Transforming the Civil Service: Building the Workforce of the Future:
Results of a GAO-Sponsored Symposium (Other Written Prod., 12/26/95,
GAO/GGD-96-35).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO sponsored a symposium on
transforming the civil service. GAO noted that: (1) the symposium
brought together leading private and public sector employers and former
federal officials to discuss new human resource management approaches;
(2) there were eight overlapping personnel management principles that
focused on people as assets, organizational missions, accountability,
appropriate organizational structures, integrating personnel management
into an organization's mission, continuous learning, integrated
information management, and sustained leadership; (3) symposium
participants found that a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal approach
to human resources management was more effective; (4) although some
federal agencies have adopted some of these management principles,
attitudinal, political, and structural barriers hamper wider acceptance;
(5) although some of the principles could be adopted without changing
any laws, others would require congressional action and increased civil
service decentralization; (6) recent legislation and the National
Performance Review have recognized the value of these management
principles; (7) the federal government should retain its merit system
core values while allowing federal agencies more flexibility to meet
their disparate needs; and (8) Congress must take into consideration the
fundamental differences between government and private sector functions
in applying these management principles.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-96-35
TITLE: Transforming the Civil Service: Building the Workforce of
the Future: Results of a GAO-Sponsored Symposium
DATE: 12/26/95
SUBJECT: Personnel management
Human resources utilization
Civil service appointments
Federal agency reorganization
Decentralization
Accountability
Federal employees
Working conditions
Information resources management
Human resources training
IDENTIFIER: Presidential Quality Award
Dept. of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige Quality Improvement Award
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate
December 1995
TRANSFORMING THE CIVIL SERVICE:
BUILDING THE WORKFORCE OF THE
FUTURE - RESULTS OF A
GAO-SPONSORED SYMPOSIUM
GAO/GGD-96-35
Transforming the Civil Service
(966634)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CEO - chief executive officer
FTE - full-time equivalent
GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
HRM - human resource management
IRS - Internal Revenue Service
NPR - National Performance Review
OPM - Office of Personnel Management
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-260233
December 20, 1995
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman, Committee on
Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
Former Chairman, Committee on
Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
On April 12 and 13, 1995, we sponsored a symposium, "Transforming the
Civil Service: Building the Workforce of the Future." Held in
response to a request from Senator William V. Roth, Jr., then
Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the event
brought together representatives of leading private sector firms,
public sector employers from both here and abroad, and distinguished
former federal officials to discuss new approaches to managing
people. This report distills from their discussions a set of
emerging human resource management (HRM) principles and points out
some of the implications should Congress consider applying these
principles to the federal civil service.
Civil service reform is an enormously complex challenge, and last
April's discussions provide a perspective, not a prescription for
change. Although the report that follows offers suggestions from a
certain viewpoint, it does not resolve this question: Should new HRM
approaches that are based largely on private sector experience and
that, thus far, have been applied to a relatively limited extent in
the public sector now be adapted to the federal civil service? The
answer may hinge on the similarities and differences between private
sector and public sector realities and, ultimately, on what sort of
civil service will best serve the American people. This is a policy
judgment that rightfully belongs to Congress.
As Congress deliberates these policy issues, there are some key
concepts that it may find useful to keep in mind. If Congress wishes
to change the civil service system, it will need to articulate the
principles and goals that form the basis for the changes. It will
need to set measurable expectations by which to evaluate agencies'
adherence to these systemwide principles and goals. And while it
will need to give federal managers the flexibility necessary to get
the job done, it will need to establish effective oversight and
accountability mechanisms to ensure that agencies are accomplishing
the desired results.
We believe that the April symposium offers a useful backdrop against
which to consider the future of the federal civil service--a system
that has been evolving for more than a century and that, to stay
effective, will need to continue evolving.
Charles A. Bowsher
Comptroller General
of the United States
INTRODUCTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
To remain viable in today's demanding environment, public and private
sector organizations alike must improve their performance while
holding the line on costs. This is nowhere more apparent than among
federal agencies, where pressure is mounting for a government that
works better, costs less, and employs a smaller and more efficient
workforce. The necessity to improve performance in the face of
steady or declining resources has led some organizations, both here
and in other countries, to make radical changes in the way they
manage people.
These organizations have begun changing both their traditional
organizational structures and the approaches they have taken to
managing their employees. In place of centralized, hierarchical,
rule-based systems, they are creating decentralized, flatter, more
flexible arrangements. And in place of highly detailed rules to
manage their employees, they are relying increasingly on a
well-defined mission, a clearly articulated vision, and a coherent
organizational culture to form the foundation for the key business
systems and processes they use to ensure the successful outcome of
their operations. Recognizing that people are central to any
organization's success, these organizations give their managers
greater prerogatives to manage and their employees greater
opportunities to participate in the decisions that affect them and
their work.
BACKGROUND: LEARNING FROM
OTHERS' EXPERIENCES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Senator William V. Roth, Jr., then Chairman of the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, asked GAO to examine the HRM
experiences of successful public and private sector organizations to
identify their "lessons learned" and to analyze the applicability of
these lessons to civil service reform. To respond to this request,
on April 12 and 13, 1995, we convened a 2-day symposium of 32 leaders
from public and private sector organizations who discussed their
approaches toward managing people--the principles they employ, the
changes they have made, and the lessons they have learned. Our focus
on "managing people" rather than on "personnel administration"
allowed for discussion of broader and more innovative management
approaches and for accommodating ideas from such fields as
organization theory, public administration, quality improvement,
budgeting, and information resource management.
Twelve of the symposium participants were presenters and 20 were
panelists.\1 The presenters were current or former senior officials
from Xerox; Federal Express; GM Powertrain; AT&T's Workplace of the
Future; IBM's WorkForce Solutions; Herman Miller, Inc.; the
Communications Workers of America; the City of Hampton, Virginia; the
State of Minnesota; and the governments of New Zealand, Australia,
and Canada (see app. II for the names and affiliations of the
presenters). We chose these organizations because of their
reputations, which were often bolstered by awards for quality or
innovative management.\2
The 20 panelists--current or former federal officials and
academicians--joined the presenters for the symposium's group
discussions. We chose the panelists for their civil service
experience and expertise, hoping to gain insights from them into the
applicability of the various lessons learned to the symposium theme,
"Transforming the Civil Service: Building the Workforce of the
Future." (See app. II for the names and affiliations of the
panelists.)
To varying degrees, all of the organizations represented at the
symposium differed in character and size from the federal government.
