USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
I need a 7-8 page case study paper. I am attaching the material and that it has to be read to find the issue.I also i am attaching the instructions that must be followed. please see all the attachment and follow each step required on the instruction and copy from the web or youtube.
Case Study Analysis Guidelines
The case study method is a form of stimulation aimed at providing students with an understanding of the complexities relating to specific circumstances faced on the job. A case study should contain a complete description of an issue including all known events, people, and other impacting factors. It represents a situation/concern to be analyzed and resolved. Case studies should allow students to:
· Ask (or ask themselves) questions that help extract key information from a case
· Diagnose the case
· Define all the different issues involved in the case
· Make well thought out, fact-based decisions
· Formulate principles for handling future cases
In the field of public administration, the case study method is “an action plan” for resolving community issues. It provides clarity of purpose for what needs to be accomplished to effectively connect citizens to governance.
“Few public administrators expect ever to find a ‘one size fits all’ issue resolving approach for the vast range of circumstances/concerns that they are likely to encounter” (Public Administration – The Profession and the Practice).
Principles for Creating a Case Study Analysis
Each case should focus on a single issue/situation clearly delineated in one or two sentences, at most, and separated from paragraphs so as to easily determine what it is we are about to address.
A case study analysis must contain all the data necessary to arrive at a recommendation for resolution:
· Facts and events of the case
· Feelings, habits, attitudes, and expectations of the key stakeholders
· A clear description of the setting (time, place, and physical and social environment)
Steps in Creating a Case Study
1. Identify the Issue
· Must illustrate one or several specific principles.
· Will constitute the heart of the case study and thus influence all parts including how it is represented.
· Case studies are stories; they teach what stories teach – which happens to be what administrators most need to learn.
· Create an Outline of the Case Study
· Select facts and incidents that will be easily recognized and understood by participants.
· Organize these in a logical sequence. Remove any inflated or exaggerated components that might diminish the authenticity of the case.
2. Identify the Stakeholders
· Clearly identify each stakeholder in terms of his/her position.
· Write up the case study.
· Whether the case study is short or long, present a clear, concise, and coherent portrait of the stakeholders, events, and information.
· Use a writing style that is simple and direct – no long winded dissertations – one that speaks right to the reader.
· Occasionally include brief dialogues to create interest and allow readers to hear what the stakeholders in the case study have to say for themselves.
· In the case introduction, present your key stakeholders and provide information that clearly identifies him/her/them. Establish the relationship between the stakeholders and the issue under study. Include the organizational context.
· Recount events or incidents in chronological order.
· Occasionally use “flashbacks” to fill in gaps or heighten the sense of realism in the case. In certain case studies, you may have events overlap, occur simultaneously, or repeat themselves.
· In the concluding sentence or paragraph of the case study, point out the need for some form of action: a decision, a recommendation for resolution, a weighing of alternatives, or a combination of these.
· End with a bridge of some sort that leads from your case study presentation to participant discussion. Three types of conclusion are frequently used: 1) open-ended conclusion: the participants define the facts and problems, 2) directed conclusions: specific questions, tasks, or even a quiz following a case study, 3) closed conclusions: a textbook solution is provided at the end of the case study.
3. Identify Stakeholder Perspectives
· Understand that public administration is politics – not the “obvious politics” of high stakes electioneering and policy making, but the “other politics” of small-scale, behind the scenes problems solving: the nature of administrative casework follows accordingly.
· Stories don’t come ready-made but must be formed through selection and shaping from the flow of events: “Case synthesis precedes case analysis.”
· Keep your eye on the entire set of interacting decision-makers and interlocking policies: it’s there you are most likely to find any lurking problems of under-determination.
· It’s usually helpful to break out the goals being pursued, the variables that must be modified to move toward the goals, and the criteria to be borne in mind when pursuing the goals; it’s in those criteria that problems of over-determinationare likely to originate.
· Remember Mile’s Law: “Where one stands depends on where one sits.”
· Search for the paradigm of the case, but expect departures from the underlying pattern; explore the progression of circumstances.
4. Make a Recommendation
· Cases involve choices; in a democracy, choice demands justification, which further implies a process of dialogue and an effort at persuasion.
· An effective administrative analyst must be ready to “speak in tongues;” expect to work in a variety of idioms and vocabularies.
· Most important of all: Trust your own experience and instincts!
“It is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and the least possible cost either of money or of energy.” – Woodrow Wilson
Public Administration
T+••T+••T+••T+••T+•
The Profession and the Practice
‘
A Case Study Approach
GERALD GARVEY
Princeton University
Copyrighted material posted on this course website is used in compliance with
United States Copyright Law. Under that law you may use the material fo
r
educational purposes related to the learning outcomes of this course. You may
not further download, copy, alter, or distribute the material unless in accordance
with copyright law or with permission of the copyright holder. For more
information on copyright visit http://www.copyriqht.gov.
BEDFORD/ST. MARTIN’S
Bostoi) + New York
SECTION 1 .. ~·
PublicPe~onnelA~ttation
ln the paper of 1887 in which he presented what many still regard as the clearest state-
ment of the Progressives’ administrative concepts, Woodrow Wilson called for reform of
the governance process in three key areas: personnel, organization, and methods. Its sig-
nificant that Wilson listed the need for high-quality people at the top of his agenda. To
Wilson, improvements in public personnel administration-the specialists usually
shorten it to PPA-had to be the basis on which all the other Progressive reforms would
have to rest:
[C]ivil service reform must … expand into efforts to improve, not the per-
sonnel only, but also the organization and me thods of our government
offices …. Civil service reform is thus but a moral preparation for what is to
follow. It is clearing the moral atmosphere of official life by establishing the
sanctity of public office as a public trust, and, by making the service unpar-
tisan, it is opening the way for making it businesslike.
The reforms to which Woodrow Wilson referred originated in the determination
of the Progressive reformers to root out the corrupt and crassly political influences of
the nineteenth-century spoils system . Under this syste m , politicians doled out gov-
ernment jobs (patronage) to their supporters, often without reference to their qualifica-
tions. Although the reformers aimed especially at the abuses of this practice in the
machine-dominated big cities, they worked to eliminate the spoils system in federal and
state governments as well. Despite variations in the details of their various programs, the
Progressives generally agreed on certain broad policy aims. The civil service structures
that gradually emerged therefore broadly resembled one another across the federal,
state, and local levels. With a few notable exceptions, they continue to do so even today.
Origin and Evolution of the Civil Service
The supporters of Andrew Jackson who installed the spoils system didn’t view their
practices in the jaundiced way that the reformers of a few generations later would. As
29
30 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
President jackson himself put it in 1829, “The duties of all public olficers are, or at least
admit of being made, so plain and simple that men of intelligence may read1ly qualify
themselves fo r their performance …. “1 The jacksomans saw the appointment of “plain
and simple” citizens-based on their suppon of electoral VIctors rather than on proved
technical qualifications-not as an mv1tauon to conuption and mediocnty but as a way
to guarantee democratic governance.
In theory, patronage-based job filling ensured an unbroken line of responsiveness
running from the majority of the people through their elected representatives to the
appointive officials who would actually carry out the duties of day-to-day administra-
tion. (As we’ll see later, twentieth-ce ntury scholars of public administration would call
essentially the same concept by a fancier name, “the principal-agent cham.”) The rOLa-
tion of incumbents into and out of office wi th changes in administration would auto-
matically produce civil servants whose opinions reflected the views of elected leaders.
By extension, civil servants would reflect the views of the electorate itself. Defenders of
the spoils system saw it as a contributor to the 1mponant value of pohtical responsive-
ness. So, at least, went the theory.
As the system worked in practice, however, the victors after every election often
simply hi red their cousins and cronies. The scandal of public job filling on the basis of
political connections became a defining moral1ssue in the late nineteenth century, much
as slavery had been before the Civi l War. Worse, patronage-based appointments pre-
vented the buildup of the kind of expen1se needed for the problems of a complex urban
society. Perhaps the most perceptive observer of all , the German sociologist Max Weber,
wrote that only an extravagantly wealthy country could afford the “corruption and
wastefulness” of politicized , amateur public administration. “Dilellante management ,”
Weber called it. Not even the United States was rich enough to suppon so irrational a
public personnel system indefinitely. By the late nineteenth century, Weber wrote,
“irrefrageable needs of the administrat ion” had forced reforms. Weber saw the old sys-
tem of personnel staffing based on panisan favoritism and political patronage “inevitably
and gradually giving way formally to the bureaucrauc structure.”2 (We will return to
Weber and his theory of the bureaucrauc structure m Chapter 3.)
Three Foundational Civil Service Principles
The spoils system had made it relauvely easy for an individual to enter federal
service–or to leave it, since patronage-based appointees could be dismissed for causes
having nothing to do with their techmcal competence. The Pendleton Act of 1883, the
culmination of decades of of civil service reform agitation, changed all that. The 1883
act enshrined the principle of a ppointment by merit, the first foundational principle
of the civil service. Under the merit prinCiple, a candidate for civil service appointment
had to pass a standardized written civil service test or possess formal academic creden-
tials for the job. Though the wriuen-test requirement initially applied primarily to clerk-
level positions, the idea of merit-based appointment gradually spread through the higher
‘Andrew jackson, message to Congress, Dec 8, 1829.
In H. Genh and C. W Mills, eds., From Max Weber (New York: Oxford U. Press, 1946). p. 88; see also pp.
201, 211.
Public Personnel Administration 31
administrative, professional, and technical jobs (APT is the term personnel specialists
use in reference to workers in such slOLs). More realistic evaluation procedures gradu-
ally spread throughout the civil service. Today the merit requirement of the typical APT
job is satisfied not by a written test but by a careful assessment of the candidates edu-
cational qualifications a nd prior experience in jobs like the one being considered .
The civil servant, after a p robationary period, enjoys civil service tenure-the
promise of steady government work with the right not to be let go except for cause. The
Progressives expected that job security would encourage a civil servant faithfully to exe-
cute his or her office without fear of rep risals: A tenured official can’t be fired for taking
the politically incorrect position. Closely related to the principle of tenure was the c ri-
terion of seniority, eventually given a firm statutory basis in another major piece of Pro-
gressive Era legislation, the Lloyd-Lafollette Act of 1913. To this day, seniority signifi-
cantly affects a civil servants pay level and also offers signi ficant protections against
being laid-off in a reduction in force (RIF) necessitated by a budgetary shortfall or a
change in the misstOn of a pubhc agency.
Federal statutes from as far back as the 1850s had anticipated in rudimentary form The Classification Act of 1923 completed the basic structure of the federal civil ser- The Public Personnel Structure Today
The Civil Service Refonn Act of 1978 renamed the Civil Service Commission the Ordway Tead and Henry C. Metcalf, Personnel Aclmrnistrarion: Its Prindples and Practice (New York- 32 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
the OPM was on a par with the powerful Office of Management and Budget within the At the top of the personnel structure of the federal executtve branch are the pres- Beneath the political layer, nonpolitical c1vil serVlce appomtees fill slots known as In the early 1990s the federal classificatton system contained some seven hundred In recent years some leaders in the personnel subfield have touted a human ‘ThiS charactenzauon of the public personnel process was the title of an antcle by Wallace Sayre, 8 Public Public Personnel Administration 33
sonnel approach want to be less bureaucratic and more con cerned with the develop- The proponents of the human resources approach are converging toward the Our first selection comes from a leadmg scholar of public administration, Charles Charles Goodsell on the Defense of Bureaucrats as Ordinary People
Let us begin by elaborating common depictions of O n e way to strip the bureaucrat of his or her sup- portion of Americans belong, in fact more than one Besides their vast numbers, another featu re of bu- 34 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
teenagers, calculate cost-benefit ratios, operate sea- Who, then, are the bureaucrats? They are a great One may reply … by saying that certainly these This school of analysis began with a famous article \\e will consider Menons semmal cssa)’ \Vlth some care m “an inadequate flexibility in the apphcauon of skills.” Endless addnional p•eces of published \vriting Perhaps the best-known empirical study, and Men who work in bureaucratic firms or orga- have more personally responsible standards of … We discover, then, that the empirical evidence ‘ Melvin L. Kohn , “Bureaucratic Man: A Portrait and an lnterpre- Public Personnel Administration 35
be less risk-prone but do not seem less motivated , “Well , maybe its time to challenge the stereotype, From Charles T Goodsell, The Case for Bureaucracy, 2d ed. Bob Willis, Roanol1c Times & World News. Sept. 16, 1980
Notwithstandmg the appreciation of our public servants offered by scholars such The following excerpt , which represents an offsetti ng opinion to that of Professor Osborne and Gaebler didn’t pretend to give a balanced picture of the current per- As you read the Osbome-Gaebler selection-which includes the authors’ account 36 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
David Osborne and Ted Gaebler on a Personnel System Most public organizations are driven not by their Entrepreneu rial governments dispense with bOlh Some rules are necessary to run any organization. To this day, whenever things go wrong, politicians We embrace our rules and red tape to prevent bad Creating a Mission-Driven Budget System
Governments rules are aggregated into systems- At the root of these problems lies a villain. Most If you started a business, you would ask your Public manage rs can not do this. Their funds are row. In one branch of the military, base managers Trans forming a Rule-Driven The only thing more destructive than a line item Fifty years ago, governments were not un ionized. In business, personnel is a support funct ion, to Hiring. Managers in civil service systems cannot Public Personnel Adminis tration 37
They have to hire most employees from lists of those Classification. Civil service jobs are classified on a Prom otion. When people hit the lOp of their pay Firing. There$ an old saying: “Government work- 38 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
managers tolerate incompetents, transfer them, or Layoffs. When governments reduce their numbers At the federal level , things may be even worse. The waste in this system is mind-boggling. With The task is less to reform civil service than to de- We obviously need some protection against pat- From David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government SECTION 2 The New Theorists on Public Personnel Administration
Among critics of bureaucrats and bureaucracies, some commentators-Osborne and The New Theorists and the Varieties of Incentive Impairment
The New Theorists charge that the very process of forming a hierarchical organi- Public Personnel Administration 39
nization. Bureaucratic organization , the New Theorists point out, severs the link between Adverse Selection, Moral Hazard, and Asymmetric Information
The New Theorists have argued that the c ivil service is acutely susceptible to two Adverse selection may operate at several points in the career of a civil servant: at You probably recall those high school algebra problems in which water pours Private employers are constantly trying to entice knowledgeable civil servants by 40 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
motion. And periodicall]: reducuons m force occur in the public seMce. A senior offi- The New Theorists argue that once apphcants have been h1red, the assurance of Furthermore, the New Theonsts argue that the conditions of work typically en- Given their acceptance of the theories of adverse selection, moral hazard, and Are the New Theorists Right?
