, 2004). This struc-ture exists in the private enterprises where “people aregrouped together in departments by common skillsand work activities … expertise, and resource use”(Daft, Fitzgerald & Rock, 1992, p. 291).

Line department structure is common in privateenterprises because of the nature of its products, serv-ices, the scope of the business, and its focus orienta-tion. Problems in the private sector stem frompurchases of goods, returns of defective goods, andpoor customer service with regard to product war-ranties. Contrary to private goods, public goods areunique. Their demand is elastic (Rosen, Boothe,Dhalby & Smith, 1999). The level of consumption ofthe goods by one person does not affect the marginalutility consumption of another person (Rosen, Boothe,Dahlby & Smith, 1999) and its price is not affectedby the market.

In the public sector, the hierarchical system ofgovernment, which is influenced by the Roman tradi-tion and the military, affects the goods provided, serv-ices delivered, and how the human resources are beingmanaged and developed. This ranges from the needs,social values, rights, equality, ethics, technology, sci-ence, education, anthropology, philosophy, culture,tradition, standards and norms of the society, physics,health, and many other factors such as the core fieldsof public administration, which according to Shafritzand Russell, “the sky is the limit.”


Within the functional structure of line depart-ment, even though companies seem to be successful,the greatest problem is accountability (Daft, 1992). Ithas been widely applied in the public sector (Bakvis& Juillet, 2004) to foster speed in the decision-mak-ing process (Schorr, 1997). Nevertheless, it causes de-cisions made are raw, quick, without thinking(Shafritz & Russell, 2000), and causes more damagethan good (Russell & Harshbarger, 2003). It evencosts more and takes longer to fix mistakes (Shafritz& Russell, 2000).

According to Daft, Fitzgerald, and Rock(1992), when employees are grouped together to per-form common tasks, the enterprise would achieveeconomies of scale; the resources used are more effi-cient; it enhances employees’ skill because they workon a variety of problems; employees are more moti-vated to develop their own skills in solving problems,and it is especially beneficial for employees who aretechnologically sophisticated. This structure allowsemployees to develop their own skill set without ad-ditional training, added Daft, Fitzgerald, and Rock.

However, this structure has more disadvan-tages than advantages (McShane, 1992). Daft,Fitzgerald, and Rock did agree that a functional struc-ture of line department “creates management prob-lems, such as difficulty in pinpointing problemswithin departments” (p. 294). Other problems, theycontinued, are decisions that tend to be centralized be-cause of the problem of non-accountability lack of re-sponsibility, and poor communication across thedepartments and across the organizations. Employeestend to focus on the attainment of departmental goalsrather than the organizational goal as a whole, priori-tize their individuality rather than serving the citizens.As a result, they lack creativity and respond slowly toexternal change. Employees lack the understanding ofthe true purposes and goals of the organization be-cause they see only their respective tasks and not thebig picture.

There is a danger when public employees aregrouped into a “Customer Service Department” to han-dle “everything,” given the freedom to develop theirown capacity, the routineness of the tasks, the mun-daneness and responsibility of the tasks, and the pres-sure of giving out a fast response. Because of years ofbeing accustomed to focused work and making deci-sions, the ability of public leaders and employees tosee beyond the sphere (Simmons, 2005) is doomed.Their intellectual capacity is buried in their fast-pacedroutine and is deteriorating at a diminishing rate. Even-tually, they surrender to market control (Ritzer, 1998)and are unable to defend the public when faced with

the pressure and demand for privatization, contractingout or outsourcing, which would lead the governmentto race to the bottom (Shafritz & Russell, 2000). Thecapacity they gain through learning by doing lasts onlytemporarily because they do not have the foundation oronly to the level that they are mentored.

Smith (1993) argued that when man has to per-formmany different tasks with the same tool, his workis usually slothful and defective. Accountability islacking and it is easy to blame others for a mistake(McShane, 1992). Towne (in Shafritz, Ott, & Jang,2005) also stated that when the work of the govern-ment is divided and done by multiple intermediaries atdifferent places and with different tools, it causes con-fusion and dysfunction.

Because of the focused and task-oriented at-mosphere, employees are incapable of managing andcoordinating diverse departments. They have limitedappreciation of the dual nature of accountability(Bakvis & Juillet, 2004). This functional structure ofline department also reduces general managementtraining for employees. Consequently, “they fail to begroomed for top management and general manage-ment positions,” added Bakvis and Juillet. CanadaPrime Minister allows the senior bureaucrats to staylonger on their jobs because these line managers donot have the capacity to manage public administra-tion. Even though they are managers, their jobs aresimilar to those of their subordinates. One can over-ride the others’ decision without accountability andresponsibility. In fact, line manager position is a dead-end job (Collins, 1997).

Canada Statistics reveal that not only aretoday’s public employees occupying positions forwhich they are not qualified in their education or pro-fessional training, but also they are lacking leadershipskills (Witzel, 2006). They show a lack of wisdom andunderstanding of the true purposes and goals of theorganization. Like the politicians, they do not com-prehend public policy. Politicians, on the other hand,do not act in civilized manner during political debates,do not know what the public values or public inter-ests are because they are buried in their own interestsand have a myopic view (Lardaro, 2008) about pub-lic administration. Hence, they disrespect the valuesof knowledge and education.