Xerox and IBM, for example, are corporations. The governments of New
Zealand, Australia, and Canada are parliamentary and much smaller
than the government of the United States. Yet notwithstanding these
differences or the unique challenges facing the U.S. civil service,
the symposium provided a forum in which to explore the experiences of
diverse organizations and to highlight new or alternative approaches
toward managing people.\3
This report distills the proceedings of the symposium into a set of
basic principles for managing people that differs from the
traditional civil service model. The report includes our analysis of
some of the implications of these principles for civil service
reform, but we express no opinions or recommendations. Rather, our
goal in reporting on the symposium was to reflect as accurately as
possible the common threads that constituted the participants'
lessons learned and to point out some of the implications should
Congress consider applying these lessons to the civil service. The
participants themselves were not asked to reach consensus or even to
comment on every issue. Nor did they, as a group, offer
recommendations for civil service reform. Many of them emphasized
that management approaches that prove effective in some organizations
may not work in others.
We gave the symposium participants an opportunity to comment on the
contents of this report and incorporated their views.
--------------------
\1 The moderator was Rick Tate, co-founder of the consulting firm
Innovative Thinking, Inc. We chose Tate because of his familiarity
with HRM issues and his well-regarded facilitation skills. In
addition, Tate was unencumbered by any vested interest in the
organizations represented at the symposium or in the issue of civil
service reform.
\2 The organizations represented at the symposium did not represent a
scientific sample; therefore, the results portrayed here are not
generalizable to all organizations.
\3 Examples of change and innovation also exist within the federal
government. The Office of Personnel Management(OPM)issued a report
on various HRM efforts, entitled Towards Reinvention: A Guide to HRM
Reform, in December 1994. The National Academy of Public
Administration's report, Innovative Approaches to Human Resources
Management, issued in March 1995, highlights the activities of
several federal agencies, as well as those of other public and
private organizations.
EIGHT PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGING
PEOPLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
According to many of the symposium participants, the demand for
faster, cheaper, and better service delivery has led their
organizations to develop new and more flexible ways of managing
people. On the basis of the symposium proceedings, GAO discerned
eight interrelated principles common to these organizations:
1. Value people as assets rather than as costs. Recognize that
people are crucial to organizational success. Establish a clear
organizational mission and treat employees as partners in
accomplishing that mission. Invest in them. Encourage them to
contribute ideas and allow them to make decisions. Expect them to
support the organization's mission and vision, and reward them for
doing so. Treat them with respect and fairness. Even when
downsizing is necessary, emphasize fairness and help prepare them for
a "soft landing."
2. Emphasize mission, vision, and organizational culture.
Articulate a clear organizational mission to which employees can
contribute and a vision to which they can aspire. Build a strong
organizational culture calling for high standards of performance and
personal behavior. Use mission, vision, and culture as the
underpinnings for rational business systems and processes that ensure
the successful outcome of operations.
3. Hold managers responsible for achieving results instead of
imposing rigid, process-oriented rules and standards. Give managers
the authority to manage their people flexibly and innovatively so
they can focus on achieving results rather than doing things "by the
book." Hold them accountable for outcomes and for furthering the
mission and vision of the organization rather than for adhering to a
set of minutely defined procedures.
4. Choose an organizational structure appropriate to the
organization rather than trying to make "one size fit all." Design
the organization so that its structure supports its mission and takes
into account its present and future needs. Use different
organizational models as appropriate. The current trend is toward
flat, flexible, team-oriented organizational structures, but no
single design works best for all organizations.
5. Instead of isolating the "personnel function" organizationally,
integrate HRM into the mission of the organization. Tie the
organization's HRM functions into its mission, vision, and culture.
Make HRM functions an integral part of the organization's business
activities by decentralizing and deregulating them.
6. Treat continuous learning as an investment in success rather than
as a cost to be minimized. Invest in training and professional
development to meet changing customer needs, keep skills up to date,
and develop new personal and organizational competencies.
7. Pursue an integrated rather than an ad hoc approach to
information management. Develop the integrated information
management systems that will ensure individual and unit
accountability, open channels for continuous improvement, and
encourage and reward accurate measurements of progress, performance,
and customer satisfaction.
8. Provide sustained leadership that recognizes change as a
permanent condition, not a one-time event. In a continuously
changing environment, effective organizations adapt continuously, not
crisis-by-crisis. Invest the time and resources necessary to
accommodate constant change. Obtain the commitment of everyone
involved. Communicate a coherent set of principles to guide the
organization over time.
These eight principles reflect the symposium participants' view of
how to manage people in a turbulent and demanding environment.
(Related highlights drawn from the symposium are presented in app.
I.) The sense of the group was that these principles should be
treated as a whole. As several symposium participants noted, their
organizations chose to address their human resource challenges with
comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, approaches. Jenni Colwill of
Australia's Public Service Commission described a feature common to
civil service reform efforts in her country and New Zealand:
"First, we identified the human resource management issues that
were of major concern, and then pulled them together into an
integrated framework that needed to be addressed."
It follows, then, that the eight principles emerging from the
symposium are overlapping and interdependent and should be read as a
coherent, overall approach to managing people in high- performance
organizations. Some symposium presenters noted, for example, that
valuing people is a central tenet of their organizations' mission and
vision statements. Representatives of Xerox, Herman Miller, Federal
Express, and AT&T said that while managers in each of these
organizations are expected to manage for results, "results" involves
more than the "bottom line"; their managers are rewarded no less for
how well they support their companies' values than for how well they
help them make money. Some participants noted that in their
organizations, performance management, career development programs,
and pay and promotions standards are all tied to organizational
mission, vision, and culture. In short, these organizations treat
effective HRM and effective business practices as inseparable.
THE EIGHT PRINCIPLES'
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Many of the ideas raised at the symposium are potentially relevant to
transforming the civil service. Indeed, some of the principles
emerging at the symposium are already being applied within specific
agencies or programs. The participants pointed out, however, that
some attitudinal or structural barriers exist within the federal
government that could prevent these principles from being more widely
accepted. Assuming these barriers were overcome, many of the
principles could be put into practice without changing any laws.
Other principles, if Congress chose to apply them, would require a
further decentralization of the civil service system and could
require some specific legislative changes, primarily to Title 5,
United States Code (U.S.C.), which governs the civil service system.
SIMILAR THINKING IS ALREADY
SHOWING UP IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
During panel discussions at the symposium, it became clear that some
of the values that underlie the eight principles have already been
recognized and are being put into effect as part of various
agency-based or governmentwide initiatives. As Margaret Patch of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said:
"Many of the things we're doing now are right in line with the
private sector. But federal agencies are such large and complex
organizations that, in the course of day-to-day operations, we
can lose sight of the fact that we are doing a lot of things
right."
Several participants noted that the goals of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) are consistent with the
kind of thinking that emerged at the symposium, particularly as those
goals relate to the importance of clarifying agency missions,
focusing on results, and aligning systems to meet performance goals.
For example, GPRA requires all federal agencies, by the end of fiscal
year 1997, to develop 5-year strategic plans that include their
missions and goals, as well as their strategies for achieving those
goals through specific activities and management of people,
information, and other resources. GPRA also calls for annual
performance plans and reports that include attention to human
resource needs and utilization.