Arc the New Theorists right? The question ments serious thought and open d is- Public Personnel Administration 41
BOX 2.1 —————-1•—-•—•~—
T\vo Subthemes in PPA: The critics of traditional PPA contend that even the most dedicated and imaginative The size of the government workforce could be substantially reduced if public Pressures have long been felt to relax appointment procedures, permit public The issue of workplace flexibi lity runs directly into the issue of public-sector ‘ “Beyond Mr. Gradgrind, ” Polity Revietv (Spring 1988): 34-35. 42 Public Administration: The Pro fession and the Practice
workers also varies widely from agency to agency. averaging by some estimates Most personnel experts foresee both bad and good news for public-sector unions At the fede ral level, the main problem in managemen t-labor relations ha s taken • •• First, there are the findings of scholars other than New Theorists who have tried Public Personnel Administration 43
of our effon, our respect for their standard bureaucratic procedures, and insight into the Second, there is the test of experience and instinct. The New Theory assumes a Third, if our public-sector bureaucracies suffer from inefficiency, the reasons Anhur ll. Spiegel Ill, “!low Outsiders Overhauled a Public AgenC)·,” Harvard Busmcss Review 53 Uanuary- CHAPTER READING
The following selection, by Frank]. Thompson of the State University of New Yo rk a t Five Competing Values in Civil Service Systems Certarn core valu es compete for expression in dvil service systems: instrumental goals, merit, political 44 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
In managing human resources, public adminis- Reformers of various stripes have not underesti- The new merit systems spawned their own dis- Most people who have spent any time working in Competing Values
Certain core values compete for expressio n in civil More recent criticism holds that civil service sys- Among other effects, restrictions on managerial vate employees. Observing practices in New York Merit is a second core value. Meritocratic nonns While civil service systems often promote merit Public Personnel Administration 45
situation in New York City, Savas and Ginsburg The value of political responsiveness asserts that the In another sense, however, issues of political re- 46 Public Administration: The Pro fession and the Practice
Civil service systems can, however, tip the bal- Social equity concerns the uses of government em- Social equity concerns are sometimes at the heart tices embedded in these systems continue to perpet- Employee rights and well-being also constitute a Some c riticize civil service systems for being ex- demonstrate sufficient respect for employee rights Th e Optimal Mix. These five core values of the CHAPTER CASE
Public Pcrs01m e l Administration 47
stances, a given personnel practice does not serve From Frank J Thompson, “Manag~ng wnhin Ct\il Servtce Sys- ……
••• Today federal, state, and most local government agencies of any size rely on career The pervasive tension between the striving for results an d the in hibiung effect of 48 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
the activities of the dominant fed eral agen C) m the St. C roix region , the U.S De part- As you read through the case mate rials, look with some care at the excerpts from A fi\la l caveat: At one point Guy Strumi , a figure m the scenario, muses on the CASE 1
Cutback M anagement in the St. Croi x: A RI F in th e USDA
The Upper St. Cro ix River rises in two bra nches out of the bogla nds of Apostle County A few m iles south of Mi nneapolis- St. Pau l, th e St. Croix pays its own tribute to Public Personnel Administration 49
Lake Superior
City of Dulut h MN @ ® City of S uperior W I
® Norton County MN Apostle County WI
} Go”’ of th< St. Ceo;,
Larch City ®
Larch County MN Burnt County WI
Mis5issippi River St. Croix River
Sketch 2.1 The Four-County Region Known as “The St. Croix”
boundary between Wisconsin and Minnesota from its point of confluence with the St. The St. Croix has given its name to the four-county area that it drains (Norton 50 Public Administration: The Profession and the PraCLice
think of themselves for most purposes as residents of an identifiable area. They cus- • • • • • There was some logging. especially on the Wisconsin side (where substantial num- Folks joked that troubles had begun “when Carter killed the cows.” Un der Presi- For some ye<~rs after "Carter killed the cows," local business and professional
people had been promoting a "coordin “I know, from our surveying work,” Byce asserted, “that there’s federa l money In the late I 980s, the county commissioners and county managers’ in the St. Outside of New England-and certainly In the midwestern states-counties arc extremely important units Apostle County WI Commi55ioner:; Apo5tle Manager
Public Personnel Administration Burnt County WI Commi55ioner5
I Norton County MN Larch County MN Commi55ioner5 Commi55ioner5 The St. Croix Development Commission
r Burnt Manager Norton Manager Larch Manager Director of Planning Director of Operations I ~ A55i5tant I Planning• I Medical Service 1— Assistant I Education • Formerly the St. Croix Growth Council, the privately organized and privately funded Sketch 2.2 Organization of the St. Croix Development Commission
51
professional ized by making it an official arm of a new four-county developmen t The four-member SCDC met every other week with a director of planning and a T he SCDC’s planning di rector, Anton Kurvaszy, had come to the St. Croix from 52 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
Professional Building in Larch City, the county seat of Larch County. Kurvaszy often • • • • • nesota and Wisconsin had its own version of the jackson Building, a central place wi th Th e other renters we re all government officia ls. Next door to the SCDC offices on Upstairs in the jackson Building was a five- room layout where ” t he we lfa re” Nearly everyone in the ja ckson Building knew everyone else ‘s first name. And of ‘ Nonrecourse /ann progrnm: Traditionally, many of the subsidies administered by the Department of Agricul – Public Personnel Administration 53
Roman Drnda, w ho was going to have to “ru n the RIF,” had spent twenty-five Because any problem affecting agriculture also affected prospects for economic • • • • • A civ il serva nt of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is seen standing on No one around the tabl e with Roman Drnda retold the old joke. No one had to. Croix-abou t 120,000 souls-held almost steady. But the number of active farmers Drnda sa id to the group asse mbled at the Golden Gopher: “Study commission Dagmar Blaine confirmed Drnda’s opinion: “I got it from Ellen [Congresswoman Courtesy advance? Mary Martengrove didn’t know the term. 54 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
“As a courtesy to M.C.s [Members of Congress],” Blaine explain ed, “a depa rt- “So the M.C. can make the ann ouncement?” to be built. When it’s an old one to be closed, she lets th e secretary-in this case, “What exactly’s in the RIF order ?” state sena tor Loffel’s man, Chris Clairy, asked “Word is, we ‘ll have to let go I in 3.” No one around the table envied Drnda’s Drnda continu ed: ” Here ‘s some background : The USDA has seventy-fo ur “So, say we set aside the seven ve ts,” Ornda continued, “leaving thirty-two Drnda distributed a paper. “Here’s a worksheet showing my guesses about the In multiple column s, Ornda had noted each individ ual ‘s civil service grade, gen- Public Personnel Administration 55
Table 2.1 Roman Drnda’s Worksheet : Tentative Retention Register for 39 St. Croix Region A PT-Level General (GS) Grade Vet • Specialization’ Location Seniority Rating Credit Ran k
7 APT-Level USDA Employees Protected by Veterans’ Status I 9 APT-Level USDA Employees Likely lo Survil-e the RIF Houlihan II M F MN 19 3 +12 31 Satter II M A WI 8 s + 20 28 Jones. F 12 M A MN 13 3 + 12 2S Lob lick 10 F A WI 7 4 + 16 23
Jones, B 10 M F MN 21 2 2 1
West 13 M A W I 2 1 2 2 1
Beckel 9 M F MN 9 3 + 12 21
Boo 9 F A MN 8 3 +12 20
Dernbach 14 F F WI 18 2 18
Praski 9 r s MN 6 3 + 12 18
I J Vulncrnblc to Layoff Because of Low Retention-Register Rank
II~J2bYm’ 9 F s W I 4 + 16 17 ~· II M A WI 3 3 + 12 IS
~iD:i~ll~:i 9 F s MN 3 3 +12 I S ~· II F s WI 10 2 10 Srn~lbm’ II i\1 s MN 7 2 7 M.i!Dk¥’ 10 M s W I 3 2 3 • V – veterans· prcferencec
‘ F – field-worker; S – social worker; A – administrative staffer.
‘Native Americ;Jn or other minonty affiliation. 56 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
“I’ve listed our seven protected vets at the top,” Drnda said. “The remaining Retention register? Competitive level? To Mary’s ears this was more civil service Anton Kurvaszy called for a pause to give his new assistant a brief explanation ” How do you establish the retention ranks?” anyone who has successfu lly completed an initial probationary period in career gov- After a silent minute or two, while everyone tried to take in the codes and num- “No, Dagmar. No decisions have been made. I want input from all of you. If any Chris Clairy spoke up. “I can give you one bit of input right now.” He stabbed a “I don’t have it ·set up,’ Chris,” Ornda countered, his voice betraying some testi- Public Personnel Administration 57
BOX 2 .2 ————•—•—•~
A Primer on Federa l RI Ffi ng Procedures
At all levels of government, RIFfing procedures, as they are called, are elaborately lim- Title V, Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations requires that “competitive areas”- A Local Commuting Area is a geographic area that usually includes any popu- A RIF administrator is required to study the position descriptions of every The competitive level is based on each employee’s position description, not on Two positions that are similar (e.g., same grade, series, work schedule, (You should note that Drnda, when developing his draft retentio n register, trea ted Once competitive levels have been defined, the administ rator prepares forma l 58 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
All workers in the same tenure bracket are grouped together; in this phase of the Broadly, bumping provisions permit a worker who is subject to layoff to displace An agency may make exception to the order of release … when needed to (Again, Drnda has bent the ru les-in this case, by stretchi ng the competitive level to ••• one on the Wisconsin side, and the other for everyone in Minnesota. That way senior Drnda was about to answer Clairy, but he was interrupted by Anton Kurvaszy: It was true. In general, the technica l advisers and administrators of traditional Public Personn el Administration 59
ness longer than those hired to deal with the recent problem s of social and economic ” I don’t think,” Kurvaszy added, “you intended ‘Last hired, first fired ‘ to be your Drnda thought for a seco nd and then acknowledged the va lidity of Kurvaszy’s “The number of social service jobs goes up every year,” Drnda admitted. He Mary Martengrove asked: “Since t he poi nt see ms to be, how to prevent the ser- Dagmar Blaine didn ‘t see m to get Mary ‘s drift. Drn da, sensing her pu zz lement, Blaine, ca tching the poi n t, nodded. Nevertheless, someth ing in Drnda’s voice The six talked a bit longe r, and then Drnda adjourn ed the meeting. ” Look it • • • • • all judgment and just go by the numbers-wh ich seems to mean mostly se niority?” 60 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
“Why,” Mary asked, “wouldn’t the guy running the RIF identify the best per- Kurvaszy could think of several reasons why Mary’s approach might be prob- “Some managers do let the dice fall just that way, going strictly by the numbers,” Kurvaszy thought a moment before contin uing. “The whole point of all those “Besides,” Kurvaszy added, ” the public employees’ unions watch the RIFfing Anton shrugged philosophically. “just going by the numbers may not be the best Later, at her desk, Mary picked up from Drnda’s question about a three-way “What do you think?” she asked Kurvaszy. li sting. “Yo u want to RIF deeply into the F category …. ” Public Per sonnel Administration 61
Table 2.2 Mary Martengrove’s A lternative Reten t io n Regi ster Based on Three Compe titive Levels (F/S/A)
Genera l (GS) Grade Vet• Specialization’ Location Seniority Rating Credit Rank
APT Compelitive Level I: Interchangeable F Skills ~ 10 M F MN 2 1 2 21 Q~rnbill:b 14 F F WI 18 2 18
~· 12 M F WI II 2 II APT Competitive Level 2: Interchangeable S Skills Jones, F 12 M A MN 13 3 +12 2S Boo 9 F A MN 8 3 +12 20 ~· II M A WI 3 3 +12 IS S~:bm~:i~r 9 F A WI 6 2 6
• V – velcrans· preference.
‘ F – field-worker; S – social worker; A – admlnl slralive sl affer.
‘Nalive American or olhcr mlnorily afflllalion. 62 Public Administration : The Profession and the Practice
“Maybe my exact number’s off,” Mary sa id, “but it seems reasonable to con- Kurvaszy nodded. “Under yo ur RIF plan, poor Pink here gets the ax, even • • • • • area, “White-Collar Walt” March was a figure of importance across upper Minnesota “Under Drnda’s inclusive plan,” Strum i sum mari zed, “a ll APTs in the area wou ld March frowned . Strumi thought he knew w hat was on March’s mind. Among the March pondered the option s. He suspec ted th at Drnda would p refer the dis- Public Personnel Administration 63
and Martengrove had argued-it would leave the department with a workforce better ” In other words,” Guy responded, “you think Roman will scrap his own inclu- March considered another moment. “That’s what I’d kind of expect,” he said What strategy should March play in response? Both he and Strumi knew that And how did all that apply to the coming RIF of the St. Croix USDA workers? inclusive approach would obviously be better from our standpoint than the discrimi- March thought for a second, then said: “But win or lose, I think it might be time Strumi liked to hear March talk union tactics. The union had to pick a fight every ” I don’t mind telling you ,” March added, “considered strictly as a legal strategy In contrast with the pr 64 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
Ss) in better alignment wi th projected USDA workloads. In other words, the union Strumi had to agree. There might be just enough ru le bending in the inclusive Strumi said: “You th ink Drnda will assume he has an open ticket to bend the March nodded, adding: “That’s one reason why we probably wil/ take him to It was more than a bit confusing. Strumi wanted to be sure he understood “That’s right,” March replied, “but we’d probably prefer suing even under the • • • • • received the call that he had half expected to get, given the evident dissatisfaction of The call had been from Clairy’s boss, Senator Ben Loffel. “Chri s Clairy really got Public Personnel Administration 65
Mary’s alma mater, ” U-W is at Eau Clai re,” was on the edge of Ben Loffel’s state Drnda told Mary: “What Ben wants is exactly what Clairy suggested at the “Here,” Drnda said, w heeling his swivel chair over to the fax machine and draw- • • • • • at the Golden Gopher Grill where Drnda, Kurvaszy, and the others had discussed the Lief Pink was not onl y the oldest but also the most knowledgeable about the “We’re three,~ Lief said to Bobbie and Lisa, “and on the probabilities alone, that ” I need the job,” Li sa Hepburn had repeated severa l times during their conver- 66 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
Table 2.3 Ben Loffel ‘s/Ch ri s Cla iry’s Suggested Retention Register Based on Separate Sta te Competitive General (GS) Grade Vet• Specialization’ Location Seniority Rating Credit Rank Competitive Level M, confined to APTs working in Minnesota J.lQ.Q 9 F A MN 8 3 +1 2 20 Competitive Level W. confined to APTs working in Wisconsin Doggett’ II F s WI 10 2 10 Manley’ 10 M s WI 3 2 3
• V- veterans’ preference.
‘F – field-worker; S – social worker; A – admlnistrJtivc sto1ffer.
‘Native American or other minority affiliation. Public Personnel Administration 67
on welfare the rest of the year, depended on her for financial support. She was the “You’re pretty junior in rank, Lis’,” Bobbie said, “and that makes you p retty Over their second cups, Lief-a single mother w ho thought she needed the work Bobbie Boo worked out of the jackson Building. Her job was to assess local “You know Roman Drnda,” Bobbie said to Lief. “Is he the kind who tries to think • • • • • Drnda sat, fee ling the pressure. His friend and boss Secretary Nyby himself had called Drnda looked again at the three drafts of retention registers. Indeed, he very Bnmf: Members of the Ojibway Tribe-also called Chippcwas-arc organized mto subunits known as BJy Band. 68 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
Questions for Discussion
The fo llowing queries might he lp you frame your thoughts and organize a discussion l . Whats the story? Who must make what decisions, resolve what confltcts, take 2. How does the conflict discussed by Osborne and Gaebler-the conflict between 3. Which ways of dealing wi th conditions of underdetermination-restructuring, liti- 4. Our reading from Frank Thompson underscores the multiple criteria that charac- 5. In your opinion, whose retention register-Roman Dmdas (Table 2.1), Mary 6. Whats the appropriate way for Roman Dmda to think about the personal con- ••• Public Pers onnel Adminis tra tion 69
FOR FURTHER READING ——••~•.-…•~
PPA is probably the s ubfie ld of pub lic admin istration that has been stud ied most inten- Dresang, Dennis L. , Public Personnel Ma nagement and Public Policy (New York: Nigro, E A., a nd L. G. Nigro, Th e New Public Personnel Admrn istration (Itasca IL: Sha fri tz, j ay, e t a l. , Personnel Ma nagement 111 Gove rnment, (New Yo rk: Marce l Sylvia, Ro nald D., Public Personnel AdmmiSt ratwn (Belmont CA: Wadswonh, 1994).
Arguably the most inOuential inte rpretetive essay o n the subject o f PPA in recent years Mosher, Frederick C., Democracy and the Public Service (New Yo rk: Oxford, 1968); The standard history o f o ur federal civil service (wh ich, unfonunately, breaks off in the Van Riper, Paul , A History of the United States Civ il Service (Evanston JL: Row, Peter- Van Ripe rs book might be cons ulted in conj unc tio n with the fo llowing study, which Ne lson , William , Th e Roots of American Bureaucracy (Cambridge MA: llarvard U. The best recent books on the high e r civil service an d political-appointee ranks are
H eclo, Hugh , A Government of Strangers: Executi ve Politics in Washi ngton (Wash- Light , Paul, Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Account- The two standard wo rks on the representativeness of civil service systems in the United Kingsley, j. Donald , Representative Bureaucracy (Yellow Spn ngs OH: Antioch U. Krislov, Sam, and David Rosenbloom, Representati ve Bureaucracy (New York: 70 Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice
Fin ally, excellent brief OYerview treatments of the ci\11 service systems and their con- Ingraham, PatnCJa, and Da\’ld Rosenbloom, “The New Public Personnel and the Ingraham, Patricia, and Da,1d Rosenbloom, “Poli ucal Foundations of the Ameri-
Case Study Analysis Guidelines
The case study method is a form of stimulation aimed at providing students with an understanding of the complexities relating to specific circumstances faced on the job. A case study should contain a complete description of an issue including all known events, people, and other impacting factors. It represents a situation/concern to be analyzed and resolved. Case studies should allow students to: · Ask (or ask themselves) questions that help extract key information from a case · Diagnose the case · Define all the different issues involved in the case · Make well thought out, fact-based decisions · Formulate principles for handling future cases In the field of public administration, the case study method is “an action plan” for resolving community issues. It provides clarity of purpose for what needs to be accomplished to effectively connect citizens to governance.
“Few public administrators expect ever to find a ‘one size fits all’ issue resolving approach for the vast range of circumstances/concerns that they are likely to encounter” (Public Administration – The Profession and the Practice).
Principles for Creating a Case Study Analysis
Each case should focus on a single issue/situation clearly delineated in one or two sentences, at most, and separated from paragraphs so as to easily determine what it is we are about to address. A case study analysis must contain all the data necessary to arrive at a recommendation for resolution: · Facts and events of the case · Feelings, habits, attitudes, and expectations of the key stakeholders · A clear description of the setting (time, place, and physical and social environment)
Steps in Creating a Case Study
1. Identify the Issue
· Must illustrate one or several specific principles. · Will constitute the heart of the case study and thus influence all parts including how it is represented. · Case studies are stories; they teach what stories teach – which happens to be what administrators most need to learn. · Create an Outline of the Case Study · Select facts and incidents that will be easily recognized and understood by participants. · Organize these in a logical sequence. Remove any inflated or exaggerated components that might diminish the authenticity of the case.
2. Identify the Stakeholders
· Clearly identify each stakeholder in terms of his/her position. · Write up the case study. · Whether the case study is short or long, present a clear, concise, and coherent portrait of the stakeholders, events, and information. · Use a writing style that is simple and direct – no long winded dissertations – one that speaks right to the reader. · Occasionally include brief dialogues to create interest and allow readers to hear what the stakeholders in the case study have to say for themselves. · In the case introduction, present your key stakeholders and provide information that clearly identifies him/her/them. Establish the relationship between the stakeholders and the issue under study. Include the organizational context. · Recount events or incidents in chronological order. · Occasionally use “flashbacks” to fill in gaps or heighten the sense of realism in the case. In certain case studies, you may have events overlap, occur simultaneously, or repeat themselves. · In the concluding sentence or paragraph of the case study, point out the need for some form of action: a decision, a recommendation for resolution, a weighing of alternatives, or a combination of these. · End with a bridge of some sort that leads from your case study presentation to participant discussion. Three types of conclusion are frequently used: 1) open-ended conclusion: the participants define the facts and problems, 2) directed conclusions: specific questions, tasks, or even a quiz following a case study, 3) closed conclusions: a textbook solution is provided at the end of the case study.