Despite the disadvantages of line department, ithas been heralded as the tool for government reformespecially for the shrinking government. This arrange-ment represents a challenge to human resource man-agement. National security is at stake especially whenit is associated with IT because a majority of crimestoday is IT related (Garson, 2006).


When job security disappears, people continu-ously adjust to the norms and standards of the new or-ganizations, and as they work in differentenvironments at a time, their loyalty to the govern-ment disintegrates. When they go to work every daywith the thought that “tomorrow is my last day,” theyeventually don’t care anymore. Their priority is first totheir professionalism, second is to the person whosends them to work for the government, and third is tothemselves. They are not loyal to and don’t care aboutthe government.

Line department is the greatest weakness inhuman resources management system, particularly forthe government, because as jobs are generalized or asemployees are asked to work as “Jack of all trades,”specialization diminishes. Roles tend to become rou-tine and are standardized. The negative side of stan-dardization is that a person can quickly scrutinizeanother person’s work and it reduces employees’ cre-ativity. Employees have to think inside the box. Stan-dardization also allows any person to do any jobwithout accountability. In terms of human develop-ment, like the story of Nortel, which considered edu-cation is insignificant as long as the person is willingto learn, assist, and be friendly, it went bankrupt. As aresult, the Canadian Federal government is in a state ofsevere crisis of professional and specialist personnel.

Facing the demand for faster response, thearmy of line department performs multiple tasks andmakes multiple decisions. They are also very com-petitive and have to work in a fast-paced environment.Nevertheless, it causes knowledge crisscrossing. Nor-tel Inc. suffered a severe financial scandal and thoughit tried to restructure after its bankruptcy for the sec-ond time, without strong, intellectual leadership Nor-tel was finally dissolved.

Since line department’s personnel are peoplewho have the same background, ability, and have thesame level of cognition (McShane, 1992), problemsbeyond their ability tend to be shifted to the politi-cians. Even simple problems are shifted to the politi-cians. Since very few of the politicians know verylittle about the government roles and functions (Con-gleton, 2004; Samara, 2010), problems are politicizedand publicized in the media to allow them to becomethe celebrities of the day. Over time, management ofthe bureaucracy becomes more political than mana-gerial (Covell, 2004). Problems are never solved butare shifted upward. Similarly, the upper level of thebureaucracy has almost no intellectuals (Mao Tse-tung, 1970; Rotberg, 2006).

Knowledge crisscrossing causes businesspeo-ple and accountants to enter public policymaking

while career and trained policy analysts are rejectedfrom the public service (Lane &Wolf, 1990). Withoutjobs descriptions, politicians as well perform multi-tasking. Even deputy ministers and political advisorsbecome human resource managers, but their jobs issimply approving who should be hired and tell thesubordinates what to do.

When it comes to privatization and operating ina businesslike manner, planners are usually the first per-son to be ushered to the unemployment door. Eventhough most politicians lack scientific and intellectualtraining and as “multi-taskers,” they act as planners,consultants, engineers, negotiators, trade experts, lob-byists and almost everything they can do but policy-making and only according to protocol. They cannotsolve public problems because these problems are be-yond their grasp. Some Canadian Members of Parlia-ment contract journalists to do their work because atthe same time, they get exposure and become popularat public expense. Though journalists seem to be goodat public policy, their policy is too artificial, arguedShafritz & Russell (2002). They don’t last because theyare trained in selling news not in making public policy.

Unsolved problems are shifted upward. Sincethe upper level is also operating in the same systemof line department without intellectual and scientificbacking, problems remain unsolved. Then, the prob-lems are tossed into the global market for bidding.Even though international agents promise to solve theproblems, they provide a “garbage can solution,” onethat seems to solve the problems but it creates anotherproblem that co-exists with the existing problems andtogether they grow into another complex problem(McShane, 1982).

Business leaders are also entering conflict res-olution in the international market because theythought their trade of negotiation skills would enablethem to be experts in solving conflict. Even amongscholars, many people enter a different field of knowl-edge based only on interest but not because they haveexpertise in that particular field. In the work of practi-cality, expertise is based on “doing the same work overand over” but the true value of expertise is knowledge,education, professional experience, training, and skills(Salem, Reischl, Gallacher, & Randall, 2000).

When one becomes a super employee, he orshe can only do very little and the end product is alsovery little. When a man’s taste for intellectual matteris declining, no one can solve even a simple problem.

Matrix ApproachMatrix approach is a combination of functional anddivisional chains of command simultaneously (Daft,


Fitzgerald & Rock, 1992). This matrix system, basedon the hierarchy of authority, requires leadership roleseven though Daft, Fitzgerald and Rock argued thatthis system produces dual or multiple chains of com-mand. On the contrary, the matrix approach requiresemployees to have a deeper understanding of the truepurposes and goals of the organization as a whole andhigher professional training and specialization (Den-hardt, Denhardt & Aristigueta, 2000) because theyvalue their professionalism in servicing more than in-dividual priorities (Tompkins, 2005). Specializationand professionalism are the culture of bureaucracy(Dube, 1963).