In addition, the administration's National Performance Review (NPR)
has identified a number of federal HRM problems and offered 14
recommendations for change, many of them in keeping with the ideas
brought forward at the symposium. Frank Thompson, executive director
of the National Commission on the State and Local Public Service,
said, "A lot of the kinds of reviews that we've been talking about
here [at the symposium] have already been done, and there's a lot of
consensus already out there that has been translated into specific
legislative proposals."\4
In recent years, a number of federal agencies have made substantive
quality improvement efforts, some of which have won the Presidential
Quality Award (the federal sector equivalent of the Malcolm Baldrige
Award for private sector excellence). Other agencies are trying new
HRM approaches while serving as NPR reinvention labs.
--------------------
\4 The administration has developed a civil service reform package,
but its legislative proposal had not been submitted to Congress at
the time of the symposium. Nor had the proposal been introduced as
of publication of this report.
BARRIERS EXIST TO PUTTING
SOME OF THESE PRINCIPLES
INTO PRACTICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
Some symposium participants agreed that in the federal government, a
number of barriers do exist to the sort of thinking embodied in the
eight principles for managing people. Some of these barriers arise
out of long-standing attitudes about the limitations that have been
placed on agency officials' HRM prerogatives or about the basic ways
in which people ought to be managed. Other barriers, they said,
arise out of the difficulty federal agencies commonly experience in
arriving at a consensus on their missions or in sustaining the
committed, long-term leadership needed to accomplish them.
One attitudinal barrier, according to some participants, stems from
agency officials' belief in their own powerlessness--from a sense, as
Marilyn Hay, director of labor relations at the Treasury Board of
Canada, portrayed it, that they are at the mercy of those who created
or oversee the system and cannot hope to change it. The agencies
themselves can be the source of this belief. Former U.S. Forest
Service chief Dale Robertson cited a pilot study that found 70
percent of the performance barriers that workers identified involved
agency policies and practices. "It wasn't Congress," Robertson said
the report concluded. "It wasn't OPM. It wasn't anybody else but us
at the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service."
Margaret Patch of IRS described how IRS' reengineering efforts have
helped identify self-imposed constraints:
"[We found that] it takes us, on average, 70 days to fill a job
vacancy, and that the process involves 94 separate steps.
Through reengineering, we're taking that down to 15 days, and
we're doing so by cutting out all kinds of things including ones
we were never required to do in the first place."
Patch recalled another incident in which agency officials learned
that constraints on their prerogatives were not so extensive as they
had thought--a meeting between reengineering teams from IRS and
representatives from OPM and the General Services Administration:
"We were brought up short repeatedly when our teams started
talking about the constraints they were facing--the things they
assumed OPM would never let us do. And the OPM people said,
`That is not a requirement of OPM. You do not have to continue
doing that'."
Other attitudinal barriers to change, according to some of the
symposium participants, stem from some traditional assumptions about
the way employees should be managed. Canada's Marilyn Hay said that
her organization had to begin its change efforts by challenging
"the assumptions on which all of our systems were built: that
managers need to be controlled, that none of them have any
judgment, that managers and employees alike will cheat the
system if you let them. The traditional attitude is that the
organization could be run a lot better if you could do it
without any people at all. So very naturally, what grew up were
a lot of rules to constrain and control people, and what we're
trying to do now is free them up, turn that around."
Although several of the participants pointed out that successful
organizations define their missions clearly and coherently,
participants also noted that the task of doing so is a different one
for federal agencies than for private companies. Companies define
their own lines of business, adjusting as appropriate for the sake of
efficiency and profitability; set their own goals in such areas as
quality, service delivery, and profit; and are accountable to
shareholders. Federal agencies, on the other hand, are shaped by a
more political environment in which missions, measures of success,
and layers of accountability are frequently ambiguous. Reaching
political consensus on agency goals or on the means of achieving them
is often difficult and may include rationales that would not be
followed in the business world. As Cato Institute Chairman William
Niskanen said, the goal of achieving efficiency in federal agencies
may be "an insufficiently broad concept" when so many other factors
come into play.
The participants also noted the long-standing problem federal
agencies have had in garnering effective, long-term leadership.
Ronald Sanders, director of the Center for Advanced Public Management
at Syracuse University, said:
"One of the common themes we have heard at this symposium is
that organizations that have undergone change successfully have
done so under sustained, committed, visionary leadership. It's
not that you can't get that from political appointees, but their
half life is relatively short. In the Australian experience,
and in Canada's as well, one of the marked differences has been
that career civil servants can rise to levels as high as those
of policymakers. They can deal effectively and over sustained
periods with issues that aren't necessarily policy issues, but
service delivery issues. Here in the United States, the
political appointees have to handle both."
SOME OF THE EIGHT PRINCIPLES
COULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT
CHANGING CURRENT LAW
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
Several participants said that many of the eight principles and
related ideas and practices discussed at the symposium could be
implemented in the federal civil service, and that this could be done
without changing current law.
Our analysis suggests this is largely true. For example, current law
does not prohibit agencies from creating mission or vision
statements, from developing strategic planning and performance
measurement processes, or from aligning most human resource
activities with their organizational missions and core values.
Agencies are not prohibited from setting up performance management
systems that assess and reward employee performance in light of
organizational goals and values. Agency managers are free to make
continuous learning a guiding principle, and they have a variety of
formal and informal actions at their disposal to establish trust,
respect, and fairness in the workplace.
Dale Robertson observed:
"Ninety percent of what private firms are doing could be done in
the federal government today--and be done within existing laws
and regulations. The only problem is it's tougher--it's a
bureaucratic battle. It takes persistence. You have to do it
in the face of a lot of interference and a lot of
second-guessing."
FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THE
EIGHT PRINCIPLES WOULD
REQUIRE FURTHER
DECENTRALIZING THE CIVIL
SERVICE SYSTEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4
One of the eight principles for managing people that emerged from the
symposium was that eliminating the "one-size-fits-all" approach is a
key to creating structures and practices best suited to specific
organizations and their missions. Within the context of civil
service reform, this would require further decentralizing a system in
which the "single employer" model now holds true for slightly more
than half of the government's employees.\5 The rationales behind the
single employer model are threefold: achieving pay equity across the
government, reducing competition among agencies for employees, and
gaining efficiency and savings through economies of scale. But some
symposium participants considered this approach a barrier to the
creation of high-performance organizations for three reasons: it
puts constraints on innovation and flexibility; it transfers the real
responsibility for managing people from agency managers to agency
personnel staff and OPM; and it ignores the differences among federal
agencies in their missions, cultures, sizes, and other
characteristics.
But while some participants felt that the federal government should
eschew the single employer model to the extent that it requires the
imposition of standardized rules and procedures on dissimilar federal
entities, they also felt that the government should have an
overarching set of core values involving merit, fairness, and
integrity.\6 The challenge would be to provide vision and direction
without imposing overly restrictive rules of implementation--to
develop mechanisms that ensure accountability, yet are neither costly
nor rooted in a fundamental mistrust of civil servants. Jenni
Colwill described some of the principles advanced in Australia's
effort to reform its public service:
"Basically, the principles and values were that we should have
an apolitical public service, that we should continue to have
merit-based staffing, that we should maintain high standards of
honesty and integrity among public servants, that there should
be a very strong focus on efficiency and results, and that [the
public service] should continue to be accountable to the
government of the day while it maintains the capacity to provide
it with high quality advice."