3. Identify Stakeholder Perspectives · Understand that public administration is politics – not the “obvious politics” of high stakes electioneering and policy making, but the “other politics” of small-scale, behind the scenes problems solving: the nature of administrative casework follows accordingly. · Stories don’t come ready-made but must be formed through selection and shaping from the flow of events: “Case synthesis precedes case analysis.” · Keep your eye on the entire set of interacting decision-makers and interlocking policies: it’s there you are most likely to find any lurking problems of under-determination. · It’s usually helpful to break out the goals being pursued, the variables that must be modified to move toward the goals, and the criteria to be borne in mind when pursuing the goals; it’s in those criteria that problems of over-determinationare likely to originate. · Remember Mile’s Law: “Where one stands depends on where one sits.”
· Search for the paradigm of the case, but expect departures from the underlying pattern; explore the progression of circumstances.
4. Make a Recommendation
· Cases involve choices; in a democracy, choice demands justification, which further implies a process of dialogue and an effort at persuasion. · An effective administrative analyst must be ready to “speak in tongues;” expect to work in a variety of idioms and vocabularies. · Most important of all: Trust your own experience and instincts!
Case Study Analysis Individual Paper (125 points) – You alone will follow the instructions below, and write and submit an individual paper by the due date found in your Course Syllabus. All individual papers are due on the same date. You may use the information gathered by your group, and you may add to it, and/or change your recommendation. Write this paper alone. This paper is not a group project. Do not collaborate when writing this paper.
What is a Case Study?
Case studies are stories. They are formatted in such a way that at a glance one could easily determine the “issue” about to be discussed. We look to clearly address: who, what, when, where, why, and how to ensure that we have covered the story in its entirety. If you miss one of these factors, you leave the reader guessing and questioning your report. In Public Policy and Administration, our case studies/stories are required to be fact-based. Make sure your research is based on credible information. Verify, verify, verify. If you make a mistake, and/or are challenged on one of your “facts,” it could create a host of issues. If you are found to be incorrect, the entire report is incorrect, and your credibility is suspect. Cite your research appropriately. We call it an “issue” rather than a “problem” because a problem presents a negative image/connotation. Issues are not necessarily negative, and provide the policy analyst with an opportunity to evaluate each issue based on its own merits without taking a position of negative or positive.
What Does a Case Study Look Like?
A case study should be set up similar to story-telling. Do not write this as you would a thesis. You don’t want to put in a lot of “fluff and stuff.” Think of the reader/listener as a high level administrator whose in-box is full of documents that require review. To catch this administrator’s attention, consider what he/she would be concerned with: the “issue” clearly delineated, then the people involved “stakeholders,” the “positions” (where one stands depends upon where one sits) of these people/perspectives of the stakeholders, and then a fact-based well thought out “recommendation.” Use the first paragraph or two (the video – discuss) to set the tone for the issue under consideration. Once you have the reader’s attention then you are prepared to move onto your 4-step policy analyses.
Why a 4-Step Policy Analysis?
We use the four-step policy analysis because of its simplicity and its thoroughness. There are plenty of other models, some with seven-steps, and others with ten-steps. It is not the number of steps that makes a case study. It is the report itself that stands on merit. Do not change the language of the 4-steps or add other language, as new headings could change the report and its intent. It is vital that you understand this foundation as it will be used throughout your baccalaureate curriculum. Learning to use this in both your professional and personal lives will help you with your decision making in a variety of ways.
How Do I Begin?
Case studies are complex and may contain a myriad of issues, stakeholders, etc. It is your job to select one issue and then to stay on course as you work through your critical thinking and 4-step policy analysis. Do not say there are “many” issues as this may confuse the reader or leave him/her questioning why you chose one issue over another. Chose one… Because of the complexity, identifying or defining an issue can be difficult. For our Introduction to Public Policy and Administration course we have provided for you, the student, a fictional case study written up in your The textbook is from 1997, and contains ten case studies for your review and analysis. You may very well question the reason for such an “old” text. The reason for using this textbook is that none of the ten case studies contained within the text have been resolved. You ask, “How can this happen?” This is not an easy process. It is one that demands of the policy analyst the discipline necessary to do their due diligence to understand human behavior, internal and external pressures, resources, leadership, timing, tolerance, politics, and power. You may want to create an outline of the case study to help with organizing all of the information you uncover. Actually write down your findings, and upon completion of “all of the above,” you can then, and only then, begin to organize your analysis.
How Should the Case Study Analysis Individual Paper Be Set Up?
Use only APA format, and include citations when completing your individual paper. Refer to
APA Formatting and Style Guide
. · Title Page · Page numbers are required. · One or two paragraphs to bring the reader into your story · The following headers must be included within your paper: Issue, Stakeholders, Stakeholder Perspectives, Expert Interview, Recommendation(s) · “Issue” in one or two sentences at the most, separated from any paragraphs. Bold your issue so the reader can see at a glance what your case study is. · Include the history of your case study and any related laws · Then, do your next steps that include “stakeholders and perspectives.” The most common form used by students that sets up nicely is a chart:
Stakeholders
Perspectives
Mayor The mayor would want…………and supports this……….……… · Paragraph on your “expert” face-to-face interview(s) · Include face-to-face interview date, time, and location. We reserved the option to follow-up with your expert interviewee to verify your attendance. If we find you did not attend, you will receive a zero for the paper. · Close with a strong recommendation based on your critical thinking, expert interviews, personal life experience, etc. (Do not call this a solution, etc.) · Reference Page · Your Case Study Analysis Individual Paper should be 6 to 10 pages in length, not including the Title and Reference pages, and written in APA format.
Case Study Analysis Guidelines
The case study method is a form of stimulation aimed at providing students with an understanding of the complexities relating to specific circumstances faced on the job. A case study should contain a complete description of an issue including all known events, people, and other impacting factors. It represents a situation/concern to be analyzed and resolved. Case studies should allow students to: · Ask (or ask themselves) questions that help extract key information from a case · Diagnose the case · Define all the different issues involved in the case · Make well thought out, fact-based decisions · Formulate principles for handling future cases In the field of public administration, the case study method is “an action plan” for resolving community issues. It provides clarity of purpose for what needs to be accomplished to effectively connect citizens to governance.
“Few public administrators expect ever to find a ‘one size fits all’ issue resolving approach for the vast range of circumstances/concerns that they are likely to encounter” (Public Administration – The Profession and the Practice).
Principles for Creating a Case Study Analysis
Each case should focus on a single issue/situation clearly delineated in one or two sentences, at most, and separated from paragraphs so as to easily determine what it is we are about to address. A case study analysis must contain all the data necessary to arrive at a recommendation for resolution: · Facts and events of the case · Feelings, habits, attitudes, and expectations of the key stakeholders · A clear description of the setting (time, place, and physical and social environment)
Steps in Creating a Case Study
1. Identify the Issue
· Must illustrate one or several specific principles. · Will constitute the heart of the case study and thus influence all parts including how it is represented. · Case studies are stories; they teach what stories teach – which happens to be what administrators most need to learn. · Create an Outline of the Case Study · Select facts and incidents that will be easily recognized and understood by participants. · Organize these in a logical sequence. Remove any inflated or exaggerated components that might diminish the authenticity of the case.
2. Identify the Stakeholders
· Clearly identify each stakeholder in terms of his/her position. · Write up the case study. · Whether the case study is short or long, present a clear, concise, and coherent portrait of the stakeholders, events, and information. · Use a writing style that is simple and direct – no long winded dissertations – one that speaks right to the reader. · Occasionally include brief dialogues to create interest and allow readers to hear what the stakeholders in the case study have to say for themselves. · In the case introduction, present your key stakeholders and provide information that clearly identifies him/her/them. Establish the relationship between the stakeholders and the issue under study. Include the organizational context. · Recount events or incidents in chronological order. · Occasionally use “flashbacks” to fill in gaps or heighten the sense of realism in the case. In certain case studies, you may have events overlap, occur simultaneously, or repeat themselves. · In the concluding sentence or paragraph of the case study, point out the need for some form of action: a decision, a recommendation for resolution, a weighing of alternatives, or a combination of these. · End with a bridge of some sort that leads from your case study presentation to participant discussion. Three types of conclusion are frequently used: 1) open-ended conclusion: the participants define the facts and problems, 2) directed conclusions: specific questions, tasks, or even a quiz following a case study, 3) closed conclusions: a textbook solution is provided at the end of the case study.
3. Identify Stakeholder Perspectives · Understand that public administration is politics – not the “obvious politics” of high stakes electioneering and policy making, but the “other politics” of small-scale, behind the scenes problems solving: the nature of administrative casework follows accordingly. · Stories don’t come ready-made but must be formed through selection and shaping from the flow of events: “Case synthesis precedes case analysis.” · Keep your eye on the entire set of interacting decision-makers and interlocking policies: it’s there you are most likely to find any lurking problems of under-determination. · It’s usually helpful to break out the goals being pursued, the variables that must be modified to move toward the goals, and the criteria to be borne in mind when pursuing the goals; it’s in those criteria that problems of over-determinationare likely to originate. · Remember Mile’s Law: “Where one stands depends on where one sits.”
· Search for the paradigm of the case, but expect departures from the underlying pattern; explore the progression of circumstances.
4. Make a Recommendation
· Cases involve choices; in a democracy, choice demands justification, which further implies a process of dialogue and an effort at persuasion. · An effective administrative analyst must be ready to “speak in tongues;” expect to work in a variety of idioms and vocabularies. · Most important of all: Trust your own experience and instincts!
Case Study Analysis Individual Paper (125 points) – You alone will follow the instructions below, and write and submit an individual paper by the due date found in your Course Syllabus. All individual papers are due on the same date. You may use the information gathered by your group, and you may add to it, and/or change your recommendation. Write this paper alone. This paper is not a group project. Do not collaborate when writing this paper.
What is a Case Study?
Case studies are stories. They are formatted in such a way that at a glance one could easily determine the “issue” about to be discussed. We look to clearly address: who, what, when, where, why, and how to ensure that we have covered the story in its entirety. If you miss one of these factors, you leave the reader guessing and questioning your report. In Public Policy and Administration, our case studies/stories are required to be fact-based. Make sure your research is based on credible information. Verify, verify, verify. If you make a mistake, and/or are challenged on one of your “facts,” it could create a host of issues. If you are found to be incorrect, the entire report is incorrect, and your credibility is suspect. Cite your research appropriately. We call it an “issue” rather than a “problem” because a problem presents a negative image/connotation. Issues are not necessarily negative, and provide the policy analyst with an opportunity to evaluate each issue based on its own merits without taking a position of negative or positive.
What Does a Case Study Look Like?
A case study should be set up similar to story-telling. Do not write this as you would a thesis. You don’t want to put in a lot of “fluff and stuff.” Think of the reader/listener as a high level administrator whose in-box is full of documents that require review. To catch this administrator’s attention, consider what he/she would be concerned with: the “issue” clearly delineated, then the people involved “stakeholders,” the “positions” (where one stands depends upon where one sits) of these people/perspectives of the stakeholders, and then a fact-based well thought out “recommendation.” Use the first paragraph or two (the video – discuss) to set the tone for the issue under consideration. Once you have the reader’s attention then you are prepared to move onto your 4-step policy analyses.
Why a 4-Step Policy Analysis?
We use the four-step policy analysis because of its simplicity and its thoroughness. There are plenty of other models, some with seven-steps, and others with ten-steps. It is not the number of steps that makes a case study. It is the report itself that stands on merit. Do not change the language of the 4-steps or add other language, as new headings could change the report and its intent. It is vital that you understand this foundation as it will be used throughout your baccalaureate curriculum. Learning to use this in both your professional and personal lives will help you with your decision making in a variety of ways.
How Do I Begin?
Case studies are complex and may contain a myriad of issues, stakeholders, etc. It is your job to select one issue and then to stay on course as you work through your critical thinking and 4-step policy analysis. Do not say there are “many” issues as this may confuse the reader or leave him/her questioning why you chose one issue over another. Chose one… Because of the complexity, identifying or defining an issue can be difficult. For our Introduction to Public Policy and Administration course we have provided for you, the student, a fictional case study written up in your The textbook is from 1997, and contains ten case studies for your review and analysis. You may very well question the reason for such an “old” text. The reason for using this textbook is that none of the ten case studies contained within the text have been resolved. You ask, “How can this happen?” This is not an easy process. It is one that demands of the policy analyst the discipline necessary to do their due diligence to understand human behavior, internal and external pressures, resources, leadership, timing, tolerance, politics, and power. You may want to create an outline of the case study to help with organizing all of the information you uncover. Actually write down your findings, and upon completion of “all of the above,” you can then, and only then, begin to organize your analysis.
How Should the Case Study Analysis Individual Paper Be Set Up?
Use only APA format, and include citations when completing your individual paper. Refer to
APA Formatting and Style Guide
. · Title Page · Page numbers are required. · One or two paragraphs to bring the reader into your story · The following headers must be included within your paper: Issue, Stakeholders, Stakeholder Perspectives, Expert Interview, Recommendation(s) · “Issue” in one or two sentences at the most, separated from any paragraphs. Bold your issue so the reader can see at a glance what your case study is. · Include the history of your case study and any related laws · Then, do your next steps that include “stakeholders and perspectives.” The most common form used by students that sets up nicely is a chart:
Stakeholders
Perspectives
Mayor The mayor would want…………and supports this……….……… · Paragraph on your “expert” face-to-face interview(s) · Include face-to-face interview date, time, and location. We reserved the option to follow-up with your expert interviewee to verify your attendance. If we find you did not attend, you will receive a zero for the paper. · Close with a strong recommendation based on your critical thinking, expert interviews, personal life experience, etc. (Do not call this a solution, etc.) · Reference Page · Your Case Study Analysis Individual Paper should be 6 to 10 pages in length, not including the Title and Reference pages, and written in APA format.
the thtrd foundauonal pri nciple, position classification. The original federal classifica-
tion laws required department heads to grade their clerk-employees and pay them at a
level prescribed by law for each step in the scale. Municipal and state governments
eventually began experiments \vith more elaborate classification formulas . In 1912 the
City of Chicago, and shortly thereafter the State of lllinois, installed classification systems
of their own. Other cities and states followed suit. A line from a 1920 textbook-one of
the first to treat personnel administration as a special body of expert knowledge-
vice. Position classification was in essence an enactment into law of the much-maligned
mode rn concept of comparable worth, which requires that salaries be ftxed by ad min-
istrative decision rather than by market fo rces. The pay that goes with a job is supposed
to reflect the economic value of the skills that a worker brings to the position. Person-
nel experts in a central office-the Civil Service Commission-were to decide what skills
were needed and what level of pay they should command . The “equal pay for equal
work” standard became official, as did the “rank in the job” principle, under which civil
service status broadly depends on the position that an employee fills. An incumbent
who, through extra education or in some other way, becomes overqualified can’t read-
ily convert his or her higher level of competence into an inc rease in authorily o r a raise
in pay unless a vacant position exists into which the individual may be promoted.
federal Office of Personal Management (OPM) and, at least in theory, underscored that
McGraw-HHI, 1920), p. 255
Executive Office of the President. The 1978 act also proVlded for increased flexibility in
federal personnel appointment and promotion processes and created the Senior Exec-
utive Service (SES), intended as an elite cadre of public management generalists capa-
ble o f filling the critical job slots between the president’s political appointees at the pin-
nacle of the federal bureaucracy and lower-level career civil servants. Finally, the act
confirmed today$ unified system of civil service grades, each with its tnternal promo-
tional steps carrying increased pay with mcreased seniority in the grade.
idem and from two thousand to three thousand political appomtees–m effect, presi-
dential patronage employees. (Typically, in state and local governments the governor or
mayor makes reduced numbers of poltttcal appomtments. Numbers aside, the basic pat-
tern’s the same at all levels. Chief executives everywhere try to fill the top posts with
loyalists who , because they share the boss$ views, can be trusted to convey hts or her
inte ntions to the career appointees tn the lower ranks .) In the federal government, the
political layer includes cabinet officers and offictals such as the presidents Special Trade
Representative and the White House “Drug Poltcy Czar,” who hold cabinet rank even
though they don’t head major departments of government. The political layer also
includes deputy secretaries, undersecretaries , assistant secretaries, principal deputy
assistant secretaries (no fooling!), deputy assistant secretaries, and other relattvely high-
level executive-branch officials.
general schedule (GS) grades. Most occupants of the top three grades, GS-18 down
through GS-16, belong to theSES. Career officials in grades GS-15 down through GS-
9 are the workhorses of the federal seMce. These-the APTs who constitute almost 50
percent of the total civilian classified service-are the degree-holding accountants, civil
engineers, economists, lawyers, sotl conservationists, and so on, through all the separate
occupational series in today$ federal bureaucracy. Clerical and custodial personnel
(grades GS-8 down to GS-l) complete the structure.
separate occupations, eighteen GS grades, and ten “steps” within each grade. The num-
ber of separate job slots in state c1vil service systems varies from over five hundred in
South Dakota to more than seven thousand (yes, you read it right!) in New York. The
jobs themselves are customarily dtvided to form hierarchies of organizational units:
Agencies split into bureaus, bureaus mto dtvlstons or offices, offices into branches,
branches into sections, and so fonh on down to individual frontline administrators. In
this way the civil service personnel structure has evolved as the perfect complement to
the bureaucratic organizational structure of most government agencies.
resources approach, sometimes called “the new PPA.” Proponents of this approach
seek to shift the focus of “the old PPA” from its alleged fussiness, its traditional preoc-
cupation with the intricacies of the classtfication system, and its “triumph of technique
over purpose,” in the oft-quoted words of one authomy.• Champions of the new per-
Adm~nrstration Review (Spri ng 1948): 134-139.
ment of professional capacity by recruiting individuals with the needed abilities (“exter-
nal extraction” of talent, in the language of PPA) and developing intra-agen cy methods
for the adaptation and upgrading of workers’ skills (“internal extraction”). Doubters say
that the human resources approach is merely the old personnel routines without some
of the petty regulations and procedures. Even advocates of the approach admit that it
can work only if public managers are free to increase workplace flexibility and develop
rewards for individual performance.
kinds of arguments for a loosening-up of the civil service that have been popularized b y
anothe r group of analysts: the New Theorists, who stan from very different assumptions
about the motives and creativity of public-sector employees. The New Theorists are
among the most influential thinkers in contemporary public administration. We’ll come
back to them after we sample a range of opinions about PPA by some commentators
who are less given than the New Theonsts are to the use of technical terms and a highly
formal style of analysis.