Daft, Fitzgerald, and Rock stated that this sys-tem requires in-depth knowledge and skills and it en-ables the organization to achieve greater economies ofscale, minimize resource allocation, enable employeesto have flexibility and adaptability to change the envi-ronment, allow employees to improve their managerialskills both functional and divisional, and experiencetask enhancement. The key factors of success in thematrix system lies on the capacity of the personnel,their professionalism, greater accountability, higher de-gree of responsibility, greater coordination, better con-trol of the personnel, higher quality (Daft, Fitzgerald &Rock, 1992), which comes with reliability and mind-fulness (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). It values intellectu-ality, which also promotes greater cooperation onknowledge and expertise (Daft, Fitzgerald, & Rock,1992), encourages continuous learning, and promotesorder and reliable performance (Weick & Sutcliffe,2001) even in uncertain environments.

When it comes to the success of the organiza-tion, Daniel McCallum of the Office of General Su-perintendent in New York and Eric Rail RoadCompany stated, it is important that there is a leaderwho has the complete history of the daily work of theorganization, all its details and would be responsiblefor the operation of the organization. It enforces ac-countability. Without this, added McCallum, the ad-ministration, financial information, and otherfunctions in the organization can be problematic.

Different from line departments where directleaders are free from the routine process and decisionmaking because it is centralized at the top leader or atthe bottom level, the matrix system requires the in-volvement of both direct and top leaders in decisionmaking and in quality of work presentation (Daft,Fitzgerald & Rock, 1992).

Daft, Fitzgerald, and Rock argued that matrixsystem requires continuous human resources training.Continuous planning, which is the nature of humanresources management and human development,

reduces waste and it enables the employees “to man-age everyday situations more effectively in order toachieve reliable outcomes” (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001,p. 79). Planning is the key to the economic success(Lipsey, Purvis, & Courant, 1994) and it is an ex-tremely complicated business as it “involves highlyspecialized knowledge and developed manipulativeskills” (Dube, 1963, p. 1) and for its implementation,Dube continued, it requires “deep administrative in-sights and a keen evaluative perspective,” which areprovided by the leaders.

Within this matrix system, planning allows theorganization to design desired future outcomes, to pre-pare for the inevitable, preempt the undesirable, andcontrol the uncontrollable (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).The same authors argued that planning presumes con-sistent high-quality outcomes that will be producedtime after time as repetitive and routines and routinesare in every environment.

As the matrix system requires continuous train-ing to improve capacity, Shafritz and Russell (2000)indicated that capacity development requires strategicand comprehensive planning (Management Sciencefor Health, 2005). This process guarantees continuity(Simon, 1946). It involves recruitment, evaluation andtesting, certification eligibility for appointment, inter-view with appointing authority, classification, joboffer, training, placement, and succession. AlthoughShafritz and Russell proposed reference and credentialchecks prior to extending a job offer at the govern-ment, a scrutiny of security or credential check wouldbe more appropriate especially when there is a threatof terrorism. Several incidents have indicated how ref-erences override a bad security check.

For example, a scandal in the Royal CanadianMounted Police involved an employee who had 40 vi-olations, yet went unnoticed and managed to bringdown the organization. Of the two Canadians, one isin prison in Guantanamo Bay and another is in a Lon-don prison. These individuals were employed with theCanadian government due to their references. Refer-ences promote nepotism and cronyism and it does notguarantee that the candidate is the best because it hasrelied on what the reference said even though it is notnecessarily true. A public office becomes a family of-fice such as the City of Ottawa where 56% of the em-ployees are blood related.

To prevent nepotism and cronyism, Shafritzand Russell (2000) referred to the Report of the Con-gressional Joint Commission on Reclassification ofSalaries, a report that emphasizes that the principlesof human development in terms of position classifi-cation. They stated that hiring of employees in the


public sector should be based on position not the in-dividuals, on duties and responsibilities not the indi-viduals or position, on qualifications, in terms ofexperience, knowledge, necessary skills for the per-formance of certain duties, on the nature of the duties,and on equality. Individuals’ characteristics should nothave bearing on the position.

Management for capacity development is a hy-brid of training and selection (Shafritz & Russell,2000). “Creating an effective workplace involves cul-tivating a learning environment … continual learningopportunities are critical to the cutting-edge manage-ment tool” (Condrey, 1998, p. 104). Capacity devel-opment, indeed is vitally important for publicadministration, says Condrey. Human resources man-agement is not simply about recruitment but as an “in-tegrated use of procedures, polities, and practices torecruit, maintain, and develop employees in order forthe organization and develop employees in order forthe government to meet its goals” (Management Sci-ence for Health, 2005, p. 3). This includes, addedMan-agement Science for Health, capacity development,continuity process of building, effective and strategicplanning, policy and practice, data collection and stor-ing, performance management, and training. Publicpersonnel require a comprehensive understanding ofthe Constitution and the nature of jobs before they startworking because the privatization of human resourceshas resulted in the dysfunctional administrative sys-tem in the government around the world.

