This section will consider the specific role and status of the HRD/Training function within the public service sector, the sector in which is of concern to this study. One perspective strongly represented in the public administration literature concerns the increasing pressure, brought about by globalisation, on governments to improve the competitiveness of their national economies (Lamond 1998; World Bank 1997; OECD 2000). Within this context, the main thrust of papers on UK public sector reform seems to be that the UK government, in keeping with public reform programmes in other countries, is under pressure to improve its performance, make better use of all its human resource potential and strengthen the quality of its policy making and service delivery (Cabinet Office 2004; 1999, 1996, 1994; Metcalfe and Rees, 2005; OECD, 2000b; Gershon 2004; O’Toole 2006; Romzek, 2000).
These trends, which serve as the backcloth as well as driver for some of the change affecting the human resources functions itself, have been attributed in part to the influence of the New Public Management (NPM) model. This model, which emerged in the early 1990s, is based on the premise of private sector practices as a solution to solving the problems of poor public administration and has had a dramatic impact on the functioning of public services worldwide (Osborne and Gaebler, 1993; Hood 1991; Giauque, 2003; McLaughlin, 2002; Monteiro, 2002; Pollitt & Bouckaert 2000; Lane, 2000; Rhodes, 1991; Ferlie, et al. 1996). Compared to the so-called ‘Traditional Bureaucracy’ model (with its emphasis on rule and procedures), the defining features of NPM are seen as promoting greater levels of professionalism, skill and efficiency. NPM has been characterised by decentralisation and the delegation of responsibilities (such as
the conversion of large government departments into smaller, semi-autonomous, delivery focused Executive Agencies), performance based accountability (with the use of performance contracts at the level of the organisation and the individual), and competitive mechanisms (with the use of compulsory competitive tendering and outsourcing) - see Hood, 1998; Borins 1996; Larbi, 1999; Giauque, 2003; Herne, 2005; Lane, 1997). However, it is interesting to note there is little research that explores the impact of NPM on the role of HRD/Training in any systematic way. Koch is one of the few to analyze the challenges NPM places on HRD/Training, and examines the extent to which the latter has been a tool for facilitating NPM reform’s article is one of the few (Koch 1999). .
There appear to be an increasing number of papers and documents put together by public sector agencies emphasising the importance of HRD/Training’s role within public service organisations (OECD, 2000a; UNDESA, 1998, 2005; Cabinet Office, 1996; 1999; HC 2007; Warrington 2004). In the context of public sector reform, HRD/Training is seen as a lever for facilitating both performance improvement and organisational change (OECD 2000a). According to Goslin (1975), in addition to skills development, government organisations use it as a means of disseminating information about new policy initiatives, new methods of service delivery, or changes in internal developments, for example, by the use of mandatory equal opportunities training to ensure adherence to equality policies and practices at work. The latter is illustrated by Clements (2000) in his account of how the equality training is deployed in the police service, and by Auluck (2001) who discusses how mandatory diversity training is used in the UK civil service. The OECD
not just structures and HRD/Training has a part to play in enabling this to happen. HRD/Training can be used as a means of communicating organisational values, norms and standards - and can be, over time, a tool for organisational change (Mankin 2001; Duggett 1996; Pattanayak, 2003).
Further, The OECD report identifies HRD/Training as having the potential to support communication strategies that are essential to the effective implementation of public service reform programmes, on the assumption that ‘informed employees make informed choices’. The report refers to the concept of the ‘learned government’ and argues that:
“Learning is the much-sought attribute of adaptive and strategic organisations. This is the imprint that separates the winners and losers in the knowledge race. Our current management lexicon overflows with hyphenised applications: life-long learning strategies, learning organisations, learning companies, learning societies, learning cultures, learning individuals…” (OCED 2000a p. 105).
Human resource development in the UK public sector would appear to mirror this generalised picture, including it being subject to the myriad of related “hyphenated applications”. That is, a series of ‘learning’ and performance improvement initiatives have been adopted by large parts of the UK public sector, including the Investors in People standard, the Business Excellence framework and the principles of the Learning Organisation (Raper, 1997; Berry, C. & Grieves, 2003; Davies 1998; Hill 1996; Hill & Stewart 1999; Jackson 1999; PWC 2000; Smith, 2000; Smith and Taylor 2000; Swain, 1999; Seifert & Tegg 1998). For example, Investors in People (IiP), an established Department of Employment initiative, was launched in 1991 and provides a framework,
based on best practice in private and public sector, of the key characteristics of employers who make the most of their employees’ potential in achieving business goals. All government departments and agencies are supposed to sign up for IiP accreditation and this has had some impact on the HRD/Training function (Hillage and Moralee 1996).
However, some recent literature suggests that human resources management within UK public service organisations is in fact under threat (O’Toole, 2006). Specifically, the human resource function is under continuing pressure from stakeholders to demonstrate that it adds value to the effectiveness of public service organisations and that it plays an essential role in improving individual performance and organisational productivity. Factors such as scarcity of resources, skill shortages, demographic changes, increased citizen expectations of public services, political pressures, international benchmarks and so on, are holding human resource professionals to account more and more (CIPD, 2005; Gershon, 2004; HC 2007). In this context, several writers question the extent to which public sector HRD/Training is really treated as a strategic element of organisational life has been questioned (O’Toole 2006; Seifert & Tegg 1998; Truss 2003). Truss (2003), writing about the human resources function in the National Health Service, states:
“We also found that, unlike the private sector, HRM within such a public sector organisation operates within a particularly complex framework of interdependencies that serves to constrain the degree to which it can be strategic. We especially noted the influence of the ‘public sector heritage’, which coloured people’s perceptions of HR’s role…in influencing employees’ training, development and careers…” (Truss 2003 p.58)
There have been specific doubts about the extent to which public sector organisations invest in HRD/Training in favourable political and economic conditions and the extent to which they do so when faced with a crisis. O’Toole cite examples of organisations suddenly investing in training and development following a high profile crisis, for example, in policing systems and methods, child protection practices and so on, and how such investment can be curtailed once the public or political spotlight fades (O’Toole, 2006). Further, as the NAO report 2009 and the Government Skills report on the level of investment in learning in government organisations indicates, cost of training is an issue that concern for decision-makers in government (NAO 2009; Government Skills 2007) However, this concern with expenditure is not only a public sector issue, as Grugulis, agreeing with Keep and Mayhew (1999), argues that for most organisations, training is a third-order issue, stateing that:
“For organisations that choose to compete on cost, (it is) an unjustifiable extravagance – and large sections of the British economy still compete on cost.” (Grugulis 2007 pp:5).