Goodsell of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Goodsell$ voice IS
perhaps the most eloquent yet to be raised on our civil servants’ behalf. His spirited
defense of bureaucrats as intelligent, energetic, and innovative servants of the people
counters the stereotype. Is Goodsell too soft on our public servants? Is his panegyric for
bureaucracy overstated? Many critics think so. But some overstatement on the pro-
bureaucracy side of the PPA debate may be in order at this point-if only to counter-
balance some of the bureaucrat bashing that we’ll be witnessing in the pages to come!
public bureaucracy so that we can appreciate w hat
making the case for it confronts. As for ponrayals in
mass media, we encounter a relatively si mple pic-
ture, confidently expressed . The employee of bu-
reaucracy, that “lowly bureaucrat,” is seen as lazy or
snarling, or both. The office occupied by this pariah
is Vlewed as bunghng or mhumane, or both. The
overall edifice of bureaucracy is pictured as over-
staffed, inflexible, unresponsive, and power-hungry,
all a t once. These images are agreed upon by writers
and groups of every shade of opinion. O ne is hard
pressed to think o f a concept more deeply ingrained
and widely expressed in American cultural life ….
posed distinctiveness is simply to note how many
bureaucrats there are. The club of bureaucrats is not
exclusive enough to be very ominous. A sizable pro-
out of six employed persons. The overall figures,
rounded o ff, are that the federal government em-
ploys 5 million (3 civilian, 2 military), state govern –
ments 4 million , and local governments 9 million.
This adds up to 18 million people.
reaucrats that places them on a fairly o rdinary and
unawesome plane is what they do. They do not si m-
ply shuffie papers, attend meetings, and telephone la-
conically with no hands. Nor do they just give orders;
managers in government are a distinct minority of
the whole. What bureaucrats do is n othing less than
the myriad of highly specialized tasks performed in
a modern technological society-the matter is bo th
that complex and that simple …. Bureaucrats oper-
ate bridges, investigate crimes, manage forests, pro-
gram computers, arbitrate labor disputes, counsel
rescue cutters, run libraries, examine patent applica-
tions, inspect meat, negotiate contracts, and so on
and so forth …. Occupational directories and JOb
classification handbooks put out by government
personnel agencies run to the hundreds of pages
The point is simply that bureaucrats don’t ~bur”
there is no common occupational activity the> all
perform. These men and women do almost every-
thing, which means that even at face value general-
izalions about their nature or behavior are strongly
suspect. …
bunch of us, in the first place. In the second place
they are not generalizable in terms of occupational
activity. Third, bureaucrats are representative of the
public at large in terms of education, social status,
religion, income, and party affiliation. Mi nority
bureaucrats are disproportionately present m overall
numbers but do not hold their fair share of htgh-
level JObs. Women are underrepresented on both
counts, although this ts changmg. Finally, bureau-
crats and the rest of us have similar political and pol-
icy views ….
ordinary Americans do not leave their homes at mght
to join conspiracies, but on amving at the office the
next morning, something even worse happens. The)’
become transformed into petty t}Tants. This argu-
ment has been taken very seriously in academic cir-
cles for some fony years and should be examined
closely. The contention is formidable: The structure
of bureaucracy itself produces a distinctive mentahty
or personality on the pan of its full-time, appointed
staff. Whether by self-selection m entering bureau-
cratic employment or by sociahzauon once in n, the
bureaucrat is deemed to possess a pantcular LUm of
mind and pattern of behavior. These attnbutes and
behaviors are said to be quite nasty, at the least
by Robert Menon, “Bureaucratic Suucture and Per-
sonali ty,” published in 1940.’ Merton argued that …
the specialized nature of bureaucratic work causes
C hapter-+.
This ts said to occur because an extreme narrowness
in scope of work does not allow the functionary to
be capable of adapting to ever-changmg conditions.
Second, the need for reliability and discipline in bu-
reaucrauc output causes officials to overemphasize
the importance of rules. They then forget the initial
reason for the rules, and in a “displacement of goals”
phenomenon, enforcement of the rules surpasses in
Importance m the bureaucrats mmd what the orga-
nizauon is trymg ultimately to achieve . . ..
could be cited on this bureaucratic mentality, in-
asmuch as n IS a favonte theme not merely among
professional cnucs of bureaucracy but among jour-
nalists, novelists, and writers of letters to the editor.
Like the stereotype of bureaucracy, the Image conve-
niently captures the many fmstrations of those who
work in or with large governmental organizations, a
group that Includes JUSt about everyone that is of
school age or over. Moreover, with in the social sci-
ences the notion has acquired its own momentum as
an idea m vogue, and this momentum has scarcely
slowed over four decades. To that extent, then, is the
model verified empirically?
partly for that reason one of the most controversial,
is a proJect undertaken by Melvm Kohn. In it he
anempted to measure the effects of employment in a
bureaucracy, whether private or public. Kohns inter-
est extended to the employees’ values, social orienta-
tion, and Intellectual functioning. A national sample
of 3,10 l men employed in civilian occupations was
surveyed by structured interview. … Kohns main
findmg was simple: Correlations of bureaucratiza-
tion wtth these factors [the list included conformity
to external authority; a personality orientation of an
authontanan, legahsuc, and noninnovative nature;
and low problem-solving intell igence scores) were
notably small. Even more interesting, the directions
of correlation consistently contradicted what the
bureaucratic personality is supposed to be like!
nizations tend to value, not conformity, but
self-direction. They are more open-minded,
morality, and are more receptive to change than
are men who work in nonbureaucratic organi-
zations. They show great Oexibility in dealing
both with perceptual and ideational proble ms.
They spend their leisure time in more intellec-
tually demanding activities.~
reviewed concerning the “bureaucratic personality”
is generally disconfirming rather than supportive.
Bureaucrats are no less Oexible, tolerant , and creative
than other people-perhaps they are a little more so.
Compared to business executives, bureaucrats may
uuion,” 36 American Sociologtcal Rcvu:w Uune 1971): 461-474.
assured, or decisive. Welfare bureaucrats, with their
terrible reputation for being disrespectful to clients
and overzealous in rule enforcement, entertain posi-
ti ve images of clients more oft en than negative ones,
and exhibit nexible attitudes toward compl iance
with regulations ….
to say something nice about the faceless millions
who labor for government all over the country,” ad-
mits one columnist. 7
(Chatham ;-\j Chatham House, 1985), pp. 2, 82-83, 9 1. 95,
103. 109.
as Charles Goodsell, from an early point in the history of the civil service onward,
critics have argued that cemralized hiring and fi ring, detailed position classificatio n by
personnel specialists, and lockstep advancement through a rigid personnel structure
couldn’t help but promote inOexibility and inefficiency in the public service. Arguably
the central issue in PPA today is whether the apparatus of personnel principles and pro-
cedures that the Progressives erected to facilitate efficient governance have somehow
evolved into a system o f barriers to sound administration.
Goodsell , comes from David Osborne and Ted Gaeblers Reinventing Govemmcnt, pub-
lished in 1992-reputedly the greatest popular best-seller in the history of public
ad ministration. President Bill Clinton ordered the senior members of his administration
to use the Osborne-Gaebler volume as a kind of do-it-yourself kit for ove rhauling the
federal bureaucracy.
sonnel system. They also didn’t purport to be bureaucrat bashers, yet thats the way
many readers interpreted their critique of the civil service. How, then , are we to account
fo r the inOuence of their rather-biased analysis? The answer-as our reading from
Goodse ll will already have suggested-is probably that Osborne and Gaebler express a
mood of dissatisfaction common both among opinion shapers and among ordinary cit-
izens. Note, however, that the Osbome-Gaebler critique has to do with alleged ineffi-
ciencies in the public bureaucracy, whereas Goodsell$ defense was of the bureaucrats
themselves, rather than of the institution in which they work.
of traduional public-sector budgeting practices along with the1r cntique of civil service
inefficiencies-take special note of the distinction they draw between a mission-driven
organization and a rule-d riven organ ization . Its a distinction you’ll want to keep in
mind as you deal with o ur chapter case.
for the Twenty-First Century
missions, but by their rules and their budgets. They
have a rule for everything that could conceivably go
w rong and a line-ilem for every subcategory of
spendi ng in every unit of every department The
glue that holds public bureaucracies together, in
other words, is like epoxy: it comes in two separate
tubes. O ne holds rules, the other line items. Mix
them togethe r and you get cement
tubes. They get rid of the old rule books and dissolve
the line items. They define their fundamental mis-
sions, then develop budget systems and rules that
free their employees to pursue those missions.
But as James Q. Wilson writes, “The United States
relies on rules to control the exercise of official judg-
ment to a greater extent than any other industrial-
ized democracy.” Wilson ascribes this tendency to
our system of checks and balances, which makes each
power center so weak that everyone falls back on
rules to control what everyone else can do. But the
tendency escalated dramatically during the Progres-
sive Era, when reformers were struggling to control
Boss Tweed and his cronies. To control the 5 percent
who were dishonest, the Progressives created the red
tape that so frustrates the other 95 percent.
respond with a blizzard of new rules. A business
would fire the individual responsible , but govern-
ments keep the offenders on and punish everyone
else by wrapping them up in red tape. They close the
barn door after the horse has escaped-locking in all
the cowhands.
things from happening, of course. But those same
rules prevent good things from happening. They
slow government to a snails pace. They make it
impossible to respond to rapid ly changing environ-
ments. They build wasted time and effort into the
very fabric of the o rganization ….
budget systems, personnel systems, purchasmg sys-
tems, accounting system . The real payoff comes
when governments deregulate these systems, be-
cause they create the basic incentives that dnve e m-
ployees. If leaders tell their employees to focus on
their miss1on , but the budget and personnel systems
tell them to follow the rules and spend within the
line Items, the employees will listen to the systems.
The leaders’ misswn will vanish like a m1rage.
… Few people outside government pay any attention
to budget systems. But budgets control everything
an agency does. They are onerous and omnipresent,
useless and demeaning. They suck enormous quan-
u ues of time away from real work. They trap man-
agers in yesterdays priorities, which quickly become
tomorrow’s waste.
public budgets fe nce agency money into dozens of
separate accounts, called line items. This was origi-
nally done to control the bureaucrats-to h em them
m on all sides, so they could not spend one penny
more than the council or legislature mandated on
each item of government But once again, our attempt
to prevent bad management made good manage-
ment impossible .
bookkeeper to track how much you spent on travel,
supplies, personnel, and so on. But you surely
wouldn’t let the bookkeeper control how much you
spent under each account. The same is true of fam-
ily budgets: you may set aside so much for groceries,
so much for the mortgage, and so much for car pay-
ments every month . But if the washing machine
breaks, you find the money to fix it, and if manu-
facturers offer rebates on new cars, you seize the
opportunity.
fenced with in line items that are often absurdly nar-
have 26 different accounts for housing repairs alone!
A typical manager of a city depanment has 30-40
line items for every program or division. In most
cities and many states, legislatures not only dictate
line items, they tell each unit how many full-time
employees it can have .. ..
Personnel System
budget system is a personnel system built around
civil service . Most personnel systems in American
government are derivatives of the federal Civil Ser-
vice Act of 1883 [the Pendleton Act], passed after
a disappointed office seeker assassinated President
Garfield. A typical Progressive reform, civil service
was a well-intentioned elTon to control specific
abuses: patronage hiring and political manipulation
of public employees. In most places, it accomplished
its goals. But like a howitzer brought out to shoot
ants, it left us with other problems. Designed for a
government of clerks, civil service became a strait-
jacket in an era of knowledge workers.
Nor had the courts outlawed most patronage hiring
and firing and protected most employees from
wrongful discharge. In other words, most of what
civil service procedures were established to prevent
has been ruled illegal or made impossible by collec-
tive bargaining agreements. Yet the control mentality
lives on , creating a gridlock that turns public man-
agemem into the an of the impossible .. . .
help managers manage more effectively. In gov-
ernment, it is a control function-and managers bit-
terly resent it. Civil service rules are so complex
that most managers find them impenetrable. The
federal personnel manual, to cite but one example,
is 6,000 pages long. Consider just a few of the major
problems.
hire like normal managers: advertise a position, take
resumes, interview people, and talk lO references.
who have taken written civil service exams. Often
they have to take the top scorer, or one of the top
three scorers-regardless of whether that person
is motivated or otherwise qualified. (In San F ran-
cisco, if two applicants tie for the top score , the one
with the highest social security number gets the
job.) . ..
graded scale, and pay within each classification is
determined by longevity, not performance. Person-
nel departments spend thousands upon thousands
of useless hours deciding whether such-and-such a
job is a GS-12 or a GS-13 , telling managers they can-
not pay the salary they want to because the classifi-
cation doesn’t allow it, and blocking their efforts lO
reclassify people. Even when classification changes
are approved , the process takes forever. In Massa-
chusetts, where local governments have lO get ap-
proval from the state, it can take two years.
range, they cannm earn a raise \vithout earning a
promotion into a new type of work. But promotions
are controlled by the personnel department, not the
manager. They seldom hav~ anything to do with per-
formance. In a typical line job-in a police depart-
ment, or data processing office-managers have to
promote from among those already in the proper
career track who have scored highest on the promo-
tional exam.
ers are like headless nails: you can get them in, but
you can’t get them out. ” Federal employees cannot
be fired until a manager has spent months (if not
years) carefully documenting poor performance and
the employee has then exhausted three appeals
processes–the first two of which alone take an aver-
age of 224 days. State and local governments have
their own versions of this scenario. The process is so
time consuming and difficult that few managers ever
fire anyone. Qames Q. Wilson estimates that in one
recent year, fewer than two-tenths of l percent of
federal civil service employees were fired.) Instead
bump them upstairs.
through layoffs, civil service employees with senior-
ity can bump those with lesser seniority. Middle
managers can bump secretaries who can bump mail
room clerks. In the Reagan cutbacks of 1981 , a sec-
retary at the Department of Energy who had worked
her way up to running a program-and was proud
of it-was bumped back to secretary. When New
jersey laid off 1,000 employees in 1991,20,000 peo-
ple received notices that they might be bumped ….
Federal employees we know describe colleagues who
spend their days reading magazines, planning sailing
tri ps, or buying and selling stocks. Scott Shuger, who
interviewed several dozen federal employees for the
Washington Monthly, found that most estimated the
number of “useless personnel” in their offices at 25
to 50 percent.
17.5 million civilian government employees (roughly
15 million of them full-time), our public payrolls ap-
proaches $500 billion a year. Benefits add anOLher
$100 billion or so …. No one can say how much
lower our personnel costs could be with a rational sys-
tem, but 20 percent is not an outlandish guess ….
fine the appropriate personnel system for a modem
government and create it. When we ask entrepre-
neurial public managers what they would do with
civil service, most simply say, “Scrap it and stan
over.” …
ronage hiring and fiting. But it is time to listen to our
public entrepreneurs and replace a civil service sys-
tem designed for the ni neteenth century with a per-
sonnel system designed for the twenty-first.
(Readmg, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992), pp. 110-111, 117-118,
124-130.
