Decentralization and Human Resource Management - Coursework Example

Running Header: Decentralization and Human Resource Management Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code & Name: Date of Submission: Decentralization and Human Resource Management Introduction Decentralization is a complex process which is frequently undertaken as a matter of urgency in a highly political environment. Pressures of implementation can force decisions that in retrospect become detrimental in efforts to ensure equitable, enough, and competent staffing in an organization. A successful decentralization requires that the organization structure roles and responsibilities be well defined for a functional whole and be acceptable to the workforce. For many organizations, this is one of the most critical area which if not well managed can lead to management problems. Different problems in human resource management arise due to different reasons including unclear or inappropriate definition of organization structures, roles and responsibilities in view with organization goals and economic needs. Similarly, roles and responsibilities may conflict with each other. Organization structures and role allocation may be disputed. Additionally, there might be inadequate communication of these organization changes, below the central level or change so frequently that no one is clear on the current status (Dwyer, 17). For intermediate, regional level, organization structures, roles and responsibilities appear to be very hard to define. Managers in the human resource department are obliged of being technicians in the resource management centers for directing the free flow and the application of resources of human beings. When the demarcation line between national and regional policies is unclear, it can lead to conflicts on organization structure, roles and responsibilities. Many reasons that explain the essence of disputing organization structure, coupled with roles as well as the responsibilities often arise. The existence of mistrust, personality conflicts, professional pride or even jealousy can arise while in the process of implementing decentralization. Considerable resentment of directors may arise by making them, in the post-decentralization organization structure, subordinate to a local manager who is junior in age and/or experience. Organization structure, roles and responsibilities maybe defined and then re-defined with such frequency that no stakeholder can maintain an accurate comprehension of them (Bartol et.al, 25). If there is inadequate transmission of information about the organizational changes beyond the central level, organization workers adjustment to a new, decentralized system will not be smooth. Job insecurity is generated at least in part by lack of clarity on the way decentralization would change the roles and responsibilities in and organization. According to Hendry (131), a country may handle unnecessary issues arising amongst the decentralization of the civil servants as well as how to be cautious helps in defining and designing the issue of decentralization, thereby displaying the outcome of the whole process. The outcome of carrying out the decentralization of the management in the civil service department can be evaluated through various dimensions, namely; the capacity building, incentives, autonomy and finally the accountability. It is imperative to acknowledge the integral role that is being manifested by the four factors displayed above in order for the whole process of decentralization to be successful. The four factors are interrelated and form an important part of the success of the process of decentralization. For instance, the programs for training the civil servants do not have the strengthening capacity of sustaining themselves until the civil servants use the motivations learnt during their training. Furthermore, for the civil service to locally improve and be accountable, they should have the mandate powered by the accounting department and the available records to offer an effective and accountable department. At the end of the whole process, it almost impossible to hold the civil servants accountable for the decisions they make especially if they don’t have necessary autonomy in decision making (Hendry, 48). Capacity In order for the civil service department to offer services that have high quality that embrace the vision in the decentralization, they should be capacitated to accomplish that. For this to successfully take place, both the individualized and institutionalized elements have to be put in place. To begin with, the overall success of the process of decentralizing civil servants entirely relies on an individual’s capability of taking new initiatives at the local and central levels. Secondly, small-sized civil service and the budget allocation may be a hindrance to institutionalizing the level of local government. The whole process of carrying out decentralization may result to vital outcomes in regard to the capacity requirements (Peck, 67). Monitoring the performance and effective management of resources are vital requirements for distributing the responsibilities in the public service. Moreover, supervision of employees should be taught to the leaders locally, resources that are locally generated should be mobilized locally. The local leaders should also embrace interaction between them and the local residents as well as with the elected leaders in order to enhance development within their locality. The former members of the civil service who have transferred to the local levels may end up carrying some of their skills that are required at the local level, however, some skills may be acquired through experiences along the way. At the same time, central employees need to shift from “doing” to facilitating and supervising. Incentives It is imperative to acknowledge