Suchergebnisse

AbstractA great deal of attention has been focused on the human capital crisis in the public sector since the mid‐1990s. Experts and practitioners give many reasons why the current crisis emerged. This article examines the important factors that led to the crisis, what is being done about them through presidential agendas, legislators, oversight agencies, professional societies, and public policy think tanks. Concerns are many in terms of a large number of upcoming retirements, early retirements, unplanned downsizing, difficulty in attracting new generations to public service, and the changing nature of public service. However, the human resource crisis also presents an opportunity to fundamentally change those features of public sector human resource management practices that have become outdated for contemporary organizations and position government agencies for the twenty‐first century by meaningfully reforming the civil service. This transformation would require public sector organizations to take a more strategic view of human resource management and to give greater policy attention to human capital issues.

A great deal of attention has been focused on the human capital crisis in the public sector since the mid-1990s. Experts & practitioners give many reasons why the current crisis emerged. This article examines the important factors that led to the crisis, what is being done about them through presidential agendas, legislators, oversight agencies, professional societies, & public policy think tanks. Concerns are many in terms of a large number of upcoming retirements, early retirements, unplanned downsizing, difficulty in attracting new generations to public service, & the changing nature of public service. However, the human resource crisis also presents an opportunity to fundamentally change those features of public sector human resource management practices that have become outdated for contemporary organizations & position government agencies for the 21st century by meaningfully reforming the civil service. This transformation would require public sector organizations to take a more strategic view of human resource management & to give greater policy attention to human capital issues. 1 Appendix, 56 References. Adapted from the source document.

In the past decade, most large public‐sector organizations have adopted a philosophy of valuing workforce diversity and have implemented a variety of initiatives for effectively utilizing and managing the current and projected workforce diversity. However, whether organizational members subscribe to the diversity value or support the employer‐sponsored diversity‐management initiatives still largely remains unanswered. This article discusses the influence of employee race/ethnicity and gender identity, associated stereotyping and prejudice, and the nature of interpersonal relations on acceptance of diversity and support for diversity‐management initiatives. The hypothesis that these three variables have a significant influence on receptivity to diversity in the workplace was empirically tested in a case study of diversity‐management practices of a federal agency, and the study findings are reported in this article.

Affirmative action, one of the most significant public policies of the 20th century, can be seen as an attempt to establish a more "inclusive moral convention,"1 which aims at achieving fairness and equality for all members of society. In such a society everyone has the ability to compete for its goods and benefits.2 Attempting to create a society, workplaces, and educational institutions in which individuals or groups are not stigmatized or excluded from opportunities on the basis of race/ethnicity or gender can be seen as the ethical foundation of affirmative action.3 The moral basis for affirmative action is found in the tradition of American public administration, anti-discrimination laws, and the principles of organizational justice.4 To public personnel practitioners, affirmative action has ethical significance from a variety of viewpoints, particularly as it relates to the "merit controversy" and organizational justice issues. This article argues that affirmative action (AA) is as much a moral issue as it is an anti-discriminatory measure. The focus of this article is to examine the ethical aspects of AA rather than to discuss the anti-discrimination principles of AA as embodied in the Constitution, statutes, and legal precedents. Today, the increased national sensitivity to the rights of minorities does not rely on the moral imperatives that should underlie such a debate, but, rather, the fear of litigation or so-called "political correctness." Viewing AA from a purely legal perspective reduces it to an adversarial proposition with winners and losers. Furthermore, the doctrine of legal protection does not always discourage discriminatory behaviors. In spite of the available legal remedies, discrimination is often under-reported due to reasons such as fear of retaliation, complexities of the legal system, difficulty in supplying the necessary proof, and the psychological and financial costs involved.5 Focusing attention on the ethical principles of affirmative action divert attention from contentious legal issues and reinforce its fundamental purpose. In addition, an ethical perspective can also help counter the backlash and resentment toward AA policies within organizations.6