··~·
Gaebler are probably the best examples-focus quite specifically on practices in our
public service as sources of major inefficiencies. Other analysts argue that public-sector
inefficiency isn’t peculiar to the civil service but rather represents in extreme form cer-
tain deficiencies that are inherent in all large organizations. The most influential of these
critics is a group of scholars who are variously called public-choice theorists, rational-
choice theorists, or-as we’ve simply referred to them-New Theorists. These schol-
ars draw most of their premises from economic theory. Whereas traditional public
administrationists stressed government officials’ dedication to some notion of the pub-
lic interest, the New Theorists emphasize instead the power of self-interest in human
affairs and the consequent need to get incentives right when structuring organizations.
zation creates conditions which tend to reduce the motivation of workers to give their
best. According to the members of this school, civil servants are inefficient not primar-
ily because they are governme nt workers but because government work is organized
bureaucratically. As our biggest bureaucracy, government is also our least efficient orga-
rewards and performance. Civil servants know that tenure and seniority make it d ifficult
to fire them. They also know that position classification procedures make it difficult to
promote outstanding performers much in advance of the normal career progression. To
ease the resulting motivational dete rrents–called incentive impairments-the New
Theorists support a shift in the organizational paradigm so that administrative practice
would be pauemed less on the bureaucratic model and more on the image of the free
market. In the market, the New Theorists contend, everyone competes, no one has job
securi ty, and remuneration is tied to performance. Unlike b ureaucracies, free markets
reward energetic and innovative performers with high er profits, and they punish slug-
gards and incompetents \vith the threat of bankruptcy.
forms of incentive impairment, adverse selection and moral hazard. Adverse selection
refers to conditions tha t reduce the incentives of outstanding individuals to become civil
servants or, if they do enter government work, to remain in the public service. The New
Theorists claim that the kinds of workers who seek career cushions rather than career
challenges will fee l more comfon able in organizations \vith lockstep promotion patterns
and predictable salary graduations. Moral haza rd refers to conditions that impair the
incentives of workers to perform with care and diligence. The New Theorists also con-
tend that the dangers o f moral hazard inc rease in precisely the kinds of working condi-
tions that are characteristic of the civil service.
the ini ti al point of career se lection (when a candidate decides whether to app ly for gov-
ernment work or to remain in the private sector); at points of possible departure from
the civil service (for example, when an offer of higher pay beckons a civil servant to pri-
vate industry); and in the course of a layoff affecting the individuals agency: At the point
of career selection, the idea is that j obs which carry civil service p rotections inherently
invite the lazy or unambitious to ap ply in the first place. An applicant might be moti-
vated by the desire to serve. But the motivation might a lso lie in the attractiveness of a
job with regular salary rncreases and virtual immunity from firing unless underperfor-
mance becomes nagranl.
from a faucet into a cask at a certain rate of inOow while, from the bottom of the cask,
water is being drained by a hole that allows a larger rate of outOow. The objective of the
exercise is to compute the time it will take for the cask to become empty, taking into
account the differential rates of simultaneous inflow and outOow. The theory of adverse
selection implies the possibility of a similar phenomenon in the civil service. At the same
ti me that adverse selection is allegedly producing a less-capable public workforce
through an inOow of poorer-quality applicants, outOows from the ranks of our civil ser-
vants may be occurring, \vith outstanding people leaving at a htgher rate than are the
less-able workers.
offeri ng higher salaries, better working conditions, and greater opportunities for pro-
Cial who receives notice that his or her JOb is to be ehminated in a RIF may have the
right to bump a more-junior person . Unfortunately, however, it may be the more-sen ior
official who has the poorer record of JOb performance For this reason, bumping rights
can make it difficult to reduce the stze of the pubhc-sector workforce except at the cost
of eliminating younger workers whom managers want to keep . A kind of adverse selec-
tion will then have occurred m which the less quahfied, less energetic workers can use
their semonty to d1splace those With the greatest prom1se of future contributions. The
critics argue that adverse selection on both the inflo~ and outflow sides can gradually
convert a civil sen’lce intended to ensure competence IntO a workforce o f tired hangers-
on who are more concerned with security than wllh performance.
JOb secunty even at substandard levels of performance may mduce them to display
moral hazard, a term coined in the insurance industry for an indivtduals tendency to
exercise less care 1f an msurer wtll mdemntf) negligent beha\’ior. ln the civil senrice sys-
tem, the “msurer” is the government, who \Vtll pa) the tenured worker even when the
work itself 1sn’t up to snuff. Less work for the same pay, some would suggest, is an a ll-
but-inevitable consequence.
countered m the ctvtl sen’lce exacl!rbate the problem of moral hazard by creatmg patterns
of asymme tric information. Government agenc1es tend to be relatively large bureau-
cracies whose employees process highly technical data . But highly technical data can be
mastered only by the md1viduals who arc actually processmg specific cases. Those case-
workers’ superiors can never possess more than a generalized sense of the work done
by mdi\’lduals beneath them in the organization. Because the frontline workers know
more about their respective JObs than their supeMsors do, workers who are inclined to
shirk (that is, mdulge m morally hazardous behavior) rna> be able to do so with im-
punity, trusting that their superiors won’t ever even know.
asymmetric informauon , the New Theonsts qunc naturally would prefer a public p er-
sonnel system based more on mdividual than on collective evaluations and rewards.
They therefore argue that a move in agency orgamzauon toward the free-market para-
digm would give pubhc managers greater freedom to h1re and fi re workers based on job
qualifications or actual performance Free-market personnel practices would also con-
fer greater freedom on workers to demand salanes commensurate \vith the1r contribu-
tions rather than at levels fixed b) a pay scale ke)ed to the “rank in the JOb” principle.
At minimum, most New Theonsts favor proposals to “deregulate the public service” as
a way of freemg up the pubhc sector so that market forces can work. Conversely, the
New Thconsts tend to oppose moves to strengthen collective forces in PPA-for exam-
ple, moves to increase the influence of pubhc-sector un ions in personnel policy makmg
(see Box 2 1).
cussion, if only because the wtdespread mfluence of the New Theorists h as encouraged
Deregulation and Public-Sector Collective Bargaining
government employees may fail under the frustrations of an overregulated public
workplace. In 1987 Constance Horner, former director of the federal Office of Person-
nel Management, put the case for civil service deregulation:
managers had more flexibility in making basic personnel and purchasing deci-
sions, and if lower paperwork requirements freed them to focus more on the ser-
vices they are supposed to provide. [There are] tens of thousands of pages of
regulations restricting their every move. Federal managers have little discretion
to usc pay to reward and retain good employees. As a rule, superior perfor-
mance goes unrewarded with better pay. Nor does promotion come more swiftly
to workers who show superior commitment and talen t. Sta tus on the basis of
seniority is the dominant ethos of civil service administration …. It would be
much better if senior managers could get their appropriated budgets and decide
how many people to hire, at what pay level. to get the job done.•
managers a freer hand to fire mediocre performers, and increase flexibility in job
assignment, promotion practices. and pay scales. Dozens of experiments along these
lines have been tried, with mixed success. Early in the Clinton presidency, Vice-
President AI Gore, in his capacity as director of a major initiative to “reinvent govern-
ment,” announced yet another effort to adopt resu lts-oriented personnel policies.
unionism. since the matter of on-the- job working cond iti ons plays a relative ly larger
role in government collective bargaining than it does in p ri vate industry. Overa ll today,
some 35 percent of the state and local public workforce is unionized. The pattern of
union membership, however, is highly uneven both across the nation and among dif-
ferent occ upational classifications. Some state and loca l public-service sectors (fire,
police, education, sanitation) are more heavily unionized than others. By contrast, doc-
tors, lawyers, and other service professionals have often resisted union com mitments
that they feared would bra nd them as “blue collar” or, indeed, as less than fully “pro-
fessional.” This partly explains why the increase in public- sector union membership
at the federal level over the past few decades has occu rred primarily in the lower
grades. (It should be emphasized, however, that the main federal collective bargaining
organization, the American Federation of Government Employees-AFGE- includes
white-collar as well as blue-collar employees.) The percentage of dues-paying federal
around 10 percent, although as many as 60 percent of federal civil servants may be
in work un its covered by co llective bargaining agreements.
in the near future. The bad news applies mainly at the state and local levels, where
some nasty bills have begun to come due for bargains that union leaders successfully
negotiated decades ago . In the 1960s and 1970s, some governors, county executives,
a nd big-city mayors granted hefty pay raises and generous benefits to their unionized
employees. (“Fringes” are traditionally high in the public sector, partly as compensa-
tion for salar ies that tend to be low relative to those of comparable private-sector
workers.) But these negotiated wage levels couldn’t a lways be sustained. In time,
some un ion leaders had to concede “givebacks.” Then workers covered by the earlier
agreements began retiring, often needing increased levels of medical attention as they
aged . Their employers-cities w hich were often themselves financ ially troubled be-
cause of s hrink ing tax bases- had difficulty fund ing promised fringe benefits. The si t-
ua tion bodes to get worse before it gets better.
a somewha t differen t for m. Congress determi nes federal civil servants’ pay scales, a nd
so union leaders have bargained ma inly for favorable agency working conditions and
better protections from the cla ssification system itself. In early 1993, President Cli n-
ton pledged to create a federal bureaucracy th a t “works better and costs less. ” But t he
Clinton reinven tion in itiative couldn ‘t s ucceed w ithou t s u pport from federa l employ-
ees. The President ordered all federal agencies to set up “partnership cou ncils” with
representatives of organized labor. Subjects that were tradi tionally excluded from co l-
lective bargaining become mandatory topics of negot ia ti o n, including issues relati ng
to the numbers, types, grade levels. organ izational div isions. and work methodologies
of e mployees in federal units. Some observers suspected that President Clinton had
privately cut a deal with AFGE leaders. Under it, the government would in time per-
mit public employees’ union s to bargain over sa laries. In exchange, the AFGE leaders
would tacitly support the Clinton plan to cut the federal workforce a nd move toward
the human resource approach by simplifying civil service rules.
some of the bureaucrat bashing thats become common in recent years. Answers can
come aL three levels of analysis.
to assess both the qualny of civil servants as workers and the average efficiency levels of
government programs. We’ve a lready considered Charles Goodsells claim that the imag-
ery of ctvil servants as drones or malingerers is rooted in myth, not fact. Others have
s upported Goodsell’s side of the argument. Arthur Speigel, a Harvard Business School
consultant called in during the 1970s to overhaul one of the nations mos t hidebound
and complex bureaucracies, the New York City Department of Human Setvices, has em-
phasized the willingness and ability of professional civll servants to respond to higher
directives-on condition that the directives lie within a zone of reasonableness: “I expe-
rienced several p leasant surprises in dealing with the civil service. First, their support
was available. lt hmged on four factors–proof of our competence, the m ayors backing
mutuality of our objectives.” Speigel added that he and his shaker-uppers “found a rich-
ness of management talent buried under the civil servi.ce promotion system. By work-
ing around the regulations, we were able to put these people into the strategic positions
that called for professionals.'”~ (Note, however, that as Spiegel tells the story, the regula-
tions d idn’t help the political leaders activate the latent cap abilities of the professional
administrators; the regulations had to be circumvented if the capacities of the perma-
nent personnel were to be fully realized.)
cynical view of human nature- that workers in large numbers seek out jobs where they
can be lazy (adverse selection) and that employees will routinely take advantage of in-
formational asymmetries to goof off on the job (moral hazard). These arguments don’t
ultimately rest on hard data but instead appeal to some peoples beliefs about human
behavior. Does the picture of o rganizational li fe as presented by the New Theorists cor-
respond to your own observations and experiences? ln what respects does it ring true,
and in what ways does it oversimplify or even falsify the pattern of human motivations?
(We’ll return to some of these questions in Chapter 10.)
might not be that inferior employees take advantage of incentive-Impairing conditions
but that well -qualified, conscientious civil servants must d iven their energies to deal
with a surfeit of procedures, bureaucratic rules, and demands imposed by decision mak-
ers from without the organization.
Fcbruary 1975): 116, 120.
Albany, explicitly raises the issu e of competing criteria in the field of PPA and, implic-
itly, the problem of overdetermination. Thompson suggests that the discontent which is
so comm only voiced by critics of the civil servi.ce ultimately reOects value ju dgments-
that is, peoples different weightings assigned to different values. As we’ll sec in our chap-
ter case, the difficulties that public administrators encounter when they engage in pri-
ority setting a re perhaps nowhere more acute than in civil servi.ce decision making.
Frank]. Thompson
responsiveness, soda/ equity, employee rights and well-being. In essence, discontent springs from the inabil-
ity to forge a consensus on the appropriate weight to be assigned to particular values-to define the opti-
mal mix of achievement on the various d1mc11Sions.
trators tend to operate within civil service systems.
These systems refer to the formal structures of
authoritative rules that govern personnel practices
in government programs and activities. Some pub-
lic managers in very small jurisdictions do not, in
any meaningful sense, manage human resources
in the context of these systems, but in most lo-
cal governments of any size, and certainly at the
state and federal levels, civil service systems
markedly influence the day-to-day management
of personnel.
mated the importance of civil service systems. The
struggle against the spoils politics of the late nine-
teenth century evoked intense feelings and impas-
sioned rhetoric. The Pendleton Act of 1883 forged
the basic template for the spread of merit systems
throughout the country. …
contents …. A study sponsored by Ralph Nader re-
ferred to federal personnel practices as The Spoiled
System. Two top administrators in New York City
government suggested that the city’s personnel
practices were “meritless. ” They claimed that the
city’s civil service system produced “mindless
bureaucracies that appear to function for the conve-
nience of their staffs rather than the public.” They
concluded that the city’s personnel system had
developed “rigor mortis”; it had “been warped and
distorted to the point where it can do hardly any-
thing at all.” Discontent with civil service systems
also found expression in the common view that
public organizations lack the efficiency and effec-
tiveness of their counterparts in the private sector.
This belief fueled the privatization initiatives of the
1980s, which, among other things, urged that gov-
ernments work be arranged through contracts with
the private sector.
the public sector sense that the criticisms of civil ser-
vice systems are often excessive. Effective human
resource management does occur in public agencies.
Nevertheless, expressions of discontent with civil
service systems occur with enough regularity to d e-
mand attention ….
service systems …. [ 0 I ne can make a strong case for
focusing on five basic values: instrumental goals,
merit, political responsiveness, social equity, and
employee rights and well-being. At times, the per-
ceived performance of civil service systems with
respect of any one of these values has prompted dis-
content to simmer and, less frequently, to boil over
into a reform initiative.
• Civil service systems can facilitate or impede the
efforts of public managers to accomplish instrumen-
tal goals-economy (cost containment) , efficiency
(as expressed in the ratio of output to cost), and effec-
tiveness (achievement of program goals). In cities
with political machines, the absence of merit systems
has often forced public managers to put up with
many marginally ski lled or incompetent employees.
This situation has heightened the risk that city agen-
cies would be inefficient and ineffective.
tems impeded instrumental achievement by under-
mining managerial discretion. Some analysts see the
restrictive character of government’s personnel sys-
tems as the critical difference between managing in
public and private organizations. The rules embed-
ded in civil service systems presumably hamstring
managers, who would otherwise use discretion over
personnel decisions to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of agencies’ operations. Nowhere can
one find a more piercing expression o f this view than
in a report released by the National Academy of Pub-
lic Administration. ln reviewing federal personnel
practices, the report noted that the Federal Personnel
Manual had 8,814 pages, and that the personnel sys-
tem “does not seem to work very well for anybody.”
According to the report, “executives and managers
feel almost totally divorced from what should be one
of their most important systems.” The report called
for substantial deregulation of government managers
and stressed that the U.S. Office o f Personnel Man-
agement should delegate more authority to line
departments.
discretion allegedly make it more difficult to moti-
Cily, Savas and Ginsburg charged that promolion
tests robbed managers of opportunities to motivate
subordinates; they further asserted that “the knowl-
edge that it is almost impossible to penalize or dis-
charge the barely competent or even incompetent
permanent employee” is “demoralizing for supervi-
sors.” At the state level, a survey of top executives
found 30 percent who indicated that they faced seri-
ous or very serious problems in disciplining or dis-
missing inept employees. These observations, from
all levels of government, echo a common theme:
that the rules of civil service dampen motivation
because they weaken relationships between perfor-
mance, on the one hand, and pay, promotion, disci-
plinary actions, and firing, on the other. Ln a related
vein, Golembiewski focused on job design and de-
scription in argumg that civil service systems “fail
to respond to the need to facilitate the management
of work by mcreasing supervisory power.” Exces-
sively constraining rules march hand in hand with
the charge that much of public personel adminis-
tration represents the triumph of technique over
purpose.
have deep roots in the classic, liberal tradition of the
United States. ln the case o f personnel, they e mpha-
size that rewards ought to go to the most competent
individuals-those with the best records of or poten-
tial for achievement. A sense of society as a market,
where individuals compete and prizes go to the most
adroit, undergirds this view. Therefore, strong semi-
mem and legal requirements often insist that public
managers hire the most competent people from
pools of eligible applicams. More recemly, various
policies have called for managers to allocate pay in-
creases to the most meritorious performers.
ideas, the 1960s and the 1970s witnessed countless
accusations that the systems left much to be desired
in this regard. Recruitment policies, in particular,
came under fire. Hiring practices in the past had
clearly excluded many well -qualified applicants on
the grounds of race and sex. Moreover, very few civi l
service tests had been strictly validated (proved pre-
dictive) via scientific research. Thus, in reviewing the
noted that out of four hundred civil service exami-
nat ions, “not a single case could be found where the
validity of a written test … was ever proved.” More-
over, merit hiring practices sometimes had unamici-
pated consequences. Ln New York City, delays
between the scoring of tests and the actual hiring of
individuals produce a situation in which cand idates
with low passing grades were more likely to be hired
than those with high er marks.
preferences of elected officials and their appoimees
ought to weigh heavily in personnel management.
The civil service reform movement of the late nine-
teenth century grew up in an effort to reduce the
weight assigned to one form of political responsive-
ness, that associated with spoils systems. Spoils aimed
primarily at maintaining the electoral coalition that
had allowed politicians to stay in office by providing
patronage in the routine, lower-level jobs of govern-
ment. The institutions spawned by civil service reform
made the practice of such patronage more di!Ticu lt.
Wriuen tests for employment, quite (!Side from their
capacity to predict the b est person fo r a job, made
it harder (although by no means impossible) for
elected officials to practice patronage. “Independent”
civil service commissions served a similar function.