While the current trend is to hire Generation Xor Generation Y, Condrey argued that it is a graveerror on the part of decision makers to conclude, “In-vestment in mature workers would bring insufficientperformance benefits to the employers” (p. 3). Suchjudgment, which could be because they would retiresoon and that short-term investment on them wouldnot bring a long-term benefit is considered short-sighted thinking, charged Condrey. They are the back-bone for human resources training and development.

Whether employees are old or young, trainingis designed to build people’s skill set, a part of humandevelopment to expand and improve their ability tocope with disturbance and learn from their experience(Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). Training helps the person-nel to understand the organization. It is a mechanismto build their loyalty, particularly if they are to beworking for a long time. “Human resources manage-ment is more effective in an organization when hiringis at the hand of senior management level (Manage-ment Science for Health, 2005, p. 1), one who is notonly senior in position but also in knowledge, experi-ence and professionalism. If the person who handles

the hiring has a high school diploma, for example, thatperson will disqualify many qualified candidateswhose level of education is higher than his or hers dueto competitiveness. Interview or exam questions tendto be related to the level of intellect of the person con-ducting the interview. In general, argued Philip Ore-opoulos, a University of British Columbia economistand the author of Right Resume, Wrong Name, whenit comes to making a hiring decision, interviewersmake split-second decisions based on subconsciousstereotypes (Jiménez, 2009). Their decision is basedon feelings if the candidates make the most emotionalconnection with the interviewers. Hence, this behav-ior nurtures the practice of discrimination and reducesthe importance of professionalism, knowledge, andscientific application in the workplace but it upholdsfeelings, emotions, and common sense. Similarly,when hiring is based on random selection, arguedDowlen (2009), it causes the system to overlook qual-ities or qualifications and technical capacity.

Facing the threat of terrorism, human resourcesin government are very crucial. SirAndrewMcGregoronce stated, “Education and training are very impor-tant issues” and they are needed more than ever. Thisindicates that in order to change from the line depart-ment to the matrix approach, there should not be anoutsourcing of human resources in public administra-tion. Government needs homegrown personnel ratherthan the extreme outsourcing as has been applied.

In several instances, contractors are sending peo-ple without qualifications to roles in government basedsolely on security clearance. They recommend candi-dates’ resumes that have been fabricated or borrowedfrom other qualified personnel. Then we wonder aboutthe poor quality of work and short-minded policy pro-duced by the government. The policy designed is notonly influenced by individual values, beliefs, and per-spectives, but also by society norms and standards, so-cial tradition, political party affiliation, organizationnorms and values, professional values, and leadershipinfluence (Anderson, 1991), which many personnel donot understand because it is not their field of knowledge.

In a corrupt bureaucracy, the matrix approachis better suited for public governance. The values ofknowledge, expertise, and professionalism guaranteesthe best result, best quality. People with knowledgeand who value their professionalism are not motivatedby money but those who have less knowledge do, ar-gued Denhardt, Denhardt and Aristigueta (2002).They emphasize their professionalism on servicing thesociety, which many don’t understand (Shafritz &Russell, 2000) because they are not celebrated asthose in the private sector (Schwartz, 1983), while


those who lack knowledge often emphasize their workon “value for money” or “service for money.”

Human resources management in the publicsector not only encompasses recruitment, selection,training, compensation, evaluation, discipline, andclassification, but also includes developing human ca-pacity. It is about germinating a seed and building anation. Jobs in the government are different from thosein the private sector. In the private sector, recruitmenttoday, hiring tomorrow, and do the job the day after to-morrow. In the public sector, recruitment today, hiringbetween 6 months and 1 year later, then there is thetraining period of at least 6 months to 1 year before theperson would be able to start the job. This is very time-consuming and complex. It requires creativity and con-stant forward thinking. It requires not only skills butalso knowledge, professionalism and education.

Training for human resources management inthe government requires particular training, which isnot simply about doing the job but it involves the Con-stitution, the organization, its vision, mission, objec-tives, and goals. The nature of job in the governmentis very different from that in the private sector. It re-quires high integration of human rights and social eq-uity (Fischer & Sirianni, 1984/1994), humanity, socialand professional values. In addition, personnel in-cluding leaders at the public sector should or must un-derstand the roles and functions of the government,the principles of the government, and the characteris-tics of the jobs they would perform. They have to un-dergo training to understand the structure of thegovernment because it is different from that of the pri-vate sector, and this structure has relationship with theprinciples, mission, and goals of the government andall are defined and characterized in the Constitution(Palmer, 1959). This structure inscribes their duties aspublic leaders and employees (Dube, 1963). The ma-trix approach can only exist in a hierarchical structureand helps the leaders to understand their network andthe capacity of their subordinates.