If Congress should decide to comprehensively decentralize the civil
service, it could do so by revising Title 5 to articulate guiding
values and principles but omit detailed rules of implementation.
Each agency might then be allowed to determine how best to implement
the guiding values and principles while doing so in the context of
its own mission and circumstances. The variety of HRM approaches
that might then emerge across government could be reviewed
periodically by the various agencies' congressional oversight
committees, by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and/or by the
central personnel entities. Several symposium participants made the
point that this approach would be in keeping with the intent of
GPRA--that in consultation with Congress, each agency could determine
the best means of linking its HRM practices to its performance and
results.
--------------------
\5 The federal government does not follow the single employer model
to the extent that is often assumed. Just less than half of today's
federal workers are employed under a variety of alternative personnel
systems lying outside of OPM's jurisdiction.
\6 Today's civil service core values are embodied in 5 U.S.C. 2301
as the merit system principles.
THE APPLICABILITY ISSUE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5
In considering the various HRM approaches raised at the symposium and
elsewhere, Congress will be dealing with complex policy issues that
are fundamental to the current civil service system. One of the core
issues is whether the government wants to view its employees in the
same manner as private sector organizations do theirs. Should the
government, for example, move away from the concept of guaranteed job
security? It is clear that in addressing issues such as these,
Congress would need to consider the principles distilled from the
symposium within the overall context of a basic, unified policy
vision, rather than on an ad hoc basis. It is equally clear that any
fundamental reversal of traditional concepts would inevitably require
political and value judgments from Congress.
These judgments will require consideration of the fundamental
differences that exist between private and public sector
entities--differences that go beyond the simple question of whether
one or the other does or does not operate for profit. There is, for
example, a basic difference in roles, the government taking on duties
(such as defense) that are prescribed by the Constitution, and taking
actions in the public interest that the private sector is neither
empowered nor equipped to take (such as securities regulation,
environmental protection, and food and drug safety assurance).
There are differences in the nature of accountability as well:
private sector firms are disciplined by the marketplace and must meet
the fundamental test of financial viability. Government, on the
other hand, must meet social, political, or even moral expectations
that may or may not coincide with economic efficiencies. Further, a
company can choose the business it wishes to pursue and then answer
to its stockholders for the choices made, but government is
accountable to varied constituencies and often must retain programs
because they have strong support from one interest or another.
In addition, those who run private sector organizations often can
deliberate in private and reach decisions quickly. Government
decisionmakers operate in a fishbowl, often with legal requirements
for open deliberations and public involvement that make the
decisionmaking process lengthy and inevitably subject to compromise.
The decisionmakers themselves--within or across branches of
government--are often numerous and at odds with one another. And
because the leadership of executive agencies changes frequently,
succession planning of the sort frequently found in the private
sector is rare in government.
From our many years of work on civil service and management issues,
we have identified certain key criteria that would be useful in
helping Congress consider its policy judgments within a basic,
unified vision, rather than on an ad hoc basis. For example, a
proper balance must be struck between flexibility--both at the agency
and individual levels--and accountability for actions and outcomes.
An integrated approach is necessary, including systemwide principles
and goals and measurable expectations by which to evaluate agency and
individual adherence to these principles and goals. Rational,
mission-based systems and processes must be included to help people
work effectively, and information systems must be put in place to
give managers the information necessary to track progress and make
informed decisions. Effective leadership within the agencies and
continuing oversight from Congress will be needed to help determine
if new approaches to managing the federal workforce are, in fact,
improvements over the old.
While the symposium participants did not offer a set of
recommendations for civil service reform, many of them agreed with
the concept discussed above, that any effort toward substantive
change requires a basic unifying vision. As mentioned earlier,
several of the organizations represented at the symposium stressed
comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, approaches toward creating
high-performance workforces. Syracuse University's Ronald Sanders
said this:
"Civil service reform is not an end in itself. It's the means
to an end. Eventually, you're going to need to say, `Here are
the characteristics that a high-performing organization, public
or private, needs to embody if it is to accomplish the mission
that has been set out for it. And here's the kind of civil
service that contributes to that model. As the organizations
represented here have done, you're going to need to look 10 or
15 years downstream, and then begin to sketch out a framework
that will work best in the federal workplace today and in the
years to come'."
TRANSFORMING THE CIVIL SERVICE
WILL BE A MAJOR CHALLENGE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Making and maintaining the necessary workforce investments will pose
a considerable challenge to civil service reformers, particularly in
a period of fiscal constraint and government downsizing. Several
symposium participants spoke of the substantial investments in time
and money that their organizations found were necessary to change the
way people are managed, and they noted as well that changes did not
come fast, easy, or cheap.
Some participants said that while the need to reduce costs is a
driving force for change in the civil service, any changes must be
made with an eye toward the future. Canada's Marilyn Hay suggested
that current downsizing efforts in government, if mishandled, could
lead to a "traumatized and cynical workforce that will eventually
leave, and we won't find the people to replace them."
In 1988, even before current pressures on the civil service had
emerged, we stressed the importance of determining how the federal
government "can attract, motivate, and retain committed
people--people at all levels who can come up with new ideas and
innovative approaches and see them through to effective
implementation."\7 Our symposium highlighted various organizations'
efforts to respond to similar challenges--and under the added
pressure of steadying or declining resources. By their accounts,
radical changes made in response to adversity have had positive
results. These changes entailed discomfort and even occasional
failure, but some participants said that taking risks was necessary
to the process, and that in a turbulent and demanding environment,
public and private sector organizations such as theirs have had no
other choice.
--------------------
\7 The Public Service, GAO/OCG-89-2TR, November 1988, p. 4.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE SYMPOSIUM
=========================================================== Appendix I
The 32 symposium participants provided a wealth of insights into the
subject of managing people. From the proceedings, we distilled the
eight principles for managing people listed earlier in this report.
In this appendix, we list the eight principles again and follow each
with an example or illustrative highlight drawn from the symposium or
from materials provided by the participants. These highlights are
not intended to fully define the principles; rather, they reflect
some aspects of the discussions surrounding them. As a whole, the
highlights have been selected to convey a sense of the variety of
ideas brought forward during the 2 days of presentations and
discussions.
PRINCIPLE 1: VALUE PEOPLE AS
ASSETS RATHER THAN AS COSTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
According to several participants, this principle is based in large
part on the idea that people have an inherent desire to contribute to
their organizations and to produce good work.