Wh ile some manifestations of low-level patronage
politics persist, th e spoils system is not a major rally-
ing point for reform in the current era. For instance,
one su rvey of over eight hundred state executives
found that only 5 percent viewed patronage in filling
positions as a serious problem.
sponsiveness remain on the from burner. The rise of
the administrative state presents perplexing issues of
accountability and control in a democracy. How can
the elected representatives of the people ensure that
government administrators remain sensitive to their
concerns and not become autonomous power hold-
ers? More specifically, what role should personnel
administration play in t he quest fo r such responsive-
ness? In this regard, top policy jobs in the bureau-
cracy tend to be a central target of concern, as elected
officials strive to p lace loyal people in strategically
sensitive positions ….
ance too far in the direction of this form of political
responsiveness. Democracy requires not only
responsiveness but also nonpartisan technical com-
petence and respect for law among public managers.
In this regard, some observers criticize civil service
systems for facilitating too much political respon-
siveness. They see many top political appointeees as
transient birds of passage, who all too frequently
possess minimal qualifications for the JObs they hold
and whose zealotry can lead to an administration
that departs from both the spirit and the letter of the
law. These observers note how heavy emphasis on
political responsiveness can yield declining appreCI-
ation of caree r civil servants’ professional expertise.
In tum, morale among these civil servants may
plummet, and turnover may increase. Administra-
tive capacity thereby diminishes. These observers
hold that civil servants, within the bounds set by law,
will usually attempt to be responsive to their politi-
cal masters. CiVIl servants understand that a political
executive who goes too far in seeking to control per-
sonnel processes may paradoxically wind up with
administrators who are unresponsive-not because
they lack loyalty, but because they lack the skill to
carry out the executives \vishes.
ployment practices to help groups who are deemed
disadvantaged or potentially disadvantaged. One
variation on this concern involves the declaration
that certain characteristics of groups are off limits in
personnel decisions, an acuon that helps protect
these groups from adverse discrimination. job appli-
cants, for instance , generally enjoy the right not to be
discriminated against on the basis of being Cathohc
or fifty years old. Another version of this commit-
ment to social equity goes beyond protection to rep-
resentation. In this regard , various affirmative action
plans have urged government officials to seck out
and hire women and mmorities. Other groups, such
as veterans and the handicapped, have also received
preferential treatment in the name of social equity.
of the criticisms and legal actions directed against
civil service systems. Protected groups, such as women
and minorities, frequently complain that the prac-
uate injustice . Others complain because civil service
systems do not officially recognize their characte ris-
tics as deserving of protection or proactive treatmen t.
Hence, gay rights leaders charge that civil service sys-
tems permit discrimination against gay and lesbian
applicants and employees. From another perspec-
tive, white male job applicants sporadically complain
of not having obtained employment or promotion
because of so-called reverse discrimination.
salient value in ctvil service systems. A pervasive
norm , buttressed in many instances by law and reg-
ulation , asserts that an individual enjoys certain sub-
stantive and procedural rights as an employee of an
organization. These rights increase to the degree that
four conditions, among others, hold. First, they
expand to the extent that rules limit the reasons for
which executives can take actions (firing, demotion)
perceived as adve rse to employee interests. For
instance, laws often constrain public executives from
punishing subordinates for engaging in certain activ-
ities off the job, such as contributing money to polit-
ical campaigns. Second, employee rights grow as th e
procedures (for example, appeals systems) for taking
adverse action become more elaborate and place a
greater burden of proof on executives. Third, em-
ployee rights loom larger when employees with
more semority in an agency enjoy greater protection
from adverse acuon than employees with less senior-
ity. Fourth, employee rights grow as formal proce-
dures reqUire executi\·es to consult or bargain \vith
official represemanves of subordmates (say, union
leaders) over a broader scope of issues. Beyond these
formal safeguards, the notion of employee well-being
implies a concern with the quality o f work life. Work
that provtdes employees with psychological gratifi-
cation and promotes their physical well-being goes
to the heart of this concern.
cessively deferential with respect of employee rights.
Among other thmgs, employees are allegedly too
hard to fire or lay off. Seniority, critics claim, receives
excessive weight in decisions. Skirmishes over these
and related issues erupt sporadically. Other critics,
however, charge that civil service systems fail to
and well-being. For instance, concern over drug usc
and AIDS in the 1980s had fueled debate over
employee rights to control who can moniLOr their
physical condition. Guidelines issued by President
Reagan required federal agencies to test designated
employees for mariJuana and cocaine use. The
guidelines permitted employees to provide urine
samples wuhout observation, unless agency officials
believed that subordmates would alter or substitute
sam ples. To guard against such “cheating,” the guide-
Lines recommended such steps as the use of blui ng
agents in the toilet water at testing sites, to prevent
employees from diluting their samples. Union lead-
ers denounced the plan as “tidy-bowl justice” and a
violation of the constitutional rights of employees ….
personnel arena have several implications for those
who seek to assess civil service systems and the prac-
tices of human resource managers. In some in-
any of the core values well. In other cases, a practice
may promote all of them …. The presence of trade-
offs means that civil service systems run the risk of
being “damned if they do and damned if they don’t. ”
ln essence, discontent springs from the inability to
forge a consensus on the appropriate weight to be
assigned to particular values- to define the optimal
mix of achievement on the various d imensions. This
inab il ity to reach consensus means that reform
movements often contain the seeds of new discon-
tent and assume a cyclical pattern. When some
reformers succeed in causing civil service systems to
increase their emphasis on certain values (for exam-
ple, more political responsiveness), they prompt oth-
ers to seek change on behalf of other core concerns
(merit, for example, or instrumental goals) … .
tems,” m James L Perry, ed., Handbook of Public AclministratJon
(San Francisco: j ossey-Bass, 1989), pp. 359-366, 368-372
public-sector employees to conduct the day-to-day business of government. In the civil
service, we find the vast majority of our fellow citizens who qualify for the title of pub-
lic administrator. In the c1vil service, we probably also find th e most rule-bound sector
of the entire American workforce. The resulting tension has been a major theme in our
discussion of public personnel administ ration. Arguably, the central challenge in PPA
LOday is to develop administrative capacity suitable for modem circumstances (that per-
sonnel system designed for the twenty-first century which Osborne and Gaebler
sought), while recognizing that long-established rules and traditions make change diffi-
cult m the civil service. Many civil servants oppose any weakening of these rules and
traditions, since they protect the employee rights and well-being that Frank Thompson
emphasized in his discussion of public-sector personnel plan ning.
rules frames any survey of modern public admmistration. We find th1s tension in the
fo llo\ving scenario, which introduces Mary Manengrove and tells us something about
the geographic area and formal organization-the St. Croix Development Commis-
sion-m wh1ch Mary works. Closely interlocked \vith the work of the commission are
ment of Agriculture (“the USDA” to most locals). Thts mte rdependency leads to Mary
Manengrove’s involvement in an acu on that the m aJor figure in the scenano, USDA
county coordinawr Roman Dmda, h as under way; Dmda has the u npleasant job of
preparing for a RIF in the local workforce.
the official federal RIFfing regulations. Thetr la nguage may seem awkward-bureaucratic
gobbledygook. But d ectphenng bureaucratese (both whats explicit and whats between
the lines) often proves to be an important pan o f the lived experience of administration.
Similarly, you’re likely to find the densely arrayed numbers in the retention registers to
be cryptic and off-putting. But remember, case analysis requires close attention to the
details. The details that really count often come in precisely the forms illustrated by these
excerpts from federal personnel rules and sample rete nuon tables. (By the way, you m ight
be su rprised at how much you can infer about the lives, talents, and vulnerabtliues of
“the sisters” in the story-Ltef Pink, Bobbte Boo, and Ltsa Hepburn-from a careful study
of the numerical data in the re tenuon registers. There’s a lesson in that fact , too.)
:’twisty-tumy” thought processes o f his boss, a public-sector u nion lead er named Walt
March. Marchs convoluted reasoning results fro m hts decision to approach the tmpend-
ing RlF strategically, b ased on calculattons of the fo llowing son: “If I d o this and my
opponent does that , the resu lts will be s uch-and-such ; on the other hand , if I d o some-
th ing else and my opponents counters with … ” and so forth , a nd so forth. Calculations
of this kind are usually hard to fo llow unless the variou s combinations of strategies are
carefully sorted out and re presented in some simple way. One objective o f the scenario
is to set up the quest for that simple way of seeing the strategic situation in which Walt
March finds himself.
in northwest Wisconsin . The Upper St. Croix wa tershe d e mbra ces a n a rea of rela ti vely
low-i mpact developme nt- mostly seasona l- use c abin s, fis hing camps, and s ma ll
resorts, plus a s ma ll ma nufactu ring opera tio n. Po lari s Corporation’s o ld wood-pulp
processing p la nt at Ha lf Day Ril l. Fro m its headwate rs, the St. Croix a ng les in a south-
westerly di rection through some of the best fres hwate r fi shing lakes in North Amer-
ica. It reaches a p o int o n the Wiscon si n-Minn esota boundary abo ut 60 miles above
Minn eapolis- St. Pau l, the Twin Cities. There th e river itself becomes t he border be-
tween the two sta tes. The re, too, it becomes one of the most s pectacularly scenic
wate rwa ys o n the co ntinent , a ru s hing fl ow e nclosed by more tha n 25 m iles of deep
gorge, inte rru pte d a t be nd after be nd by rapid s. and e ncl osed by overlooks of d e nse
hardwood fo liage.
the Mississippi River, whic h ha s cut through the Twin Citi es from the no rthwest .
Th e reafter, t he St. Croix ts no more, having joined the g rea t river w hic h marks the
Tamarack Incinerator
Croix southward (see Sketch 2.1 ).
and Larch counties on the Minnesota side of the border, Apostle and Burnt counties
in Wisconsin). The “mini- twin cities” of Duluth and Superior, on Lake Superior, lie
just beyond t he northern border of the four-county area. From the southern edge of
the four-county region, it ‘s a 30-m ile drive on Interstate 35 to Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Within the area are dozens of m ink ra nches and tree farms, a well-developed com-
munity college system, a medi um-security federal prison at Vikingsholm, Minnesota
(there’s also a second federal correctiona l institution in Duluth) , and perhaps three
dozen market-center towns of varying sizes. Only three bridges cross the Upper St.
Croix within the four-county region, so there’s not as m uch travel as you might sup-
pose back and forth between the two states. Yet common problems and shared eco-
nomic interests cause both the Minnesotans and the Wisconsinites, in general, to
tomarily refer to the region simply as “the St. Croix.”
Not too many decades ago. the economic base of the St. Croix was agricultural.
bers of folks continue to count on paychecks earned in silviculture, lumbering. and
wood pulping). Mink ranches dot the region. and, of course. many natives of the St.
Croix trap seasonally for fox, lynxcat, c1nd muskrat. But the traditional foundation of
the four-county region’s prosperity had rested, in the main, on its dairy farms.
dent Jimmy Carter, officials of the USDA decided to deplete the nation ‘s dairy herds as
a way of reducing overproduction of milk. butter, and cheese. Many eligible dairyfarm-
ers in the St. Croix area took up the USDA’s offer to buy their cows and dispose of them.
Within a few years, however. residents of the four-county region recognized that they
had lost an important part of the local culture. The f<1rmers never found a way to con-
vert tli.::ir one-time infusion of federal funds into a continui ng cash flow. Mink ranch -
ing and expanded tree farming couldn't offset the deficit left by the sell-off of the herds.
from the Environmental Protection Agency we can get for some anti-pollution or
water treatment projects. and I think the Corps of Engineers might have some money
to put up too. Ellen ~toe [the Minnesota congresswoman from the area] … she’ll
help. as always. to bring money from Washington into the district.” What about the
Small Business Adm inistration: Doesn’t it make grants? And of course the USDA itself
had tons of programs and subsidies. All you had to do was know what was availab le,
put together a credible plan, and collect the money. Byce convinced area bankers,
lawyers, and realtors to kick in the necessary seed money. Byce himself agreed to
chair the St. Croix Growth Council.
Croix region collectively decided that the Growth Council should be expanded and
of local governance. In most areas of the United States, the senior elected county officials are called ·com-
missioners.· although other t1tles are also used. such as frecho/cfer and (as in most Wisconsin counties)
supervisor. Many counties around the country also have an appointed professional county manager or
county executive, whose main duties are executive in nature. These managers run day-to-day county oper-
ations subject to the oversight of the commissioners. When speaking of matters relating to the four-county
development commission, residents of the St. Croix region have fallen into the habit of using the more com-
mon generic terms for officials whose formal titles vary somewhat from state to state and even county to
county. Thus. citizens speak of ··commissioners” when referring to their county-level legislators. although
those officials In Wisconsin would properly be called “supervisors,” and they speak of ·managers” in all four
counties. even though Norton County’s senior executive official has the formal title of county executive.
County
I
County
County
I
County County
I I
County
I
County
I
County
(Anton Kurva5zy)
(Denni5 Hammer)
External
Relations
(8 FTEs)
(Mary Martengrove)
Development
(10 FTE5)
Emergency
(30 FTEs)
(Boyd Britten)
AdultNocational
(27 FTEs)
boo5ter organization headed by Andy Byce.
commi ssion. Henceforth , each county manager would wear two hats. Each wo uld
continue to supervise hi s or her own county’s court services, oversee the sheriff’s
department, collect loca l taxes, and so forth (hat 1). Additionally, each county man –
ager wou ld serve by formal appointment as a commissio ner on th e newly created St.
Croix Development Commission , or SCDC (hat 2).
director of operations. Together, these six framed coordinated policies in four areas of
governmental activity: gran t applications prepared by t he SCDC’s Division of Externa l
Relation s, general economic development plan ning. regio nal emergency medical ser-
vice, and adu lt/ vocationa l educa tion. The SC DC staff had grown to a total of seventy-
nin e full- time equiva lent (FTE) employees, organi zed as show n in Sketch 2.2 .
so mewhere in the so utheast. His two units occupied a suite of offices in the Jackson
thanked him self for having had the sense to hire as his staff aide a native of the St.
Croix region, Mary Martengrove, fresh out of the public administration program at the
Universi ty of W isconsin-Eau Claire, to be his staff assistant.
Mary Martengrove knew that just about every county seat in the states of Min-
office space for both businesses and government officials. Not many years earlier, four
Larch City lawye rs w ith so me extra cash to invest had financed the construction of
thi s new “professio nal building.” The lawyers took th e best locations for themselves
and offered the remain ing space for ren t. Congresswo man Moe kept an office for con-
stituent services on th e first floor; the congresswoman’s local representative, Dagmar
Blaine, mai ntained a full -time presence there. The p lanning division of the SCDC also
had its suite on the ground floor, along with some local engineers and surveyors
(including Andy Byce and hi s partner, Boyce Winkwiak) who worked out of the jack-
son building. “White-Co llar Walt” March was a main shaker in the local chapter of
the America n Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the barga ini ng agent for
many of the federal workers across northern Minnesota and Wisconsin . March also
rented space in the jackson Bu ilding. His travels kept h im from spending much time
there, but most days you cou ld find his assista nt, Guy Strum i, in the AFGE office.
one side was the USDA’s Soi l Conserva tion Service office. Down the corridor was where
the Agriculture Extension field-workers hung out w hen they weren’t criss-crossing the
region ” jawing” w ith mink or pou ltry ranchers. From the SCDC offices going the other
way, you reached the doo r of the USDA program coordinator, Roman Drnda.
administered the Socia l Security disability program, Medicaid, and so forth . “The wel-
fare ” was a collective term used by most St. Croix residents when they referred to
employees of the federa l Department of Health and Human Services. “The welfare”
folks from HHS also worked in close coordina tion w ith state and county officers
administering shared programs such as the old federal-state Aid to Families with
Dependent Children program . Next to “the welfa re” were offices for food stamps and
the local Commodity Credit Corporation, both USDA programs. Traffic to and from the
CCC was especia lly heavy at planting and harvest times, when farmers signed up for
federal crop subsidy p rogra m s, and agai n toward the end of the growing year, when
they returned to claim benefits under the CCC’s nonrecourse loan programs.2
course they all knew about th e looming problem that would end up touching every-
one in the St. Croix-th e Impending RIF in the USDA.
ture have taken the form of loans made to farmers on the understanding that all or part of the debt Incurred
would be forgiven If the farmer’s crop didn’t fetch a specified price at harvest time. In that event, the U.S.
government would ·have no recourse'” to the money that the farmer cou ld keep as a form of price support.
In 1996, Congress passed a law changing the structure of the price-support program. The new legislation
provides for a slow phaseout of many forms of nonrecourse loans.
years in agricu lture. Early in his career, he’d moved from extension work in Iowa, Min-
nesota, and Wisconsin to a stint w ith the American Farm Bureau Federation (the
nation’s leading agribusiness trade association and lobbying organization). From the
AFBF Drnda had gone on to a job at one of the University of M innesota’s agricultural
research stations. Drnda had th en worked in the USDA’s Washington headquarters
office befo re moving in to his present position. As county coordinator of all farm pro-
grams in a troubled area of the country, Drnda in effect fu nctioned as the local
spokesperson, ch ief negotiator, and occasional “hatchet man” for Secretary of Agri-
cu lture Nyby himself.
growth in the region. the rumored RIF order also became the official concern of Anton
Kurvaszy in hi s capacity as plann ing director of the St. Croix Development Commis-
sion. Drnda had asked Kurvaszy. representing the SCDC; Dagmar Blaine of Congress-
woman Moe’s staff; and Chris Clairy from the office of Wisconsin state senator Ben
Loffel to meet informally at the Golden Gopher Grill for a discussion of the expected
cutback order. As a courtesy to Walt March, Drnda also included Guy Strumi. And at
Anton Kurvaszy ‘s req uest, Mary Martengrove would also attend, bringing the number
at the Golden Gopher meeting to six.
