Stimulating motivation and ensuring effective organization of employees within any properly functioning business enterprise or governmental agency are two elements of utmost importance to the operating entity's reputation, quality performance, client-satisfaction quotient and/or ultimate profitability. One vital function of personnel management theories and practices, therefore, is to ensure optimal efficiency through proven motivational practices, and to do so at minimal cost and with acceptable results, "getting the work done" through a system of accountability and delegation of authority (Lachance, 1999). This, however, can be viewed as a modern version of what seem to be goals and priorities of ‘personnel management' operational and managerial practices on the threshold of the new millennium. The current day system, acceptably ethical, effective and respected, evolved gradually out of relative chaos, corruption, trial and error.
The history in France, in the U.K., and in the United States of Personnel Management as a distinct managerial science is not entirely divorced from the political and social trends of the last two centuries in these three prominent and innovative nations. Successive waves of governing bodies, over a period of more than a century, heavily influenced agencies, ministries and departments, with direct implications for the private sector, as well, which frequently followed suit, particularly in the early days of personnel and employee practices.
In France, the concept of Personnel Management is closely related (and since the time of Napoleon always has been) to governmental service under the title of La Fonction Publique, i.e. The Civil Service. Gradually, governmental agencies grew to enormous proportions and their impact was also felt in the private world of commerce and business. Today, after a century and a half of administrative evolution, 36% of all public employees in France are connected with vital services to the civilian population (F.P.-Gouv, 1999). As in both the historical and contemporary private sector, they are governed by a set of rules and regulations which included many of the same changes and modifications implemented over the decades in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Yet, Personnel Management, as an administrative science, in France is highly developed and derives its modern basis in a number of social theories and paradigms, such as those developed by major 17th and 18th century socio-philosophers, including Rousseau, Montesquieu and Richelieu.
More contemporary efforts, of course, have followed on the heels of these early thinkers and, most recently, for example in November of 1996, Alain Juppé, Prime Minister, issued the latest in a long line of administrative decrees streamlining and simplifying personnel management and administrative policy in France (Juppé, 1996).
As if by osmosis, the private sector in France, consisting of major and smaller industries, responds, sometimes reluctantly, to new social legislation and administrative practices which can affect their internal structure and organization. Of course, not all French businesses organize their personnel management systems, nor have they historically, along government lines. However, the concepts, for example, of collective bargaining, and personal merit have long been integrated into industrial practices as well as within government ministries and agencies in France.
Across the channel, in the United Kingdom, it would be somewhat fanciful to say that fair play and fundamental employee rights have historically taken precedence over exploitative practices, since this has not always been the case. The Industrial Revolution in England was replete with well-publicized instances of employee abuse and the outright trampling of the basic rights of employees by today's standards. However, significant improvements, in the last several years, have been made in British Labor Law, such as the "The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998", preventing whistle-blowers from being terminated, and Parliament has sought to enforce all new regulations, in both public and private sectors, which further discourage abusive practices ( CCH, 1999). Amazingly, the United States does not have a whistle-blower protection statute effectively in place at this time. Nonetheless, the main values which motivate worker productivity and excellence in Britain today are patterned, to a large degree, after contemporary thinking in American business and governmental personnel circles, according to many observers.
Due to the influence of American thinking in the private and public sectors where major strides have been made in the area of Personnel Management in the last four decades, it is fitting to examine several key concepts which pertain largely to the United States, but which also have had an impact on Western European thinking, notably in France, the U.K. and in Germany. Of course, the history of Personnel Management in the United States, as in Europe, is built upon at least 170 years of experience and hard-won insight.
In the United States, the at least ‘semi-formal' concept of Personnel Management began to take shape under the administration of President John Quincy Adams, from 1825 to 1829, who recognized the need to structure the work of government employees (APDB, 1999). As was the case in Europe, businessmen were also closely watching the models and systems developed in the 1828 timeframe. The original pre-matrix type systems (OPM, 1982,III-16) were rudimentary in nature, but were further perfected under Andrew Jackson, America's seventh President, in the eight years of his presidency from 1829 to 1837. Although it had many disadvantages, he developed a patronage system which rewarded those who had previously volunteered their services to government agencies, or to his campaign, with permanent paid positions in his Administration.
