The HR modernisation agenda developed in the mid-1990s was ambitious but also appropriate. It was recognised that major reform of HR structures and approaches was required, not only to improve HR itself and ensure that the civil service had up-to-date, best practice arrangements, but also to deliver on other goals of the SMI.
The HR agenda was initially progressed by an inter-departmental HRM Working Group and more recently by the HR sub-group of the SMI Implementation Group. The brief of the two groups has effectively been the same -to develop a policy framework for HR reform across the service. During the second half of the 1990s, the HRM Working Group produced a series of working papers on topics including recruitment, tenure, performance management and promotion. While some of the suggestions in these working papers may have been regarded by some as overly ambitious, their recommendations have largely formed the basis of subsequent and ongoing policy changes. In particular, the development and implementation of PMDS and legislation in respect to the recruitment
The outcome of this process was that in their Evaluation of SMI (2002a), PA Consulting conclude (p.58) ‘a policy framework [in relation to HR] is therefore now substantially in place’. Recommendations and initiatives developed and enhanced in successive partnership agreements, and supported by circulars and guidelines, have addressed a majority of the issues identified in DBG. To some observers the time taken to achieve this might be regarded as excessive. However, the size and diversity of the civil service and also the strength and influence of civil service unions should be borne in mind. All new initiatives and proposed changes have to be negotiated and consulted on extensively.
However, less understandable is the slow pace at which reforms and new policies, once agreed, are implemented. The PA review observes that:
... while policy initiatives have been developed, the general perception across departments/offices is that the fundamental changes anticipated in DBG have not yet taken place. Many managers are still concerned at what they consider to be their lack of effective connection with the HR agenda. Moving from policy to implementation remains problematic. (p. 64)
There is a lack of consensus across the service as to why HR reforms have taken so long to implement. The PA review highlighted the importance of legislation to give departments greater autonomy in respect to the recruitment, tenure and management of staff and to ‘hard-wire’ (Dermot McCarthy, April 2002) HR reform across the service. However, while the absence of such legislation has somewhat limited the options available to managers, there still remained a range of HR policy areas where individual departments could have developed a more strategic approach, but in the majority of cases did not.
DBG, and subsequently the PPF, required departments to develop HR strategies. The Department of the Taoiseach also produced guidelines to facilitate this, yet by late 2003 a significant number of departments have yet to do so. The DBG reform agenda also called on personnel units to prioritise the developmental and strategic aspects of HRM, including areas such as resource planning, career management, staff development, work-load distribution and performance management. Yet, in many departments, with the exception of the implementation of PMDS, very little has been done in relation to these areas. Finally, departments have yet to make a concerted effort to devolve day-to-day personnel
matters to line managers. Across the civil service, personnel units are still engaged in routine administrative work, for example the recording of annual and sick leave.
Overall it would appear that, with a small number of exceptions, departments have not yet internalised the implications of the shift in approach with respect to HR or the opportunities it affords them to develop personnel policy and practice in line with their own business needs. Furthermore, it would be naïve to assume that the reform of the 1956 Civil Service Regulation Act and the opening up of recruitment processes will automatically lead to departments adopting a more strategic approach to HR. Legislation will need to be complemented by cultural and behavioural change at all management levels. As the PA review comments ‘some departments would enthusiastically exploit the opportunity to exercise more discretion on HR matters. For others, legislative change would not necessarily ensure changed behaviour at organisational or individual level (p. 58)’.
3.4 Key chapter findings
In a Working Paper reflecting on the SMI, Murray (2001, p.19) concludes that ‘the issue of HRM is as important as it was at the beginning - it may even be more critical, yet progress has been slow’. In particular, there appears to be a problem in many departments in adopting a pro-active and integrated approach to the implementation of HR policies and procedures.
The need for legislative reform has to a certain degree limited the autonomy of departmental management. However, there remains a range of priority areas - resource planning, career management, staff development, work-load distribution and performance management - where individual departments could have developed a more strategic approach, but in the majority of cases did not.
It therefore remains pertinent to question whether the introduction of legislation giving secretaries general greater autonomy in relation to the recruitment, tenure and discipline of staff in their departments will have the intended impact of devolving responsibility for HR issues to line departments. The lack of engagement and indeed understanding of the
The purpose of the following ‘case-study’ chapters, which review examples of good practice with respect to HR reform, and the final chapter which makes recommendations for embedding HR reform, are intended to further explore these issues.