In farming circles around the country, there’s a familiar joke:
Independence Avenue in Washington, next to the USDA building, weeping
uncontrollably. A compassionate passerby asks the official what hap-
pe ned. T he bureaucra t replies: “My farmer died.”
Over th e years since the sell -off of the herds, the overall population in the St.
steadily decl ined. All the w hile, the number of USDA technical special ists remained as
it had been w hen many t imes the curren t number of farm ers were being se rviced.
Meanwhile, the number of USDA employees w ho performed socia l service functions
was increasing apace with the increased need to administer federally supported relief
programs (food stamps and the rest). People in th e know realized that the personnel
trend had long alarmed the bureaucracy watchers in Washington, especially among
the would-be b udget cutters in Congress.
after com mi ssion has recommended that we downsize Agricultu re. For years, con-
gressmen and congresswomen horsetraded wi th one anoth er to protect USDA offices
and jobs in their districts. No longer, I’m afraid.”
Moe] herse lf this morning on the phone. Nyby’s signing the RIF order today. That
means Ellen w ill get her courtesy advance soon, maybe tomorrow …. ”
mental secretary ‘consults’ with them before closi ng facilities in their districts. W hat
that means is, the secretary se nd s a copy of the orders before they go to th e field.”
Blaine laughed. “The M .C. makes the announcement w hen there’s a new facility
Secretary of Agriculture Nyby-put out the na sty news. T hen the M.C. blasts the
action as ‘heartless, ill-advised, penny-wise-and-pound-foolish … .’ Pick any other
adjectives. ”
Ornda.
job-to decide who wou ld be fired.
employees, in all. in th e St. Croix. Scheduled retiremen ts, combined wi th clear lines of
bumping rights, shou ld make the RIF pretty straightforward for the very-senior peo-
ple, the very-junior peop le, and for the clerica ls and custodi als. Everyone alrea dy
knows who’l l have to go (the newes t workers) or w ho ‘s already plan ning to go (pe nd-
ing retirees, whose attrition shou ld pretty mu ch give us our quota of layoffs, at least
in those categories) . The tough problem is with thirty- nine APTs we have in grades
GS-9 through GS- 14. On the 1- in-3 basis, thirteen of those thirty- nin e wi ll be let go.
Of those thirty- nin e, however, seven arc service veterans. For pra ctica l purposes, th eir
jobs are protected-unless, of course, some of them are put in special competitive lev-
els of their own.
problematic cases. Those thirty- two w ill have to take the entire 1-out-of-3 hit as we
downsize from our thirty-nin e APTs to a staff of twenty – six. The question is: Who
should be let go? Or-what’s almost the sa me question-what kinds of jobs sho uld
the remaining APT staff be tailored to perform in the St . Croix after all th e ripple effects
of the RIF have washed away?”
thirteen individual s among the thirty-two nonveterans who , after bumping, are likely
to lose their jobs” (sec Table 2. 1) .
der, veteran’s statu s (or lack of it) , and job category: an F for workers w ho spend time
mostly in the field givi ng hands-on advice to farmers, fur ranchers, and silvicu ltural-
ists; an A for administrative employees who special ize in office-based paperwork-
processing price-support and acreage-reduction forms for subsidies, and the like; an
S for employees in social wo rk, such as the second-floor workers in the food stamp
group or the WIC co un se lors. (Women, Infants, and Children, a program for nutri-
ti ona l supplements). Ornda ‘s worksheet also showed each worker’s job location by
state, years of se rvice, and average of the last three performan ce ratings on t he stan-
d ard federa l civil se rvice 1-5 sca le. And although he worried about crea ting a wr itten
record of factors that might be inappropriate to consider in th e impending RIF, Ornda
had also added marks showing which workers are Native Americans or members of
other minority groups.
Employees
Schedule M / F Job Average Job Performance Regis ter
Abernaz 14 M. V F MN 26 s +20 46
Morton 9 M,V F WI 24 3 +12 36
Angiulio 13 M. V s WI II 4 + 16 29
Ntaba’ 13 M V F MN 2S 2 2S
Quirk 9 M.V A MN 12 3 +12 24
Hackney 14 M,V s MN IS 2 IS
Murchlsan 7 M,V F W I 7 2 7
Two Bear’ 13 M F WI 21 4 + 16 37
Zerbe II M F MN 18 4 +16 34
Madison 9 M F WI II 3 +12 33
llaberler 9 F s MN 21 3 +12 33
Phalt z II M A MN 20 3 +12 32
Eagle’ 12 F s WI 10 s + 20 30
Pink 9 F F MN 14 4 + 16 30
Soren son II M A MN 14 3 +12 26
Farnsworth 12 M F WI 9 4 +16 2S
l.2hJlliul 9 F s W I 3 3 + 12 I S
~· II F A MN 3 3 + 12 IS
Ed~l~v~l:i:i 10 F s WI 2 3 +12 14
~· 12 M F WI II 2 I I
S!Y[div~n 9 F A WI 8 2 8
Ss::bm~i[~[ 9 F A WI 6 2 6
~ 9 F F MN 2 2 2
thirty-two are listed in descending order on th e retention register, assuming that we
lump everyone into a single competitive level.”
jargon.
(see Box 2.2). “A retention register,” he told Mary, “is the listing of people subject to a
RIF, gradua ted according to their level of protection, from the highest-ranked individ-
uals in a ‘compet itive level’ to the lowest. The competitive level is the listing of all
those workers who have roughl y substitutable skills. By definition, anyone in a com-
petitive level shou ld be able to make a transition into anyone else’s job within that
level. Anyone can bump a worker in the same competitive level if that worker has a
lower retenti on rank.” Kurvaszy pointed to the bottom of Drnda’s worksheet: “The last
thirteen names, the underlined ones, have no one beneath them to bump. They’re the
thirteen w ho will have to go.”
Drnda answered Mary. “Civil service rules award a tenured worker-that is,
ernmen t employment- I point for each year of service. Then you add a credit based
on the worker’s average job performance over recent rating periods. The retention
rank is the seniority score plus the performance credit.”
be rs on Drnda’s worksheet, Dagmar Blaine addressed Drnda: “Okay, Roman. Is this
meeting for real, or just a charade? Have you already made your decision about who’s
going to get RIFfed, and thi s coffee-klatsch is rea ll y just a sociable way to tell us which
of our constituents are going to lose their jobs?” Blai ne pointed at the underlined
names on Drnda’s worksheet: “Poor Hepburn, and johnson, and the others on you r
li st of the luckless . ”
of you can come up with a better way to run this RIF, I’d like to know it. Alii ask is, you
don’t divulge this tentative information, which is just a straw man for planning pur-
poses, to anyone bu t your own principals.” In other words, Dagmar Blaine could talk
the entire problem over with Congresswoman Moe; Chris Clairy could talk with Sen-
ator Loffel; and Guy Strumi could confer with Walt March. But none of the attendees
at the Golden Gopher coffee-klatsch was to leak names of probable layoff candidates
to the press, or even to tell the vulnerable employees about their place on Drnda’s list.
finger toward the bottom ca tegory on Drnda’s list: “The way you have it set up,
Roman, eight or nine of the people to be RIFfed would be from the Wisconsin side,
ju st because they’re junior. Look at the list. Most of those are women or Native Amer-
icans, or they have excellent performance records-a lot better than the records of
some of the more-senior people, w ho’ ll use pure longevity to bump better workers.”
ness. “There ‘s nothing definite yet-nothing, of course, except (if our advance word
is right) that thirteen people wi ll have to go. If you want to change my list, which is
only a draft, tell me how. ”
ited by personnel laws. They are also controlled by civil service regulations, which
have the force of law, and often by the terms of contracts negotiated with government
employees’ unions. These too are lega lly binding.
areas within which federal employees will compete for the jobs that remain after a
RIF-be designated within all federal agencies and departments. Each competitive
area (I) must embrace a definable geographic region and (2) must have a reasonable
organizational rationale. Two units from different departments of government-say
from the Agriculture Department and from Health and Human Services-can’t share
a competitive area even if they have offices in the same region or, for that matter, in
the same building. A competitive area also must encompass a single “local commut-
ing area.” According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) RIFfing handbook:
lation center and the surrounding communities in which people live and rea-
sonably travel back and forth to work.
employee within each competitive area and, strictly on the basis of these descriptions,
must group interchangeable positions into competitive levels. Another pertinent pro-
v ision from the OPM handbook reads:
the employee’s personal qualifications.
etc.), but are not identical , may be placed in the same competitive level if the
position descriptions show that each emp loyee wou ld need less th an 90 days to
perform the key tasks of the other position.
every worker on the list-whether an F. an A, or an S-as i nterchangeable with every
other one. Wa s that a defensible judgment? Or might the difficulty of an F worker’s
transition to an A or an S worker’s duties subject a RIF that Ornda runs under that
arrangement to challenge in court, based on the charge that it violated the rule of
interchangeable positions?)
retention registers by rank-ordering i ndividuals within each level using a format
minutely prescribed in 5 CFR I, subpart E, sections 35 I .501-35 1.506. The handbook
is explicit: “Tenure is the most important factor [when determining an individual’s
rank order for a layoff] while performance is the least important factor.” Think that
one over a while!
RIFfing process, career workers compete against career workers, political appointees
compete against other po litica l appointees, probationary workers (who haven’t yet
gained civil service tenure) compete against their counterparts, and so forth. Next,
with in each tenure group, veterans are subgrouped for preferential treatment. Under
most conditions, a veteran can bump a nonveteran , even if the latter has more expe-
rience and higher performance ratings. Third, individuals in each subgroup are listed
in order of seniority. Finally, excellence in performance is reflected by adding a seniority-
equivalent number to certain individuals ‘ rankings-an additional twenty years’ credit
for workers who averaged the highest performance rankings in recent job evalua tions
(performa nce ra ting of 5), sixteen years for a 4, and twelve years for a 3.
a lower-ranking employee on the retention register, provided that the displacement
occurs ( 1) w ithin the sa me competi tive level; (2) within a specified number of civil ser-
vice grade levels, norma lly three-meaning. for example, that a GS-13 usuall y may not
bump a GS-5; (3) into a job for which the bump ing employee can be fully qualified
after no more than ninety days of training (the aforementioned interchangeability
requirement); and (4) into a pos ition that is not covered by a special exception. Sec-
tio n 351.607 of the federal RIFfi ng regulations specifics the most important exception:
retain an employee on duties that cannot be taken over wi thin 90 days and with-
out undue interruption to the activity by an employee with higher retent ion
standing.
cove r all employees between GS-9 and GS-14 , inclusive, instead of confining the level
to workers within three civil service grades of one another. Here too, as with Drnda’s
parameter change concerning interchangeable positions, it’s the reasonableness of
Drnda’s judgment that could become a crucial issue if a cha llenger were to contest hi s
RIFfing procedure. What do you t hink?)
“Why not make two competitive levels?” Clairy asked. “Use one level for every-
~linnesotans could bump junior ones in Minnesota, but they couldn ‘t bust out junior
people on the Wisconsin side. We’d end up with roughly eq ual sharing of the layoffs
by people from both states. That’s fair.”
” Roman , look at the way your li st ends up RIFfing not only disproportionate numbers
on the Wisconsin side but also people on the welfare and service ends of the work-the
very ones we need most as long as the St. Croix continues on the economic downside.”
agricu lture programs-the officia ls, for example, who evaluate local farmers’ applica-
tions for crop subsidies-had sen iority over ad m inistrators and caseworkers in the
welfare areas. On average, workers with Fs on Drnda ‘s list had been in the USDA har-
distress in th e area. The way Drnda had approached t he ranking, the variations in the
patte rns of longevity on the job co uldn ‘t help but cau se di sproportionate hurt to social
workers-those coded S on Ornda’s list.
rule of se lection, Roman.”
observatio n. “You ‘re right. Eve n though the regu lations favor se niority, th ey don ‘t
req ui re us to put our brain s entirely in cold storage! We can ‘t do this RIF thing in a
vacuu m. ” Th e nature o f USDA w ork in the St . Croix w as changing. Arguably, the
depart ment didn ‘t need all t hose agricultural technician s any more. Drnda’s reten tion
register would guarantee co ntinu ed employmen t fo r people with the traditional USDA
skills, even th ough th ey weren ‘ t needed as much in th e region as they had been in the
old days. Drnda’s listi ng would also result in the RIFfing of workers with expertise and
(presumably) interest in socially oriented jobs.
wondered out loud if it w ou ld reall y be so easy for senior technicians-agronomists,
crop specia lists, soil experts, and so forth -to take over the work of t he more-juni or
socia l service p rofessionals w hom , under Drnda’s scheme, th e technicians might
b ump.
vice profess iona ls w ho do more and more of the work of the depa rtm ent from being
bu mped by workers w ith more se niority b ut less critical skill s, w hy not put th e Fs, As,
and Ss in se para te competiti ve levels?”
explai ned: “The more co mpetit ive levels we crea te, the few er individuals w ho can
b ump others, sin ce each on e is competing w ithin a sma ll er group. That gives us bet-
ter con trol over the outcom e. At th e extre me, if you could put every worker in hi s or
her own competitive level , yo u co uld pretty much choose w hom to lay off by decla r-
ing ce rta i n competitive leve ls super flu ous. By d efin iti on, a re leased individual could –
n ‘t bump a worker lowe r down in the register becau se there wouldn ‘t be anyone else
in that spec ific individu al ‘s category to bump! ”
co nveyed that he would be leery of a retention register that contain ed too many co m-
petitive levels.
over, ” he sa id in closing. ”I’ll be fooling wi th th is retention register all day to morrow.
Give me a ca ll if yo u have fu rther reactions, or if you ca n th ink of a better way to
approach all th is.”
The next day, Mary asked Kurvaszy: ” Wha t kind of manager wa nts to eliminate
Mary con fessed th at she didn ‘t understand why Drnda seemed w illing to let abstract
ru les, abstractly applied, decide w hich wo rkers would remain to staff the USDA orga-
ni zatio n in th e St. Croix region.
formers on a staff? Then the worst ones? And then design the retention register so
that, when the required number of people are laid off and all bumping rights have
been exercised, the best have been protected, and the duds are the ones elimi nated?
Why not use a little discrimination when defining interchangeable positions and com-
petitive levels?”
lematical, and his almost-perceptible wincing at the word discrimination suggested
what one of them might be.
Kurvaszy acknowledged. “Any other way, any attempt to ‘game’ the process, and a
manager ‘s open to appeals through the higher echelons in the department, through
the civil service system appeals process-that’s run by OPM itself-and, of course,
through the courts.”
RIFfing rules is to prevent the person who runs the operation from exercising personal
control-and to prevent the abuse tha t can go with so much control. ” The RIFfing pro-
cedure, Kurvaszy added-and especially the requirement to collect slots into compet-
itive levels based strictly on job descriptions, not on the performance records of the
people filling existing positions-had been designed to keep an administrator from
rigging a RIF to favor particular individuals.
process closely. So, of course, do the affected workers-and so do their lawyers, if
it comes to that. Any listing of retention entitlements has to comply with the rules.
Managers aren’t supposed to gimmick-up a RIF for the purpose of beating the ten-
ure protections of the more-sen ior workers. There have to be reasonable justifica-
tions for any departures from the RIFfing rules, read in the most straightforward way.
If a RIF manager bends th e rules too far, he or she will ju st land the department in
court.
way to protect the best workers, but it sti ll may be best from the bureaucratic stand-
point. Like it or not, it’s not necessarily unreasonable for a RIF manager to take the
line of least resistance. I agree with you, ” Kurvaszy admitted, “that’s what Roman
seems to be doing here. ju st line ‘e m up using the simplest imaginable ranking pro-
cedure-that ‘s what Roman’s done; then shoot as many hostages as the boss orders,
making no judgments about whom should be spa red. So-as Dagmar Blaine pointed
out-poor Hepburn and Johnson and the others among the unprotected thirteen lose
out.” He added that, if Mary cou ld devise a better way, Drnda -whose life had been
devoted to the cause of American agriculture and those who worked in it-would
su rel y be happy to hear about it.
breakout of compet itive levels. Table 2.2 shows the alternative retention register that
Mary, after some playing with the names and numbers, came up with.