William F. Buehler, Senior Vice President and Chief Staff Officer,
Xerox Corporation, related the following anecdote:
"In the early 1980s, Xerox was in deep trouble. Our patents had
run out and competition was fierce. In 1982, David Kearns, who
had just become chairman, was giving a speech in a tent outside
our Webster manufacturing facility in Rochester, New York. Next
to the tent they'd lined up 54 trailer trucks full of defective
equipment that had been returned by Xerox customers. Mr.
Kearns was trying to get the message across about quality.
People kept looking at the trucks and mulling this over.
Finally, one of the people from the manufacturing line--a fellow
named Frank Enos-- said, `Sorry, Mr. Chairman, but why didn't
you ask us about all this? We knew we were making faulty
equipment, but you guys were in such a rush to bring in a buck,
you sent it out anyway. If you had only asked us, we would have
told you'."
"The chairman, to his credit, called Frank Enos back the next
day. Soon we began to hold employee round tables--began to
truly engage the union and the employees in the quality process.
The rest is history."
"Before long we'd trained 100,000 people in the quality process,
and by 1989 we won the Baldrige Award. And the minute David
Kearns found out that we'd won the Baldrige Award, the first
person he called was Frank Enos."
"By now we're certain that motivated, liberated employees will
satisfy customers better than unmotivated, unliberated ones. We
absolutely believe that involving and capitalizing on our
employees is the key to our success, and, in fact, is what
turned the company around. Involvement has led to huge
increases in productivity, soaring morale, and great results."
PRINCIPLE 2: EMPHASIZE
MISSION, VISION, AND
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
This principle includes the idea that an organization should
articulate its mission explicitly, have a clear vision for itself,
and work to create a strong organizational culture to achieve results
and guide behavior. Australia's Public Service Commission, for
example, is developing legislation that would reflect this principle.
The commission's Jenni Colwill told the symposium that the challenge
facing the steering committee that is now developing the legislation
is "to create a culture which doesn't rely on rules." The committee's
philosophy, she said, is that "the Federal Public Service Act should
provide a framework built on principles and values, rather than on
detailed prescription."
Colwill said the framework of principles that the steering committee
will include in its forthcoming legislative proposal will probably be
similar to the one advanced by Australia's Management Advisory Board
in its June 1993 report entitled Building a Better Public Service:
"Responsiveness to governments:
serving Ministers and the government loyally and impartially; and
providing frank, honest, and comprehensive advice.
A close focus on results:
pursuing efficiency and effectiveness at all levels; and
delivering services to clients conscientiously and courteously.
Merit as the basis for staffing:
ensuring equality of opportunity; and
providing fair and reasonable rewards as an incentive to high
performance.
The highest standards of probity, integrity, and conduct:
acting in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law;
dealing equitably, honestly, and responsively with the public; and
avoiding real or apparent conflicts of interest.
A strong commitment to accountability:
contributing fully to the accountability of the agency to the
Government, of the Government to the Parliament, and of the
Parliament to the people;
fully supporting the administrative and legal measures established
to enhance accountability; and
recognizing that those delegating responsibility for performance do
not abuse responsibility and may be called to account.
Continuous improvement through teams and individuals:
striving for creativity and innovation; and
making individual and team performance count."
PRINCIPLE 3: HOLD MANAGERS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ACHIEVING
RESULTS INSTEAD OF
IMPOSING RIGID,
PROCESS-ORIENTED RULES AND
STANDARDS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3
Where this principle has been implemented, line managers are held
accountable for performance rather than for compliance with rules and
procedures. In some instances, line managers, rather than central
personnel staff, now have the authority to hire, fire, promote,
evaluate, develop, and reward employees.
New Zealand has installed chief executive officers (CEOs) in its
departments, each with full responsibility for managing the agency.
A CEO reports to a Minister in Cabinet, who makes policy decisions.
A CEO, engaged under a fixed-term, performance-based contract,
manages the staff and the work. New Zealand's CEOs are given fixed
budgets under which to operate, with relatively few restrictions on
how they spend the money so long as they do so within broad guiding
principles and achieve the results specified in their contracts.
Roger Blakeley, Chief Executive, Department of Internal Affairs, New
Zealand, reflected on the role of CEOs in his government:
"Whereas we had been `permanent' heads of our departments, we
were now `impermanent' heads, called `Chief executives.' And
rather than being given lifetime tenure, we were put on
fixed-end, 5-year contracts with performance-based criteria. If
we did not perform, we could be sacked. So now I have a
performance agreement with my minister, one that lays out what
I'm going to deliver--or what the department is going to
deliver--according to specific standards of quality, timeliness,
and cost."
"As chief executives, we became accountable for employing the
staff. This was another radical change. Instead of having
everything controlled from the center through the public service
agency, we chief executives became the employers of our staff.
We were now responsible for all things related to the staff,
including recruitment and selection, systems of pay and
remuneration, and hiring and firing people."
"There were worries at the start that this would lead to some
sort of blow-out of basic salaries, as the independent agencies
somehow competed against each other and revved up the price they
would be willing to pay for people's labor. But it hasn't
worked that way, and I think that's partly because, although the
centralized control has been removed, we chief executives still
have strong incentives to make sure we control our budgets. We
actually now tend to work in a more cooperative way with other
government departments than we might have done in the past. I
think it has created far better incentives for good management
and organization. Almost universally, I think, people would say
it's been a success."
PRINCIPLE 4: CHOOSE AN
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
APPROPRIATE TO THE
ORGANIZATION, RATHER THAN
TRYING TO MAKE "ONE SIZE FIT
ALL"
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4
Several presenters explained that their organizations have designed
new structures to fit their particular missions and circumstances.
Some of the reasons, they said, for moving to more flexible and
adaptive organizational structures have been to (1) reduce the time
it takes to get a product or service to the customer; (2) respond
more quickly to changes in the environment, including new technology;
(3) cut costs; (4) improve communication and information flow; and
(5) make better use of employees' skills, ideas, and creativity.
Tharon Greene, Director of Human Resources for the City of Hampton,
Virginia, discussed the restructuring of the city's Department of
Human Resources, where, as elsewhere in the city, the classification
system has been eliminated and the shift has been made to
cross-functional and self-directed teams:
"Our department used to be structured along the same specialized
lines as traditional personnel offices, with branches of
recruitment, placement, employee relations, training, and so
forth, with branch chiefs and technicians and secretaries
assigned to those branches. That system served us well enough,
but over the years we found we had to make it more flexible. So
we took out a level of supervision--the branch chief level--and
we collapsed the organization into two self-directed work teams.
The professional teams are fully cross-trained in all human
resource functions and offer one-stop shopping to a set of
customers. All the work comes into one place, the team members
decide how it will get done, and the team manages its resources
to see the job through."
"We had 18 people in our office when we started this
transformation 10 years ago, and now we do just as much
work--probably a lot more work and more effectively--with 9
people. We attribute that to the reengineering of work, the
elimination of the mid-manager level of supervision, and the
reduction of hand-offs from one branch to another. We've
eliminated the overhead costs associated with the extra layer of
supervision and shortened cycle time by eliminating hand-offs."