As government began to grow larger, so did the bureaucracy associated with all of its services. The patronage positions created by Jackson began to form political machines which often became uncontrollable and non-functional. This system of personnel management was basically ‘responsive' to the needs of the majority of people, but its efficiency and reliability were never assured. It often became a ‘political football' with rewards for party loyalty, not related to the appointee's competence or knowledge.
Following the American patronage personnel system, which became quite controversial, the federal government's Civil Service (like in France) began to shift its operational priorities toward a Merit System based on knowledge, skills and ability. There had been a sense of outrage generated by the old patronage-spoils system, and President Chester A. Arthur, in 1883, ushered through Congress the important Pendleton Act which emphasized efficiency and ruled out political appointments in most civil service agencies (Grolier, 1999). It is important to keep in mind that, during all of these developments, the private sector's personnel management policies were also reflecting many of the same trends being used in government at all levels, whether federal, state, or local. As the Civil Service adopted non-political practices, an emphasis on scientific administration at the beginning of the 20th century began to surface. In fact, industrial systems like Taylorism were just around the corner. It is curious to note that, although efficiency was definitely a priority, individual rights were also becoming an important reality, since labor unions and organized actions were becoming influential in shaping policies directly affecting personnel management.
The Great Depression, FDR's New Deal, and World War Two, ranging from 1928 to the early 1950s, all influenced the development of Personnel Management immensely, whether in the United States or Western Europe. Events, often beyond the control of entire societies and nations, exerted pressure on existing systems and change resulted. The net effect of these changes can be grouped under the heading "administrative effectiveness" because they involved two characteristic components, namely scientific principles and political priorities, in order to achieve certain objectives. There were certain innovative and motivational improvements which developed during this time period, as outlined in Fobrum, Tichy and Devanna, many of which are still operative and "responsive" concepts in today's personnel and human resource management systems (1984).
Long removed from the relatively primitive notions of patronage and machine-politics, the 1970s and 1980s saw the development, both in the private sector (e.g. G.M., U.S. Steel, Westinghouse) and in U.S. government agencies (e.g. the Departments of Interior, Commerce and Labor) of Collective Bargaining. Under these principles, which were mirrored in France and the U.K. with particular prominence during these years, the terms and conditions of employment were set by contract negotiations between management and labor unions representing worker rights and interests. Although the 1960s saw the advent of collective bargaining, it did not reach its peak effectiveness in Personnel Management systems until the two following decades (Jackson et al., 1985, 585-592). When examining collective bargaining policies, applicable laws and delegation of authority in the private sector differ substantially from the federal governmental model. This is particularly the case when it comes to contract negotiations and grievance resolution. Corporations, according to my personal experience, are governed by laws actually permitting more worker rights than would seem to be the case in most government agency negotiating processes. Rules differ about strikes, lock-outs and other industrial actions. In some industries ‘binding wage contracts' are not legal, and in others such contracts are, in fact, even encouraged on both sides of the negotiating table. In recent years, in the United States there have been fewer "closed shops" and all workers can join a union, even in professional sectors such as teaching and health care.
Naturally, the effects on personnel structural models of collective bargaining were significant. Some positions within corporate, industrial and governmental hierarchies were eliminated, others were added. Priorities shifted and procedures were streamlined. Such notions as the critical path method (CPM) were introduced, during the 70s and 80s, into administrative departments as well as into physical production units (OPM, 1982, VI, 21-22) Diversification of programs, as in the case of Westinghouse described by Borucki, became fashionable and created a number of new, productive positions and opportunities for expansion which had not existed before these innovative strategies (1984).