Anton looked at the names Mary had underlined on her suggested alternative
Schedule M/ F Job Average Job Performance Regis ter
Abernaz 14 M,V F MN 26 s + 20 46
Morton 9 M,V F WI 24 3 + 12 36
Ntaba’ 13 M V F MN 2S 2 2S
Murchisan 7 M,V F WI 7 2 7
1\vo Bear’ 13 M F WI 21 4 +16 37
Zerbe I I M F MN 18 4 +16 34
Madison 9 M F WI I I 3 +12 33
Houlihan II M F MN 19 3 + 12 3 1
Pink 9 F F MN 14 4 +16 30
Farn:iWQ[tb 12 M F WI 9 4 +16 2S
Beckel 9 M F MN 9 3 +12 21
~ 9 F F MN 2 2 2
Angiulio 13 M,V s WI II 4 +16 29
Hackney 14 M, V s MN IS 2 IS
Haberler 9 F s MN 21 3 + 12 33
Eagle’ 12 F s WI 10 s +20 30
Praski 9 F s MN 6 3 + 12 18
Hepburn’ 9 F s WI I 4 +16 17
Johnson 9 F s WI 3 3 + 12 IS
Kin sallas 9 F s MN 3 3 + 12 IS
Edelweiss 10 F s WI 2 3 +12 14
QQiWl’ I I F s WI 10 2 10
Smatb~:r~· I I M s MN 7 2 7
M.9.D.ley’ 10 M s WI 3 2 3
APT Competitive Level 3: Interchangeable A Skills
Quirk 9 M,V A MN 12 3 + 12 24
Pha lt z I I M A MN 20 3 + 12 32
Satter I I M A WI 8 s + 20 28
Sorenson I I M A MN 14 3 + 12 26
Lob lick 10 F A WI 7 4 + 16 23
West 13 M A WI 21 2 2 1
Laurie’ I I F A MN 3 3 +12 IS
Sll.m;!i~~D 9 F A WI 8 2 8
centrate the layoffs w here the demand for skilled workers is thinnest, am ong the field
technicians, the Fs.”
though she’s been a good, loyal DA type for more than a dozen years and ha s a fine
work record, … and ha s a retention register total of 30. Wh ile”-Anton scanned
Mary’s worksheet, looking for a compari son case to make his point-“while Lisa Hep-
burn, a brand-new worker at the same grade as Pink, but with a register total bare ly
more than half of Pink’s, keeps her job ju st because it carries a ·social w ork’ code!”
As bargaining agent for most of the organ ized federa l workers in the four-county
and Wisconsin. He listened as Guy Strumi described Drnda’s tentative retention reg-
ister. Guy went on to fi ll March in on the alternative approach that Anton Kurvaszy
and Kurvaszy’s new assistant, Mary Martengrove, had suggested. Strumi referred to
the plans, respectively, as th e “inclusive” retention register (Table 2.1) and the “dis-
criminating” three- level register (Table 2.2).
be thrown into a single competiti ve leve l. Veterans wou ld be protected. Bumping
wou ld proceed until only thirteen workers remain who have no one below them to dis-
place. Under Mary Martengrove’s alternative, the retention registers would be drawn
up in a way that discriminates among the three kinds of wo rkers: field-workers, social
workers, and straight admi ni strators. In other words, the Fs, Ss, and As would have
separate registers, preventing cross-b umping. The justification suggested by Kurvaszy
and Martengrove a t the Golden Gopher meet ing had bee n that a higher percentage of
Fs could be let go under the discriminating approach than under the inclusive plan.
Anton and Mary had reasoned that fieldwork-that is, providing extension services to
working farmers-seemed al most superfluous under curren t conditions. As Kurvaszy
had pu t it, the shrinkage in the farm population had made w hat many of the Fs used
to do alm ost irrelevant, w hi le hard times were making the work of the Ss-food
stamps, WIC outreach-more vital than ever before.
area’s USDA workers, as among federal employees generally, actual card-carrying,
dues-paying membership in unions had long been patchy and irregular. It happened
that the more-senior USDA workers in the St. Croix area-Drnda’s Fs-constituted the
co re orga n ized group, whi le most Ss had decided no t to join the union. The As were
evenly split; SO percent were AFGE members, SO percent were not. Walt March under-
stood the mechanisms (a nd all the tricks) of a RIF, and he could see what might be in
store for his members, depending on the RIFfing approach that Drnda finally used.
Under th e inclusive approach, March ‘s members’ jobs would mostly be protected-
although that wou ldn’t have been any part of Drnda’s reason for going with Table 2.1.
By contrast, the discriminating approach would end u p RIFfing Fs and effectively
favoring th e nonunionized Ss.
cri minating approach after he had thought through all the twists, since-as Kurvaszy
suited to the current USDA mission in the region. March knew Roman Drnda well. He
told Strumi that Drnda wouldn’t be prejudiced against a better way of running the RIF
just because someone else had suggested it. Drnda wasn’t afflicted by th e “not
invented here ” syndrome.
sive retention register and adopt th e more discriminating approach?”
tentatively.
the bottom line for a union negotiator in the private sector is the threat of a strike. But
things arc different in federal government collective bargaining. The ultimate sanc-
tion against management-in this case, against Roman Drnda and Drnda’s boss, Sec-
retary Nyby-is the threat of litigation. A willingness to litigate shows gumption on
the union leader’s part, demonstrates the solidarity of the membership, and warns
management not lightly to mess with workers’ rights.
March said: “My thinking now, off the top of my head, is this: On the merits, the
nating plan wou ld be. Furthermore, we’d probably lose if we sued to keep Drnda from
RIFfing on the basis of the discriminating, three-level plan.”
to litigate on this RIF-tie ·em up in court, let everyone know we don’t mean to go
quietly while they cut back all over the federal government. Sue the bastards!-
whether Drnda uses the inclu sive or the discriminating plan.”
now and then. Cutbacks were never to be conceded-even when a leader, such as
March, knew in his heart of h earts that some personnel trimming has become
unavoid
and for political effect, I’d rather sue if Drnda goes with the inclusive plan than with
the discriminating one.” After all , the aim of a suit would be to make a gesture. All
other things being equa l, March obviously would prefer to litigate in a case that the
union actually had a chance to win. Legally, a stronger case could sure ly be made
against the inclusive plan than against the discriminating, three-level approach. A
RIFfing plan, if litigated, would have to pass what lawyers call “the test of reason-
ableness,” and a judge might well find the discriminating approach to be the more
reasonable one because it would permit patterns of layoff (of Fs) and retentions (of
faced a grea ter risk of losing a case brought to block implementation of the discrimi-
nating retention register even though implementation of the inclu sive register wou ld
be less harmful to the immediate interests of March’s union members.
approach for a federal judge to void a RIF run on the basis of Drnda’s original reten-
tion register. (See, for example, the doubts about Drnda’s methods mentioned in Box
2.2 .) One problem from March ‘s viewpoint was that the blanket threat of a lega l chal-
lenge might give Drnda the nudge to scrap Table 2.1 and draw up retention registers
in closer conformity with the spirit of civil service rules and current USDA personnel
needs in th e four-cou nty region . On the other hand, for any number of reasons, Drnda
could decide to proceed with his original , inclusive retention regi ster, especially if he
didn’t think that a RIF based on Table 2. 1 would face a challenge in court. Table 2.1
wou ld certa i nly be simpler to administer than Table 2.2 . That might be grounds
enough for Drnda to favo r it if he thought he wouldn’t have to worry about defending
the inclusive approach before a federal judge.
RIFfing rules unless he suspects the u nion wi ll take him to court.”
court, no matter which approach he takes. The worst strategy-at lea st from the
union’s standpoint-would be if Drnda goes with the discriminating plan and we just
si t by without acting. That would give Drnda a free ride. He’d go ahead and RIF peo-
ple w ho are counting on the union to protect them. Next worse would be for us to
go for an injunction against the discriminating plan, sin ce we’d be more likely to
lose. Still in all, if we sue-even if we lose-we’ll salvage credibility, both with the
USDA muckety-mucks and w ith our own members. That’s probably better than doing
nothing.”
March’s rather twisty- turny reasoning: ” I hear you saying that you’d prefer ‘going
quietly’-not litigating-under the inclusive plan rather than litigating under the dis-
criminating plan .”
inclusive plan rather than accepting the RIF quietly, even on the inclu sive plan. And
we’d prefer going quietly under the discriminating plan least of all.”
Late in the afternoon of the day after the Golden Gopher meeting, Roman Drnda
Chris Cla iry over Drnda’s initial plan for the RIF. After some time Drnda recradled the
phone, his head shaking and ears burning. Mary Martengrove was visiting in Drnda’s
office at the time. Kurva szy-though somewhat skeptical of Mary’s plan-had told her
to show the three-way breakout to Drdna as a possible alternative.
the senator’s dander up over the ‘unfairness ‘ of my RIF plan, ” Drnda explained to
Mary.
senatoria l district. Mary knew of Loffel’s long hi sto ry of su pport for affirmative action
programs. Hi s efforts had helped dozens of kids like herself get through college and
into good jobs. Mary had grown up in Min nesota, but had she been a Wisconsin
native, she might well have gone to Eau Cla ire u nder one of the in-state scholarship
programs that Senator Loffel had fought through Wisconsin’s state legislature. Fur-
thermore, Loffel’s aides-including Chris Clairy-had always tried to help the benefi-
ciaries of the senator’s educational programs when it came time to move on into
entry-level government jobs. A high percentage of these Loffel proteges were (like
Mary) women, Native Americans, or both. Und er Drnda’s tentative RIFfing plan, a dis-
proportionate number of Loffel’s proteges-Wisconsin-based jobholders-would be
bumped out of work.
Golden Gopher meeting: Protect workers in each state separately. Since the seniority’s
mostly in the Fs, and it just happens that the Fs are mostly in Minnesota, the best way
to protect junior Wisconsi n people is by giving them their own competitive level so
Minnesotans can’t bump ’em.”
ing a sheet from its output tray. “Here’s Loffel’s idea of a •fair’ retention register” (see
Table 2.3).
By coincidence “the sisters,” as they ca lled themselves, met in the same booth
impending RIF a few days earlier. Lief Pink had been in the Larch City Big Sister pro-
gram w hen she was in high school, w ith Bobbie Boo as her charge. Bobbie became
Li sa Hepburn’s big sister a few years later. The three remained close despite the dif-
ferences in their ages. When Lisa ca me back home for visits from her Ag Department
position across the bridge in W isconsin, the sisters often got together for coffee and
gossip. All three held USDA jobs; all three knew of the impending RIF; and all three
knew that th eir names were on a retention register somewhere.
ways of the civil service. She didn’t like one bit w hat she surmised must be going on
over at Roman Drnda’s office. Lief-a federally funded extension agent specializing in
dairy, sheep, and goat herd management-didn’t care for the thought that Drnda had
probably red uced her fo urteen years of exemplary service to a single statistic, her
standing on an impersonal retention register.
means one of us will go.” Which one? Lief knew that it wou ld depend pretty much on
the way Roman Drnda drew the retention registers. To her, that came close to saying
that the decision about their jobs would be arbitrary.
sation. By dint of extrao rdin ary grit and sacrifice, Lisa had scraped her way to a two-
year’s associate degree in management science at a local community college, after
which she won a perma nent job in the USDA. Lisa’s family, trappers in the winter and
Levels
Schedu le M/F Job Average Job Performance Register
Abernaz 14 M,V F MN 26 5 + 20 46
Ntaba’ 13 M V F MN 25 2 2S
Quirk 9 M, V A MN 12 3 +12 24
Hackney 14 M,V s MN IS 2 IS
Zerbe II M F MN 18 4 +16 34
Haberler 9 F s MN 21 3 +t2 33
Phaltz II M A MN 20 3 +12 32
Houlihan II M F MN 19 3 +12 31
Pink 9 F F MN 14 4 +16 30
Sorenson II M A MN 14 3 +12 26
Jones, F 12 M A MN 13 3 +12 2S
Jones, B 10 M F MN 21 2 2 1
Beckel 9 M F MN 9 3 +12 2 1
Praski 9 F s MN 6 3 +12 18
Lauric’ II F A MN 3 3 +12 IS
ISin~alla ~ 9 F s MN 3 3 +12 IS
Smathers’ II M s MN 7 2 7
~ 9 F F MN 2 2 2
Morton 9 M,V F WI 24 3 + 12 36
Angiulio 13 M,V s WI II 4 +16 29
Murchisan 7 M, V F WI 7 2 7
Two Bear’ 13 M F WI 21 4 +16 37
Madison 9 M F WI II 3 +12 33
Eagle’ 12 F s WI 10 s + 20 30
Safter II ~I A WI 8 s + 20 28
Farnsworth 12 M F WI 9 4 +16 2S
Loblick 10 F A WI 7 4 +16 23
West 13 M A WI 21 2 21
Dernbach 14 F F WI 18 2 18
Hepburn’ 9 F s WI I 4 +16 17
Johnson 9 F s WI 3 3 +12 IS
Charles’ II M A WI 3 3 +12 IS
Edelweis~ 10 F s WI 2 3 +12 14
Cloudie’ 12 1\1 F WI II 2 II
Sturdiven 9 F A WI 8 2 8
Schmcircr’ 9 F A WI 6 2 6
first woman from the band’ to complete a degree; she was a role model for all the
younger girls.
bumpable, depending on how they draw the retention register.” None of the three sis-
ters uttered the thoughts they all had about “Lisa the ‘twofer.'” As both a woman and
a Native American, Lisa Hepburn counted for two credi ts in the affirmative action
ledger that everyone thought existed in the locked drawer of a shadowy personnel
manager somewhere in the civil service. Of course, any filling of affirmative action
“quotas” was illegal , and USDA officials denied that personnel decisions were ever
made on any bases other than seniority and merit. Nevertheless, most lower-level
workers suspected that considerations of “political correctness” figured subtly in pro-
cedures for appointment, advancement, and separation.
every bit as much as Bobbie and Lisa did-explained the ins and outs of a RIF to the
other two: what “competitive areas,” “commut ing areas,” “competitive levels,” and
the rest meant and how the system worked in practice.
crop-farmers’ acreage- limitation applications. With eight years of tenured service,
Bobbie thought herself too far into a government career to consider a switch, and yet
she recognized her vu lnerability to bumping from above. Furthe rmore, Bobbie recog-
nized that her job skills would have relatively little carryover to nongovernment work
if she were among the 1 in 3 who would bear the burden of the RIF and so would have
to look for jobs outside the civil se rvice.
about us as persons. instead of just names on lists?”
Across the alley from the Golden Gopher in his jackson Building office, Roman
from Washington to tell Drnda that he’d better get on with it. The RIF order was offi-
cial. Nyby had prodded Drnda: ”If ’tis done, ’twere well it were done quickly.”
much appreciated that the underlined names stood for rea l people, not for impersonal
slots in a table of organization. Drnda’s eyes flicked to the corner of his desk, where
the RIFfing rules lay waiting for a final check over, lest his decision go too far afou l of
any official requirement. Drnda knew that the boss was right: It was time to do what
he had to do.
bands. Each band has a geographic base. Lisa Hepburn Clike 1\.lary M.:lrtengrovel belongs to the Thunder
of the case.
what actions? Bearing in mind that situational factors are all-important in case
analysis, what circumstances of the action and conditions of the agents should be
kept in mind when pondering the steps that the figures in the case should take?
organizational mission and organizational rules-present itself in this case? How
should the changing pattern of demand for USDA services-a decreasing need for
extension work, although technical assistance has traditionally been the focus of
USDA employee skills-condition the way that Drnda manages the RIF? In what
forms (if any) do the concerns we’ve tdenufied in relation to underdetermination and
overdetermination enter into the case?
gation, strategic interaction, and so forth-seem most likely to be helpful to the fig-
ures in the case? Which of these terms best describes the situation in which Roman
Drnda and Walt March find themselves? How should Drnda react when he gets
wind of the strategy that March seems bent on using (namely, “go to court no mat-
ter which RIFfing strategy Drnda uses”)? What do you think of the arguments
March gives Guy Strumt for adopting this highly combative strategy? Since “cir-
cumstances make the case,” what changes in the givens of the scenario might mod-
ify your views regarding the courses of action that Drnda and March should take?
teristically apply to civil servtce personnel actions. Which of the following criteria
should a supervisor like Roman Drnda seek primarily to satisfy in an era of cutback
management: performance of the agency (the mission), scrupulous adherence to
ch’il service rules, compassion for workers who suddenly become vulnerable to
layoffs, or deference to persons (such as sponsors in Congress) whose support may
be needed to sustain the agency over the long haul? Taking Drnda’s situation as an
instance of an overdetermined admmtstrath•e problem, what uses might he make
of such techniques as priority setting, parameter changing, and policy adjusting?
Manengroves (Table 2.2), or Senator Loffels (Table 2 .3)-can be supported \vith
the most persuasive arguments? “Discuss and defend”; justify your selection.
cerns of employees like “the sisters”? If you were running a RIF, would you try to
keep the process impersonal and manage it by the numbers, or would you “put
faces on the procedure” by trying to gain knowledge of individuals’ specific situ-
ations? What do you see as the main pros and cons of each approach?
sively a nd over the longest stretch of years–going b ack at least to the period of the civil
service re fo rme rs. Thus it isn ‘t s urprising that a well-developed literature exists. Som e
of the best overv1ews o f the subject are
Lo ngman , 1991).
Peacoc k, 1991).
De kker, 1992).
is
this is still probably the best, most readable introdu ctory essay on PPA.
late 1950s) is
son , 1958).
is panic u larly helpfu l on the id eologica l a nd moral motivations of the civi l service
reform e rs:
Press, 1982).
ington: Brookings Institution , 1977).
ability (Washington : Brookings Institution , 1995).
States are
Press, 1944).
Praege r, 198 1).
temporal) problems by two of most knowledgeable schola rs writing in this subfield
these days are
New Public Service,” 46 Publrc Adm!llrstmtron Review (March-Apn l 1989), 116.
can Federal Serv1ce: Rebuilding a Crumbling Base,” 50 Public Administration
Revle\\ (March- April l990), 210.
“It is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and the least possible cost either of money or of energy.” – Woodrow Wilson
Public Administration – The Profession and the Practice textbook.
“It is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and the least possible cost either of money or of energy.” – Woodrow Wilson
Public Administration – The Profession and the Practice textbook.