Department of Health and Human Services-Administration for Children and Families, in itsKnowledge Management White Paper: MaximizingHuman Potential and Organizational Performance, ar-gued that human resources management in the publicsector is about maximizing human potential, organi-zation success and organization performance. Every-one must be sensible to how much work is facilitatedand abridged by the application of proper knowledge.Personnel will find it easier and are more ready to per-form work they are trained for and are specialized inthat knowledge. This process eliminates speculationand the assessment of human resources management

based on feelings or emotions, in terms of hiring andpromotion. If line department requires knowledge ap-prenticeship or learning by doing, matrix approach re-quires knowledge specialization. It also enhancesrespect for knowledge and expertise as well as author-ity. The process of human resources managementshould include the human development process.

Different from the market approach to capacitybuilding, which is through seminars, conferences, andworkshops, matrix approach is an internal venue to-ward capacity building that is more sustainable be-cause it is like intrinsic values to public personnel.Public leaders are required to learn continuously.StatedWhite (1999), “the cultivated mind is the meas-ure of the man. Your education should continue dur-ing your lifetime; every day you should be learningand putting to practical use the knowledge gained” (p.337). She added, never think that you have learnedenough as a leader and that you may now relax yourefforts. When leaders learn by doing, their creativityof obtaining knowledge stops at the time they stoplearning and their mind is no longer cultivated.

Different from the current practice in whicheveryone from any sector can become public leadersbecause they claim they were born as leaders, matrixapproach develops leaders. Lao Tzu once said, “Lead-ers aren’t born, they are made… through hard work.”

Recommendation and ConclusionOne of the criteria of public policy is reversibility(Patton & Sawicki, 2001) but today’s policy has beendriven further away from this criteria or because fewof the elected officials have very little knowledgeabout government policies, its roles and responsibili-ties (Congleton, 2004). Research indicates that today’selected officials are unable to design public policy(Samara, 2010) and public executives severely lackknowledge (Mao Tse-tung, 1970; Rotberg, 2006). En-trepreneurialship could be the key factor associatedwith elected officials and their inability to design pub-lic policy because they are not in the business of pub-lic policy or social welfare but to maximize profit(Hooker, 2005).

Kramer (1998) argued that it is risky to equateprivate and public governance, and Condrey (1998)agreed that management of human resources “thatwork in business cannot be transferred wholesale intogovernment,” (p. 254). Today, we are facing the de-mand for continuous learning, greater quality man-agement, or Total Quality Management (Condrey,1998) and this requires human development, which isdelivered through continuous on-the-job learning(Shafritz & Russell, 2000). Weick & Sutcliffe (2001)


also agreed that quality of work promotes reliabilityand mindfulness, which is crucial to high performancein a complex and uncertain environment. The irony ofon-the-job learning is that knowledge dies with thedeparture of the mentor.

For conclusion and recommendation, Daft,Fitzgerald and Rock (1992) stated that the matrix ap-proach is very efficient and effective, especially in acontinually changing environment, and when there areuncertainties (Olson & Oeyang, 2001). The knowl-edge, skills, or expertise is available to all divisions(Condrey, 1998), which can promote reliability andstability (Shafritz & Russell, 2000). It is best suitedfor public governance today where corruption plaguesthe bureaucracy and is especially important when thesafety of the nation is at stake. Education, saidThomas Jefferson, is very crucial for the success ofthe organization.

Hiring personnel in a matrix system requires ahiring manager with knowledge and education as wellas professional experience and wisdom. The matrixsystem requires the application of a scientific ap-proach and knowledge specialization to completetasks. This approach requires the adoption of humandevelopment into the management of human re-sources. The higher the position in the bureaucracy,the higher the level of knowledge, education, profes-sionalism, and maturity requirements should be. Thisrequirement encourages continuous improvement ofpersonnel capacity and hence, their performance aswell as those of the leaders and the organization.

This system provides what Antoine de Saint-Exupery, a French pilot, a writer, and the author ofThe Little Prince once stated, “If you want to builda ship, don’t drum up people together to collectwood and don’t assign them tasks and works, butrather teach them to long for the endless immensityof the sea.”

AuthorCaroline Covell is affiliated with Walden University,Faculty of Public PolicyAdministration. She has spe-cialization in public leadership and management.She can be contacted at [email protected] [email protected]

ReferencesAijala, K. (2001). Public Sector – An Employer of

Choice? Competitiveness Public EmployerProject. OECD.

Anderson, J. (1991). Public Policymaking. Boston,MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Appleby, P. A. (1954, March). Bureaucracy and theFuture. Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 292, Bureaucracyand Democratic Government, 136–151.

Bakvis, H. & Juillet, L. (2004). The Horizontal Chal-lenge: Line Departments, CentralAgencies andLeadership. Ottawa, ON: Canada School ofPublic Service.

Bansal, P. (2001, November/December). SustainableDevelopment. Ivey Business Journal, 48–52.