In the United States, with similar implications for Western Europe due to the shifting ethnic profiles of many European nations as immigration influences their make-up, the advent of Affirmative Action legislation in the last 30 years has substantially changed the pre-existing patterns of employment and promotion. With Equal Employment Opportunity becoming law in the world's most influential industrialized super-power, the personnel and human resource landscape has not been quite the same as in previous decades. There was a belief, early in the 1960s, that a representative (public) bureaucracy was necessary, and this affected the private sector as well. Indeed, numerous court cases, based on violation of fundamental rights, have ‘educated' employers and personnel specialists to the potential dangers of trampling on the rights of minorities . Sometimes companies win employment discrimination law suits, based on Affirmative Action legislation; at other times, they lose heavily. In a fairly well-known case (Movement for Opportunity and Equality v. General Motors, 622F.2d 1235, 1980), a lengthy court battle was fought and ultimately won by GM, but only after colossal sums of capital were expended on extended litigation (OPM-Supplement, Oct 1980). Lessons such as this, whether or not minority groups win in court, have surely begun to influence decision-making within Personnel and Human Resource Departments.
Affirmative Action grew out of the Civil Rights and Feminist Movements of the 1960s, but it has recently become less powerful and may be dying in such states as California and Washington, where its underlying principle of ‘compensatory preference' is being increasingly challenged by irate majority members (Caucasian Males) whose positions have been taken from them by ostensibly ‘less qualified' minority members (Women, Hispanics, Blacks). It is ironic to note that demographically, in America, the once majority population (White Male and Female) is being outnumbered by the once minority groupings (Asian, Amerindian, Black and Hispanic Male and Female), which now comprise virtually 50% of the general population. The Year 2000 Census should be even more revealing in this sense. In the final analysis, however, personnel management models are being modified as a function of shifting perceptions of Affirmative Action legislation.
It is safe to say that, looking back over the history of personnel management in the USA, with tangential impact on Europe, that this field is truly in a constant state of flux. Current thinking reflects prevailing attitudes and priorities. At the moment, fairness doctrines seem to be in vogue and individual rights are not being blatantly violated in most western nations.
While most of what has been said above applies to the more narrowly defined field of Personnel Management, dealing specifically with employee rights, policies and procedures, the broader field of Human Resource Management should also be mentioned in passing. The functions of Human Resource Managers in both private and public sectors differ from those of classic Personnel specialists. Duties of HRM directors, after a period in recent decades of redefining, currently include, according to Gellerman and other more recent theorists: planning, budgeting, dividing tasks, salary determination, position management, sanctioning, development, orienting, training and motivating, among other broadly construed duties (1976). The field of Human Resource Management almost seems an outgrowth of classic personnel duties as they had developed from the era of Andrew Jackson's patronage system through the pre-Affirmative Action period.
Now, the field of HRM incorporates the latest in managerial thinking such as the Total Quality Management concepts developed by Deming (Principi, 1992), in a concerted attempt to improve the productivity and efficiency of entire firms which are, ultimately of course, dependent on the caliber and quality of their employees, and of their HRM department's planning and strategic capabilities.
Borucki, C., Childs, G. "Productivity and Quality", Chapter 22, in Strategic Human Resource Management (Fobrum, Tichy and Devanna), John Wiley and Sons, New York City, 1984.
CCH Editions, Ltd., Personnel Management News, Issue 36, July 1999, CCH News Release Link
Fobrum, C.J., Tichy, N.M., Devanna, M.A., Strategic Human Resource Management, John Wiley & Sons, New York City, 1984.
Gellerman, S. W. The Management of Human Resources, The Dryden Press, Hinsdale Illinois, 1976.
Grolier Encyclopedia, 1999. Grolier Citation Link
Jackson, J.H., Mathis, R.L. Personnel: Human Resource Management, 4th Edition, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, 1985.
Juppé, A. Government Reform Decree, Nov. 8, 1996, French Civil Service Link
Lachance, J., Director, OPM Merit Systems, Oversight and Systems, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Website, U.S. Office of Personnel Mgt Link , 1999.
Principi, A.J. Federal Total Quality Management Handbook: Education and Training for TQM in the Federal Government, Federal Quality Institute, May 1992.
.................... APDB, American Presidential Data Base (1999), Presidential Data Base Link
.................... Court Cases 1980, Supplement, Equal Employment Opportunity, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, October 1980, Washington D.C., 1980.
.................... FP-Gouv, La Fonction Publique (The French Civil Service), Government Data Base, Applicable French Civil Service Graphics Link , 1999.
..................... Project Management, a Workshop in Planning, Scheduling and Control Techniques, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Management Sciences Training Center, Washington, D.C., 1982.