"Elsewhere in the city government, we have gone more and more to
self-directed work teams, organizing work around the customer
and omitting layers of supervision. We have about 200 employees
now in various teams. We came up with a pay philosophy that was
adopted by our city council, which provides for an array of
awards and incentives that pay high performers above market.
For people in self-directed teams, we have a model for pay based
on results, demonstrated skills, what the group accomplishes
collectively, customer satisfaction ratings, and budget
performance."
PRINCIPLE 5: INSTEAD OF
ISOLATING THE "PERSONNEL
FUNCTION" ORGANIZATIONALLY,
INTEGRATE HRM INTO THE MISSION
OF THE ORGANIZATION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5
Where this principle has been implemented, HRM practices are aligned
with organizational goals and objectives and are designed to
reinforce organizational culture and enhance change efforts. In some
cases, to achieve this integration of people management with business
goals, new roles and responsibilities have been established for human
resource professionals and line managers alike. Some presenters
portrayed the new role of human resource professionals in their
organizations as more consultative and collaborative than in the
past. Among the companies represented at the symposium, vice
presidents for human resources have become part of the senior
management teams, ensuring that "people management" is linked to
corporate goals and objectives.
T. Larry Cabler, Director of Business Development for IBM's
WorkForce Solutions, explained how his organization's human resources
unit was made a business partner within the company--smaller,
entrepreneurial, applying information technology to deliver services
effectively:
"In 1991, facing adverse economic conditions, IBM looked to
Human Resources to help reduce costs. At first, cutting costs
was seen primarily as a head-count equation. However, we soon
realized that what we really needed was to deliver satisfactory
services to the company at a fair price, so that human resources
would not be seen as a burden on the cost of doing business. To
do this, we needed to develop a new model for delivering human
resources services."
"This new model, WorkForce Solutions (WFS), was created in May
1992. WFS developed a marketplace perspective, establishing a
customer-driven focus in which services are based on business
needs and performance is measured by customer satisfaction. It
uses technology and work process reengineering to deliver
quality services at low prices. We organized ourselves around
processes, not functions, and have developed customer-oriented
services. Technology-enabled service centers provide technology
interface, human resource expert systems, case management, work
flow management, and customer satisfaction assessment.
Employees and managers have access to human resource information
through an on-line voice-response system and smart computers."
"Initially, 450 Human Resources staff remained in the line
organizations to serve in a strategic `advise and counsel'
capacity. The remaining 1,700 Human Resources staff members
were transferred into WFS."
"This has not been an easy journey so far. WFS is now down to
about 900 people. But all along, reducing the size of the staff
was something that had to be done. The system now in operation
efficiently serves a customer base of over 700,000 IBM
employees, dependents, and retirees (down less than 10 percent
from 1992 levels). Despite the fact that more than 28,000 calls
are received each month, the average caller waits less than 30
seconds for service. Customer satisfaction is currently at over
89 percent."
PRINCIPLE 6: TREAT CONTINUOUS
LEARNING AS AN INVESTMENT IN
SUCCESS RATHER THAN AS A COST
TO BE MINIMIZED
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6
The participants gave several reasons why their organizations invest
in continuous learning for employees, among them: (1) developing the
new skills needed for managing change; (2) developing the skills and
modes of behavior needed in flatter, more participatory,
customer-focused, results-oriented work environments; (3) maintaining
marketable skills; and (4) teaching new skills to employees who are
likely to leave due to downsizing, as well as to those who remain.
One approach to continuous learning has involved giving employees
more responsibility for assessing their skills and preferences and
charting their careers. Mary G. Jenkins, former Director of Human
Resources Planning and Development, Powertrain Division, General
Motors, explained her reasons for encouraging this approach:
"When it comes to employee development, I think that many
businesses have traditionally trained their people to be fairly
passive. There is a learned response at work here: Employees
believe that if they simply work hard, the system will take care
of them. Someone will tap you on the shoulder, tell you what
skills you need to develop, and promote you to the next level.
I think we need to encourage people to play a far more active
role in their own professional development."
"At GM Powertrain, the system encourages people to take greater
responsibility for their own learning. It's a system that was
intentionally organized into components, so that employees could
opt for whatever components made sense for them. The model is
built around a feedback system that puts the employee at the
center of the process. The employees determine their sources of
feedback and are given a number of support mechanisms through
which they can gather that information and do something with it.
The employees themselves drive the process in terms of timing
and need."
"Employees are given a whole day for self-assessment, with the
idea of tooling them up to represent themselves, instead of
having the organization make assumptions about them regarding
their needs for growth and development. Again, employees drive
the process, because they know their values, their interests,
their skills, and what turns them on at work."
"The aim is to put people into jobs that are aligned with what
they love to do. This, too, is a different model from that of
traditional systems. Traditional systems conjure up a ledger in
our minds of what we do well and what we don't do well, then put
all the development efforts into what we don't do well. The
return on investment is very small."
"This new system, on the other hand, is based on what you do
well, how we can take better advantage of that, and how we can
give you more of that in your working life so you will love what
you're doing and also be more productive. Clearly, there's a
different set of assumptions being applied here than in
traditional models."
PRINCIPLE 7: PURSUE AN
INTEGRATED RATHER THAN AN AD
HOC APPROACH TO INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7
Several participants emphasized how crucial measurement is to
results-oriented organizations. More things must be measured, they
said, than the "bottom line." They said results-oriented
organizations must also track performance against mission-related
goals in such areas as product quality, service delivery, and
customer satisfaction.
Stephen Rutherford, Manager of Human Resource Analysis, Federal
Express Corporation, explained how his firm has tied information
management to business goals:
"If you remember two things from what I say, it will probably be
technology and measurement. We have a strategy. We have a
mission. But what keeps us focused and working on those issues
of importance to us? Our corporate goals and our measurement
thereof."
"In 1988, our corporate goals came out, consisting of only three
numbers. On the people side, we had our leadership average--a
measure of how well our employees say the management of Federal
Express was providing leadership for the organization. There
was one number. Then we had our service quality index--a
measure of the ten things our customers thought were most
important. That was another number. And finally, there was our
profit number, based on global pre-tax income. What was really
exciting was the news that we had to reach our corporate goals
for all three of these numbers, or there would not be a cent of
incentive compensation for anyone in the company."
"One strength of our information management system is that, with
the exception of the leadership average--which is an annual
measure--you can track these corporate goals in real time. You
can measure your service at Federal Express on a daily basis.
You can measure it companywide or you can measure it at any
location in the company. You can measure how your profits are
doing, you can track profit and loss, you can track against the
budget. And you can tie all this to every management level in
the company, to every employee. Our management-by-objective
system aligns us with these goals, and it's tied as well to the
incentive compensation system for our managers."