Bechel, M. (2009, December 3). Human ResourceManagement (HRM): Key Challenges and Rec-ommendations. CEPA, 8th Session, NewYork.

Berman, E. M. (1998). Productivity in Public andNonprofit Organizations: Strategies and Tech-niques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-tions.

Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & VanWart, M. (2001). Human Resources Manage-ment in Public Service. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Ben-ze’ev, A. (1990). Envy and Jealousy. CanadianJournal of Philosophy, 20, 487–516.

Bradbury, M. D. & Waechter, G. D. (2009, Septem-ber). Extreme Outsourcing in Local Govern-ment: At the Top and All But the Top. Reviewof Public Personnel Administration, 29 (3).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Briggs, J. & Peat, F. D. (1990). The Turbulent Mirror.In E E. Olson & G. H. Oeyang (2001). Facili-tating Organization Change: Lessons fromComplexity Science. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Buchanan, J. M. & Di Pierro, A. (1980, January).Cognition, Choice, and Entrepreneurship.Southern Economic Journal, 46(3), 693–701.

Buskist, W. & Gerbing, D.W. (1990). Psychology:Boundaries and Frontiers. New York, NY:Harper Collins.

Clawson, J. D. (2003). Level Three Leadership: Get-ting Below the Surface. Second Edition. NewYork, NY: Prentice Hall.


Collins, M. S. (1997). Black corporate executives: themaking and breaking of a black middle class.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Congleton, Roger D. (2004). Informational Limits toDemocratic Public Policy. Virginia: GeorgeMason University.

Covell, C. (2004). The Rise and Fall of the Empires.Salt Lake City, UT: American Book Publish-ing.

Covell, C. (2008). Public Private Partnership. InPinkowski, J. Homeland Security Handbook.New Delhi, India: Francis & Taylor.

Cultural Human Resources Council (n. d.). HumanResources Management: Recruiting the RightPeople. Retrieved December 7, 2010 fromhttp://www.culturalhrc.ca/hrtools/pdfs/E_Re-cruiting.pdf

Damasio, A. R. (1999). The Feelings of What Hap-pens. Body and Emotions in the Making ofConsciousness. New York, NY: Harcourt.

De Bettignies, J. & Ross, T. (2004). Public PrivatePartnership. A paper presented during the pres-entation at Carleton University.

Department Of Public Service and Administration(1997, December 31). Managing People in aTransformed Public Service. White Paper onHuman Resource Management in the PublicService, No. 13594 3. Staatskoerant.

Drechsler, W. (2000). Public Administration in Cen-tral and Eastern Europe: Considerations fromthe “State Science” Approach. In Castro,Burlamaqui, Chang, (Eds.), Institutions and theRole of the State. Cheltenham – Northampton,Mass.: Edward Elgar, 267–279

Drechsler, W. (2005, September). The Rise and De-mise of the New Public Management. Post-autistic Economics Review, 33(14), Article 2.

Dube, S. C. (1963). Bureaucracy and Nation Build-ing in Transition Societies. United Nations Ed-ucational Scientific and Cultural Organization.Expert Working Group in Social Prerequisitesto Economic Growth. Kyrenia, Cyprus, 17–26April 1963.

Du Gay, P. (2005). The Values of Bureaucracy. Lon-don, England: Oxford University Press.

Erickson, E. (1963). Childhood and Society. SecondEdition. In William Buskist & DavidW. Gerb-ing (1990). Psychology: Boundaries and Fron-tiers. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Fischer, F. & Sirianni, C. (1984/1994). Critical stud-ies in organization and bureaucracy. Philadel-phia, PA: Temple University Press.

Fox, V. (2003). Reinventing Government. MexicoHosts 5th Global Forum.UN Chronicle, 3, 12–13.

Frederickson, H. G. (2000, January/February). CanBureaucracy Be Beautiful? Public Administra-tion Review, 60(1), 47–53.

Fry, B. R. & Nigro, L. G. (1996). MaxWeber and USpublic administration: the administrator as neu-tral servant. Journal of Management History,2(1), 37–46.

Fu-Lay, T. Y. (2008, August). Uncertainty, humanagency and e-government. Transforming Gov-ernment People, Process and Policy, 2(4),283–296.

Garson, G. D. (2006). Public Information Technologyand E-Government: Managing the VirtualState. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barlett.

Groeneveld, S. & Van de Walle, S. (2010, June). Acontingency approach to representative bu-reaucracy: power, equal opportunities and di-versity. International Review of AdministrativeSciences, 76(2), 239–258.

Hahn, S. L. (2008). Book Review: Truth and theHeretic - Crises of Knowledge in MedievalFrench Literature by Karen Sullivan. ModernPhilology, 106 (2), 215–218.

Harel, E., & Partipilo, G. (1996, summer) Reengi-neering Beyond the Illusion of Control.Cause/Effect, 38–44.

Hartmus, D. M. (2008, Fall). Teaching ConstitutionalLaw to PublicAdministrators. Journal of Pub-lic Affairs Education, 14(3), 353–360.