the fact that not all the experiences that define the incapacity of handling the decentralized government’s functions can be said to be true, but can be as result of not having enough motivations of acting in the interest of the public. The civil service structure and management have the capacity of influencing the end results of the reforms needed in the decentralization process through having impacts on the behavior of the civil servants themselves. The benefits and pay levels, which are necessities in career building and the level that determine the recognition or determines how a non-satisfying performance is penalized, is not only the determinant of the motivation of the duties of a civil servant but also selects individuals who want to be civil servants (Stevenson, 27). the process of functional decentralization and distribution of the management duties determine the structural incentives of the local civil servants. The closer the local authority is to the residents, the tighter the connection between the input and the output. On the other hand, the small size of some local civil services department tend to offer minimal career advancement opportunities as well as poor local governments are not able to amply offer incentives that are enough to acquire more talented personel. This implies that in undeveloped regions, small pay and hard hit conditions are opportunities for creating a cycle for not attracting a high-skilled staff leading to worsening conditions. Autonomy The idea that the process of decentralization is a major boost for the civil servants being accountable for their responsibilities does not make the managers to have the mandate of responding to the needs of their constituents. When the local authority is obliged to distribute human resources, efficiency is highly improved because managers have the duty of hiring skilled personnel who will in turn end up efficiently accomplishing their duties. Local authority should also have power to fire unskilled personnel and retrench workers in order to have a cost-effective body. The practice is however not commonly planned in the locality, financial authority should be directed towards the local authority so that they are capable of setting levels of payment, effectively charge fees to their clients, and in turn be able to upgrade employees performance thus enhancing the outcome and the achievement of decentralization. On the contrary, in order for the management to successfully be beneficial, inefficiency should be avoided by all means through embracing proper performances, transparency and motivational skills, which should be applied appropriately. When we look at the meaning of administrative decentralization, we would think that it is empowered to have authority over local authority. This is not always the case. The core has the power to maintain reasonable control, especially in financial matters that are sensitive, more so when the capacity of the local government and its accountability are being questioned. Accountability The potentiality of having an improved service delivery via decentralizing relies on relationships of being accountable, which refers to the extent by which civil servants are accountable to their performances and their own integrity (Peetz 24). When accountability at the local level is not strengthened, then wastage and misuse of public resources can be deemed to be practiced by the local authorities, leading to politicizing the whole situation, thus, distortion of the achievement of the process of decentralization. However, where there is rampant corruption at the central authority, then devolving resources and power may lead to good delivery of services. Regular elections allows for a lean and clean body that has integral responsibility of monitoring the performance of the civil servants. In cases where there are strong institutions that monitor civil society, then the downward bureaucracy will be effective since the local authority will have a good relationship with the residents’ needs. If accountability is the core, decentralization cannot offer the required outcome of getting the government near the people (Thompson, 13). Local accountability can therefore be affected by decentralization. Civil servants may not be able to easily get away with unnecessary laziness and corruption when responsibilities for checking and monitoring them are designated to the local managers. When local residents are near the organ in the government that is mandated with making decisions, then they are prone to making the government official accountable for their decisions. The human resource function must effectively contribute to drawing of strategic choices in regard to fundamental reforms in organization, financing and staffing which are very critical for developing performance at a national level (Samson & Daft, 47). Decentralization needs to be done in an understandable manner to avoid some real dangers including jeopardizing coordinated development and service delivery data pertaining numbers, geographic distribution of staff, skills and the capacity to use the data for planning purposes (Teicher, Holland and Gough, 115). Decentralization fragments databases for human resources by transferring the responsibility for maintaining records of staff to decentralized units that do not have the required system and skills. A successful coordination of human resources with a view to develop them requires that the allocation of the resources be equitable and timely. If there is decentralization of responsibility with allocation of human resources being left to institutions lacking technical health knowledge, staffing can be unbalanced and inefficient and thus cause more trouble. The transfer from one decentralized unit to another may need approval from the head of administration of both the sending and receiving government