PRINCIPLE 8: PROVIDE SUSTAINED
LEADERSHIP THAT RECOGNIZES
CHANGE AS A PERMANENT
CONDITION, NOT A ONE-TIME EVENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8
One recurrent theme at the symposium was that change appears to be a
permanent condition, and the successful organizations will be the
ones that deal with it best. Some participants said that in a
continuously changing environment, organizations must strike a
balance between adhering to their visions and remaining flexible
enough to adapt to new and demanding conditions. Two qualities were
mentioned most often as crucial for organizations hoping to deal
successfully with change: sustained, committed leadership and a
long-term, strategic approach.
Marilyn Hay, Director of Labor Relations at the Treasury Board of
Canada, offered these observations on the challenges involved in
dealing with change:
"Listening at this symposium to these discussions about
congressional and agency issues, I can assure you that we have
had similar debates in Canada. Just as you have been, we are
looking at how to become more effective and more efficient. And
we, too, have a complex government agenda. We don't have any
clear bottom lines by which to measure our success. We lack a
political focus on public service renewal. We have a crisis
orientation--a lot of it driven by the media. We have this
great sense of urgency, but we also have no money. We hear a
lot of rhetoric about devolution, delegation, empowerment, and
innovation, but we haven't removed the structural or systemic
barriers to these things. And we have a high level of risk
aversion."
"Not long ago, the directors of personnel in Canada--as a
community--finally decided that somebody had to lead, that it
wasn't good enough just to wait around for permission to act.
Since we believed fundamentally in those core statements about
people being essential to success, and that we simply have to
pay greater attention to the business of managing them, we
decided that we would have to be the ones to move the agenda
forward as best we could. This was an interesting thing for us
to try, because if ever there was a powerless group in the
Canadian Government, it was the directors of personnel."
"From our perspective, we see the issue of people management as
twofold. It's a matter of the interactive leadership
issues--the human dynamic, if you will--and the structural,
systemic issues--how the business is done. Both ends have to be
driven by core values and principles, with a focus on mission
achievement--mission being the business of a given department or
agency. That mission has to be achieved affordably, and in a
way that is resilient in the face of change."
"You have to invest if you want to respond in new ways to
change. It doesn't happen by accident, it doesn't happen on
somebody else's agenda, and it doesn't happen for nothing. That
means spending training dollars, supporting champions, getting
barriers out of the way, and driving coherently toward a
resilient organization that copes with change as a permanent
reality. It's unreasonable, of course, to think that it's going
to happen overnight. You're in for the long haul, and you need
boundless patience and persistence."
PRESENTERS AND PANELISTS OF THE
GAO SYMPOSIUM ON THE WORKFORCE OF
THE FUTURE
========================================================== Appendix II
PRESENTERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.1
Roger Blakeley, Chief Executive
Department of Internal Affairs
Government of New Zealand
William F. Buehler
Senior Vice President and Chief Staff Officer
Xerox Corporation
T. Larry Cabler, Director
Human Resource Services
ISSC, IBM
J. Kermit Campbell, former President and CEO
Herman Miller, Inc.
Jenni Colwill, Assistant Commissioner
Senior Executive Service Career Management Branch
Australian Public Service Commission
Tharon Greene
Director of Human Resources
City of Hampton, Virginia
Sandra J. Hale, President
Enterprise Management, International
Marilyn Hay, Director
Labor Relations
Labor Relations and Classification Division
Treasury Board of Canada
James E. Irvine
Vice President of Communications and Technologies
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
Mary G. Jenkins, Principal
Emergent Systems
Stephen Rutherford, Manager of Human Resource Analysis
Federal Express Corporation
Kenneth L. Smith, District Manager
Workplace of the Future Initiatives
AT&T Company
PANELISTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.2
Ty Ayers, National Director
Strategic Planning Division
Internal Revenue Service
Carolyn Ban, Associate Professor of Public Administration
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
State University of New York at Albany
Theresa A. Brelsford
Deputy Associate Commissioner for Quality Services and Administration
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Alan K. Campbell, former Director
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Frank P. Cipolla, Director
Center for Human Resources Management
National Academy of Public Administration
Curt Dierdorff, Assistant Project Director for
Human Resources Management
National Academy of Public Administration
John T. Dunlop
Lamont University Professor, Emeritus
Harvard University
Albert C. Hyde, Staff Consultant
Center for Public Policy Education
The Brookings Institution
Constance Horner, Guest Scholar in Governmental Studies
The Brookings Institution
Joyce R. Jarrett, Chairman and CEO
JarrettThor International
Thomas S. McFee
Assistant Secretary for Personnel Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Howard M. Messner, Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer
American Consulting Engineers Council
William A. Niskanen, Chairman
Cato Institute
Margaret Patch, Dean
School of Professional Development, Corporate Education
Internal Revenue Service
James Perry, Professor
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University
Roberta K. Peters, Director
Office of Civilian Personnel Management
U.S. Department of the Navy
Elsa A. Porter, Vice President
Research and Development
The Maccoby Group
F. Dale Robertson, former Chief
U.S. Forest Service
Ronald P. Sanders, Director
Center for Advanced Public Management
The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
Syracuse University
Frank J. Thompson, Executive Director
National Commission on the State and Local Public Service
GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================= Appendix III
GAO CONTACTS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.1
Timothy P. Bowling, Associate Director
Federal Management and Workforce Issues
(202) 512-3511
Stephen Altman, Assistant Director
Federal Management and Workforce Issues
(202) 512-3712
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.2
The following individuals were responsible for this report:
Evaluator-in-Charge Gail Johnson, Senior Evaluator Michael J.
O'Donnell, and Evaluator Annette Hartenstein planned and produced the
symposium and analyzed the symposium results; Assistant General
Counsel Alan Belkin provided legal advice and comments on the draft;
Donna Leiss edited the draft; Barbara I. Keller reviewed the draft
for consistency with GAO policies and standards; Senior Evaluator
Gary V. Lawson and Evaluator Brenda J. Lindsey prepared the final
text for publication. Intern Abby Clapp helped plan and produce the
symposium. Ernestine Burt and Darlene Shelton provided
administrative support during the symposium and during preparation of
the report.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
=========================================================== Appendix 0
NONGOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:1
Ban, Carolyn. How Do Public Managers Manage?: Bureaucratic
Constraints, Organizational Culture, and the Potential for Reform.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Blackburn, Richard and Benson Rosen. "Total Quality and Human
Resources Management: Lessons Learned from Baldrige Award-winning
Companies," Academy of Management Executive, Vol 7(3) 49-66, 1993.
Boyett, Joseph H. and Henry P. Conn. Workplace 2000: The
Revolution Reshaping American Business. NY: Plume, 1992.
Conference Board. Closing the Human Performance Gap, Report
#1065-94-RR, 1994.
Conference Board. The Changing Human Resources Function, Report
#950, 1990.
Ingraham, Patricia W. and Barbara S. Romzek (eds). New Paradigms
for Government: Issues for the Changing Public Service. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Ingraham, Patricia W. and David H. Rosenbloom (eds). The Promise
and Paradox of Civil Service Reform. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1992.