Hays, S. & Kearney, R. (1999).Abrief rejoinder; Sav-ing the civil service. Review of Public Person-nel Administration, 19(1), 77–79.

Heald, D. (1985, March). Will the privatization ofpublic enterprises solve the problem of con-trol? Public Administration, 63(1), 7–22.

Heames, J. T. & Harvey, M. (2006, December 22).The evolution of the concept of the 'executive'from the 20th century manager to the 21st cen-tury global leader. Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies. Retrieved November30, 2010 from http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee-development-leadership/4005089-1.html

Heintzman, R. (2007, May 14). Toward a New MoralContract: Reclaiming Trust in Public Service.The Vanier Lecture, Regina, SK.

Hooker, J. (2005). The Case against Business EthicsEducation: A Study in Bad Arguments. Jour-nal of Business Ethics Education, 1(1), 75–88.Senate Hall Academic Publishing.

Horn, J. L. (1970). Organization on data on life-spandevelopment of human abilities. In R. L.Goulte and P. B. Baltes (Eds.). Life-span de-velopmental psychology research and theory.New York, NY: Academic Press. In WilliamBuskist & David W. Gerbing (1990). Psychol-ogy: Boundaries and Frontiers. NewYork, NY:Harper Collins.

Jiménez, M. (2009, May 3). Book Review: Right Re-sume, Wrong Name by Philip Oreopoulos.Globe and Mail (online edition).

Jones, B. D. (2003). Bounded Rationality and Politi-cal Science: Lessons from Public Administra-tion and Public Policy. Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 13, 395–412.

Kaplan, B. H. (1968, December). Notes in a non-We-berian model of bureaucracy: the case of de-velopment bureaucracy. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 13(3), 471–483.

Kazilan, F., Hamzah, R., & Bakar, A. R. (2009). Em-ployability SkillsAmong the Students of Tech-nical and Vocational Training Centers in

Malaysia. European Journal of Social Science,9 (1), 147-160.

Ke, J., Chermack, T. J., Lee, Y. & Lin, J. (2006). Na-tional Human Resource Development in Tran-sitioning Societies in the Developing World:The People’s Republic of China. Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, 8, 28.

Kemp, S. (2003, February). The effect of providingmisleading cost information in the perceivedvalue of government services. Journal of Eco-nomic Psychology, 24(1), 117–128.

Kramer, R. (1998). Nonprofit Organizations: Will sec-tor matter? A Working Paper Series. TheAspen Institute.

Kvint, V. L. (1990, November/December). Con-fronting the Soviet Management Structure: Bu-reaucratic, But Workable. The InternationalExecutive, 32 (3), 1–6.

Lane, L. M. & Wolf, J. F. (1990). The Human Re-source Crisis in the Public Sector: Rebuildingthe Capacity to Govern. New York, NY: Quo-rum Books.

Lardaro, L. (2008, February). Parochial and Myopic:RI Can No Longer Afford Its Paropic Leader-ship. The Providence Journal, CommentaryPage.

Lawler, P.A., Schaler, R. M., & Schaefer, D. L. (Eds.)(1998). Active Duty: Public Administration inDemocratic Statesmanship. Lanhum, ML:Rowman & Littlefield.

Long, N. E. (1952, September). Bureaucracy andConstitutionalism. The American Political Sci-ence Review, 46(3), 808–818

Management Science for Health (2005). Human Re-sources Management Rapid Assessment Toolfor Public-and Private-Sector Health Organi-zations. A Guide for Strengthening HRM Sys-tems. Cambridge, MA: Management Sciencefor Health.

Mao Tse-tung (1970, February/December 19). Se-lectedWorks of Mao Tse-tung: Vol. IX. TwentyManifestations Of Bureaucracy. Joint Publica-tions Research Service, Washington, DC.


Markulis, P., Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. (2006,January/February). The Impact of LeadershipModes on Team Dynamics and Performance inUndergraduate Management Classes. TheJournal of Education for Business, 81(3).

Markman, G. D. & Baron, R, A. (2003). Person-en-trepreneurship fit: why some people are moresuccessful as entrepreneurs than others.HumanResource Management Review, 13, 281–301.

McShane, S. (1992). Canadian Organizational Be-havior. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Milakovich, M. E. & Gordon, G. J. (2008). Public Ad-ministration in America. Cengange Learning.

Moore, M. M. (1983). Creating public value: strate-gic management in government. Boston, MA:Harvard University Press.

Nagle, T. (1984). Economic Foundations for Pricing.Journal of Business, 53(1), 2.

Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness(1999, September). Strategic Human Re-sources Management: Aligning with the Mis-sion. U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing gov-ernment: How the entrepreneurial spirit istransforming the public sector. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley

Overeem, P. (2008). Regime Change for Regime Val-ues? Applying the Constitutional Approach toPublicAdministration OutsideAmerica. PaperPrepared for the Research Workshop ‘PublicValues and Public Interest.’ Copenhagen, May28–31.

Palmer, R. R. (1959). The Age of the Democratic Rev-olution. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Uni-versity Press.