entity. Every manager will be wary of losing his employees and therefore, many of them do not approve of such transfers. Even if the approval is forthcoming, the bureaucratic delay in preparing the needed paperwork can be substantial (Davidson, Griffin, & French, 116). Such inconveniences may complicate management of specialty training programs that involve rotating appointments. Similarly, staff development opportunities may be highly restricted due to the lack of capacity by lower level units to mount programs of in-service training for local workers. Decentralization can complicate effective functions of organizations by restricting access to vital information or simply hindering implementation of recommendations. A weaker capacity at the local level is well taken care of by the employees at the local level since the staff that work at the local level are employed by the center, making them to be very accountable. Similarly, a strong relationship that exists between makers and providers of policies can be compensation to the weak local level. This implies that when a provider monitoring is weakened, then the obvious short distance to accountability will also be weakened. If no proper mechanism is put in place, then the residents would be forced to follow the long distanced route of accountability that relies on the politicians who are at the core of decision making. Local and central authority employees can be the providers, but terms and conditions for payment and employment is determined by the center. On the other hand, the power of hiring and locating staff is vested upon the local government, with minimal power on firing employees. Both long and short routes of accountability are potentially stronger; greater local knowledge can allow better matching of supply with local preferences and better monitoring, strengthening both the compact and client power (De Cieri et. al, 103). Decentralization involves making of long-term decisions which impacts on employees and their competence. It is therefore imperative that the decisions be clearfully made in order to avoid any future problem and incurring of unnecessary costs. Adequate care is needed in transfers in order not to create inconveniencies and shortage of employees in some areas (Bolman & Deal, 16). Training institutions should operate within a central framework for different categories of workers that is needed by a nation and in accordance with guidelines which have already been established for the training. Decentralization can bring about technical and managerial competence if well implemented (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin & Cardy, 117). However, transfers of power bring about serious challenges which can jeopardize the competence with which workers discharge their duties in post-decentralization. For instance, shortage of skilled workers may pose a big threat of human resource management and therefore, it is imperative for the decentralization to consider the availability of skilled staff (De Cieri et. al, 103). When the control of resources is central, newly trained workers may feel frustrated if they are not allowed to use their skills and this may make them to leave their work (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis, 78). With a big turnover of staff and few resources, technical competency would be reduced and therefore, sufficient resources will be required for training new workers to replace those who leave (Bray et. al, 65). Shifting roles in an organization is seen to affect supervision that is received by workers. Technical guidance in an organization comes from the central administration whereas administrative supervision comes from the local government administrator (Handel, 37). However, the line between administrative supervision and technical guidance is not always clear and therefore, administrative decisions which are ill-advised may conflict and negatively affect the technical quality of services provided (Bozarth and Handfield, 86). Decentralization isolates national-level decision making on human resource management from decisions of local staff and there arises conflict and poor coordination that seriously affect affordable, equitable and competent staffing in an organization. Local aspirations are almost certain to take precedence over the greater national good when a decentralized level is given both considerable freedoms to choose how it intends to develop. The equity of staff will be threatened unless mechanisms are put in place to expose decisions about staffing to national debate and then give attention to the imbalances (Gettler, 93). Decentralization induced challenges in career development can affect human resources development in different ways. These difficulties can arise due to hindrances to career mobility that is brought about by decentralization (Fairtlough, 116). A transfer of post is an administrative area which may need resignation from the current post and accompanying loss of some benefits. To better understand the opportunities and obstacles that a country may encounter on the road to administrative decentralization, it is first useful to consider the destination (Jones & George, 136). A functioning system of decentralized civil service management—as distinct from a centrally directed model—has several key characteristics: i) Local government functions are clearly defined so staffs know what is expected of them and managers can adapt the local civil service to reflect what needs to be done, without inefficient gaps or overlap with other levels of government. ii) Local government can allocate staff across functions as needed. This is only possible if the managers in the civil service have the capacity of having some influence in matters concerning the establishment of the local mechanisms as well as distributing staff to various facilities and