Ingraham, Patricia W. and Carolyn Ban, (eds). Legislating
Bureaucratic Change: The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Albany:
SUNY Press, 1984.
Johnson, Gail. Recruiting, Retaining and Motivating the Federal
Workforce. NY: Quorum, 1991.
Johnson, Ronald N. and Gary D. Libecap. The Federal Civil Service
System and the Problem of Bureaucracy: The Economics and Politics of
Institutional Change. Chicago University Press, 1994.
Klinger, Donald. "Reinventing Public Personnel Administration as
Strategic Human Resource Management," Public Personnel Management,
Vol 22 (4): 565-578, Winter 1993.
Levering, Robert and Milton Moskowitz. The 100 Best Companies to
Work For in America. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
National Academy of Public Administration. Strategies and
Alternatives for Transforming Human Resources Management, August
1995.
National Academy of Public Administration. Innovative Approaches to
Human Resources Management, August 1995.
National Academy of Public Administration. Effective Downsizing: A
Compendium of Lessons Learned for Government Organizations, August
1995.
National Academy of Public Administration. Innovative Approaches to
Human Resources Management, March 1995.
National Academy of Public Administration. Leading People in Change:
Empowerment, Commitment, Accountability, Washington, DC, April 1993.
Perry, James L. "Transforming Federal Civil Service: Strategic
Human Resource Management", Review of Public Personnel
Administration, Vol. 13(4): 59-71, Fall 1993.
Thompson, Frank J. (ed.). Revitalizing State and Local Public
Service: Strengthening Performance, Accountability, and Citizen
Confidence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1993.
Thor, Carl G. The Measures of Success: Creating a High Performance
Organization. New York: Wiley, 1995.
Wheatley, Margaret J. Leadership and the New Science: Learning
About Organization from an Orderly Universe. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler, 1992.
Weisbord, Marvin R. Productive Workplaces: Organizing and Managing
for Dignity, Meaning, and Community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1991.
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 0:2
"Report of the Public Service Act Review Group", R.N. McLeod, Chair.
December 22, 1994. [Australia]
Building a Better Public Service, Management Advisory Board, June
1993. [Australia]
Public Service 2000: The Renewal of the Public Service of Canada,
December 1990. [Canada]
Leadership for America: Rebuilding the Public Service, Paul A.
Volcker, Chairman. Washington, 1989. [United States]
Department of Labor, Road to High-Performance Workplaces: A Guide to
Better Jobs and Better Business Results, 1994. [United States]
Merit Systems Protection Board, To Meet the Needs of the Nations:
Staffing the U.S. Civil Service and the Public Service of Canada,
January 1992. [United States]
National Performance Review, Common Sense Government: Works Better
and Costs Less, September 1995. [United States]
National Performance Review, Creating a Government that Works Better
and Costs Less - 1994 Status Report, September 1994. [United States]
National Performance Review, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a
Government that Works Better and Costs Less, September 1993. [United
States]
National Performance Review, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a
Government that Works Better and Costs Less - Accompanying Report on
Reinventing Human Resource Management, September 1993. [United
States]
National Performance Review, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a
Government that Works Better and Costs Less - Accompanying Report on
the Office of Personnel Management, September 1993. [United States]
Office of Personnel Management, Partners for Change: Conference
Proceedings, June 1994. [United States]
Office of Personnel Management, Towards Reinvention: A Guide to HRM
Reform, December 1994. [United States]
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 1
Civil Service Reform: Changing Times Demand New Approaches
(GAO/T-GGD-96-31, October 12, 1995).
Schools and Workplaces: An Overview of Successful and Unsuccessful
Practices (GAO/PEMD-95-28, August 31, 1995).
Managing for Results: Status of GPRA (GAO/T-GGD-95-193, June 27,
1995).
Managing For Results: Critical Actions for Measuring Performance
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-187, June 20, 1995).
Federal Hiring: Reconciling Managerial Flexibility with Veterans'
Preference (GAO/GGD-95-102, June 16, 1995).
Government Restructuring: Identifying Potential Duplication in
Federal Missions and Approaches (GAO/T-AIMD-95-161, June 7, 1995).
Government Reorganization: Issues and Principles
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166, May 17, 1995).
Managing for Results: Steps for Strengthening Federal Management
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-158, May 9, 1995).
Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for
Federal Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995).
Best Practices Methodology: A New Approach for Improving Government
Operations (GAO/NSIAD-95-154, May 1995).
Federal Quality Management: Strategies for Involving Employees
(GAO/GGD-95-79, April 18, 1995).
Workforce Reductions: Downsizing Strategies Used in Selected
Organizations (GAO/GGD-95-54, March 13, 1995).
Federal Downsizing: The Administration's Management of Workforce
Reductions (GAO/T-GGD-95-108, March 2, 1995).
Management Reform: Implementation of the National Performance
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, December 5, 1994).
Managing for Results: State Experiences Provide Insights for Federal
Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22, December 1994).
Reengineering Organizations: Results of a GAO Symposium
(GAO/NSIAD-95-34, December 1994).
Government Contractors: Contracting Out Implications of Streamlining
Agency Operations (GAO/T-GGD-95-4, October 5, 1994).
Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic
Information Management and Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994).
Improving Government: Measuring Performance and Acting on Proposals
for Change (GAO/T-GGD-93-14, March 23, 1993).
Management of VA: Improved Human Resource Planning Needed to Achieve
Strategic Goals (GAO/HRD-93-10, March 18, 1993).
Improving Government: Need To Reexamine Organization and Performance
(GAO/T-GGD-93-9, March 11, 1993).
Federal Performance Management: Agencies Need Greater Flexibility in
Designing Their Systems (GAO/GGD-93-57, February 24, 1993).
Federal Personnel Management: OPM Reliance on Agency Oversight of
Personnel System Not Fully Justified (GAO/GGD-93-24, December 8,
1992).
The Public Service (GAO/OCG-93-7TR, December 1992).
Government Management Issues (GAO/OCG-93-3TR, December 1992).
Quality Management: Survey of Federal Organizations (GAO/GGD-93-9BR,
October 1, 1992).
Organizational Culture: Techniques Companies Use to Perpetuate or
Change Beliefs and Values (GAO/NSIAD-92-105, February 1992).
Meeting the Government's Technology Challenge: Results of A GAO
Symposium (GAO/IMTEC-90-23, February 1990).
Managing Human Resources: Greater OPM Leadership Needed to Address
Critical Challenges (GAO/GGD-89-19, January 19, 1989).
The Public Service (GAO/OCG-89-2TR, November 1988).
Civil Service Reform: Development of 1978 Civil Service Reform
Proposals, (GAO/GGD-89-18, November 1988).
Description of Selected Systems for Classifying Federal Civilian
Positions and Personnel (GAO/GGD-84-90, July 13, 1984).
Improving the Credibility and Management of the Federal Work Force
Through Better Planning and Budgetary Controls (GAO/FPCD-81-54, July
17, 1981).
*** End of document. ***