Randma-Liiv, T. & Connaughton, B. (2005, April).Public Administration as a Field of Study: Di-vergence or Convergence in the Light of ‘Eu-ropeanization’? TRAMES, 260–272.

Riggs, F. W. (1994, January/February). Bureaucracyand the Constitution. Public AdministrationReview, 54(1), 65–72.

Ritzer, G. (1988). TheMcDonalization of Society. TheJournal of American Culture, 6(1), 100–107.

Ronquillo, J. C. (2008, April 10). Establishing aLocus of Native American Governance in Aca-demia? An Interdisciplinary Approach to In-forming Public Administration Research.Retrieved September 1, 2009 from SSRN:http://ssrn.com.

Rosen, H. S., Boothe, P., Dahlby, B. & Smith, R. S.(1999). Public Finance in Canada. Toronto,ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Reed, B. J. & Swain, J.W. (1990). Public Finance Ad-ministration. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Ryals, L. J. & Rogers, B. (2006, January-February).Holding up the mirror: The impact of strategicprocurement practices on account manage-ment. Business Horizons, 49(1), 41–50.

Salem, D.A., Reischl, T. M., Gallacher, F., & Randall,K.W. (2000). The Role of Referent and ExpertPower in Mutual. American Journal of Com-munity Psychology, 28(3).

Samara (2010, June). A Job With No Description. TheMP Interview Report #2. Retrieved November29, 2010 from www.samara.com

Sayer, A. (1992).Method in Social Science: A RealistApproach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Seddon, J. (2008). Systems thinking in the public sec-tor – the failure of the reform regime and amanifesto for a better regime. Aximenster, UK:Riachy Press.

Segan, S. (2005,August 25). The Pressure to Do GreatThings and the Impulse to Resist It: The Caseof Iago in Othello. PSYART: An Online Journalfor the Psychological Study of the Arts, Article050818.

Selden, S. C. (1997). The promise of representativebureaucracy: diversity and responsive in agovernment agency. New York, NY: M. E.Sharpe.

Shafritz, J. M. & Russell, W. (2000). Introducing Pub-lic Administration. New York, NY: AddisonWesley-Longman.


Simon, H.A. (1946, winter). The Proverbs ofAdmin-istration. Public Administration Review, 6, 53-67.

Stanisveski, D. (2004). A Review: Invitation to Pub-lic Administration by O. C. McSwite (2002).Administrative Theory & Praxis, 26(3), 455–459.

Styhre, A. (2007). The Innovative Bureaucracy in anAge of Fluidity. NewYork, NY: Francis & Tay-lor.

Towne, H. (1886). The Engineer as Economist. Trans-actions of the American Society of MechanicalEngineers, 7, 428–432.

UNDP (2008). Public Administration Reform: Prac-tice Note

United Nations Public Administration and Develop-ment Management (2005). Human Resourcesfor Effective Public Administration in a Glob-alized World. United Nations - Department ofEconomic and SocialAffairs Division for Pub-lic Administration and Development Manage-ment. Washington, DC: United Nations.

US Department of Health and Human Services-Ad-ministration for Children and Families. Knowl-edge Management White Paper: MaximizingHuman Potential and Organizational Per-formance. Retrieved August 6, 2010 fromhttp://eclkc.ohs.act.hhs.gov.

Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Eco-nomic Organization. Translated byA. M. Hen-derson & Talcott Parsons, The Free Press.

Wetzel, C., Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. (2001,February 1). The Theory of Human Develop-ment: A Cross Cultural Analysis. Center for theStudy of Democracy. UC Irvine.

White, E. G. (1999). The Ministry of Healing. Alta-mont, TN: Harvestime Books

Williams D. W. (2000, November-December). Rein-venting the Proverbs of Government. PublicAdministration Review, 60(6), 522–534.

Winninger, B.,Aarts, D., & Burch, J. (2010, January).Closing the Implementation Gap: Improving

capacity accountability performance andhuman resources quality in the Canadian andOntario public service – Human Resources inthe Public Sector. The quest to make govern-ment an employer of choice. Toronto. ON:Aurea Foundation – Wilson Foundation.

Wu, H. (2008, December). On the Basis and Predica-ment ofApplying Organizational Support The-ory to Chinese Public Human ResourceManagement. International Journal of Busi-ness & Management, 3(12).

Van Riper, P. P. (1995). Luther Gulick on FrederickTaylor and scientific management. Journal ofManagement History, 1(2), 6–7.

Varette, S. & Zussman, D. (2008, January 9). Today'sleaders: Career trends of Canada's private- andpublic-sector executives. Canadian Public Ad-ministration, 41(2), 284–304.

(1998, October). The Future for Public Services –2008. London, England: Public ManagementFoundation.

(2007, Spring). Transformation: Six Trends Trans-forming Government. The Public Manager -The Quarterly for Practitioners, 36(1).

HumanResourcesManagement ForEffectivePublicAdministration ·...

Documents

Transcript of HumanResourcesManagement ForEffectivePublicAdministration ·...