departments. iii) The authority at the local government is able to attract as well as being able to retain qualified individuals, thereby being able to build a team with a diverse set of skills. This is only possible when the local government can deliver opportunities in career building as well as other incentives through very competitive remunerations. iv). the local government should not be rigid in the management of financial organs and resources. In the management of civil servants, there is need to manage the direct and indirect costs associated with them through levels of remuneration or numbers of staff respectively. v) Local government can hold its employees accountable for own performance. This can be made possible when the local authority is able to supervise and monitor all the civil servants and being able to motivate the employees through pay hikes, promotional incentives as well as other incentives. Furthermore, the ability to punish non-performers through necessary disciplinary action such as firing is of vital significance. Conclusion Various nations are not able to achieve these criteria for various reasons. Moreover, as earlier on mentioned, local authorities that have very minimal independence on matters political or fiscal, could be a hindrance to the manifestation of administrational power and independence. Subsequently, the criteria are not achieved because of the design. Firstly, having local civil servants covered by central government may be a hindrance. This mode of governing ensures that criteria are not put into consideration. The whole nation should ensure that they put in place standardized conditions of work. This implies that Public services on the national level may have problems if the gap between the poor and rich local governments is not closed (Krajewski & Ritzman, 26). Secondly, local and central career paths of the civil servants could be salvaged if expansion in the powers of the central government may be enhanced. Thirdly, the retention of powers to hire and payment of salaries by the center in order to save sub-national authority from extravagant expenditure on payments of salaries and wages is essential. Fourthly, it is essential to have rules that are centralized that are required to monitor employment opportunities to members who have not qualified for a particular job, in regard to teaching, doctoring and nursing professions. Fifth, where ethnicity or other tensions may be a threat to the stability of a nation, the central authority may administer national integration and co-existence through the civil service. Finally, it is imperative to note that the central authority may not be willing to relinquish some of its authority in decentralization. This can be because of its willingness to have authoritative powers. Works Cited Bartol, K. Tein, M., Matthews, G., Ritson, P. and Scott-Ladd, B. Management Foundations: a Pacific Rim Focus (2007). McGraw-Hill: North Ryde. Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. Reframing Organizations:Artistry, Choice and Leadership (2003). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Bozarth, C. and Handfield, R.B. Introduction to Operations and Supply Chain Management, (2008). Pearson/Prentice-Hall Bray, M., Deery, S., Walsh, J. and Warning P. Industrial Relations. A Contemporary Approach. (2005). McGraw-Hill, Australia Sydney. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. Managing and Organizations: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (2008), Sage: London. Davidson, P., Griffin, R.W., & French, E. Management: an Australasian Perspective (2003). John Wiley & Sons: Milton, Qld. De Cieri, H. & Kramar, R., Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J. Gerhart, B. and Wright, P. Human Resource Management in Australia: Strategy, People, Performance (2003). McGraw-Hill Australia, Sydney. Dwyer, J. Communication In Business: Strategies and skills. (2008). Pearson Education, Australia Fairtlough, G. The Three Ways of Getting Things Done: Heirarchy, Heterarchy and Responsible Autonomy in Organizations (2007).Triarchy Press, Axminster, UK. Gettler, L. Organisations Behaving Badly: A Greek Tragedy of Corporate Pathology (2005) Wiley, Queensland. Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B., & Cardy, R.L. Management: People, Performance, Change. (2005). McGraw-Hill/Irwin: Boston. Gray, C.F. and Larson, E.W. Project Management: The Managerial Process, (2005). McGraw-Hill Handel, M. The Sociology of Organisations. (2003). Sage: Thousand Oaks. Hartel, C, Fujimoto, Y., Strybosch, V. & Fitzpatrick, K. Human Resource Management: Transforming Theory into Innovative Practice (2007). Sydney: Pearsons. Heizer, J. and Render, B. Operations Management, (2008). Pearson/Prentice Hall Hendry, Chris. Human resource management: a strategic approach to employment (1995). Oxford (UK): Butterworth-Heinemann Hendry, Chris. Human resource management: a strategic approach to employment. (1995). Oxford (UK): Butterworth-Heinemann. Jones, G.R., & George, J.M. Contemporary Management. (2008). McGraw- Hill/Irwin: New York. Krajewski, L. J. & Ritzman, L. P. Operations Management: Processes and Value Chains (2008). Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Peck, J. Work-Place: The Social Regulation of Labour Markets (1996) London: Guildford Press. Peetz, D. Brave New Workplace: How Individual Contracts are Changing our Jobs (2006). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Samson, D. & and Daft, R.L. Management. (2005) Thomson: South Melbourne, Vic. Stevenson, W. J. Operations Management (2005). McGraw-Hill Irwin: Boston. Teicher, J., Holland, P. and Gough, R. Employee Relations Management. Australia in a Global Context (2006). Pearson Education Australia: Frenchs Forest, NSW. Thompson, P. Work Organisations: Theories, Concepts and Issues (2008). Palgrave Macmillan: London. Read More