Cooperative Recruitment Selection: An Evaluation of Utah's IPA Employment Service CenterAuthor(s): Norman HillSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1976), pp. 203-204Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975138 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 07:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:39:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

the historical development of the forces of produc- tion in society. It is only within this theoretical context that more particular theories of manage- ment and organization can be developed through empirical research.

Gvishiani, using the language of "historical materialism," agrees with most contemporary American writers that the developed countries are rapidly moving into the "post-industrial" era, an era in which production will be carried out by machines rather than by people. The primary problems related to increasing productivity will be rational planning for the development and manage- ment of increasingly large aggregations of capital. These historical forces require that technologies be developed which are capable of anticipating the optimal configuration of capital and, once as- sembled, to manage these large and complex systems efficiently and effectively. For Gvishiani, the seeds of such a capability are provided by general systems theory and by the techniques of management science. Systems analysis and man- agement science, according to the author, are essential because they provide the analytic and technical capability for central planning of large and complex systems. Central planning (by which one probably should assume national govern- mental planning) through systems analysis and management science will allow the rational utiliza- tion of capital for production.

Although the author focuses on American management perspectives most directly related to the "forces of production," he does not ignore the "human factor" in production. As was suggested above, he tends to say that the human relations problems are solved by workers owning the means of production. Nevertheless, he does recognize that workers are capable of improving the produc- tive process through their suggestions and through their personal productivity. This of course raises the classic problem of how to reconcile central planning with individual participation. Gvishiani's response is, in principle, interesting. He argues that participation that is meaningful to the worker and the organization is that which can have some impact on productivity. He argues further that this can only occur when participation is related to the central planning process. That is, if the realities of production require central planning for complex and extensive processes, then it is necessary to link individual participation to these central processes. The linkage is made by assuring that there is a clear specification of central responsibility. This

the historical development of the forces of produc- tion in society. It is only within this theoretical context that more particular theories of manage- ment and organization can be developed through empirical research.

Gvishiani, using the language of "historical materialism," agrees with most contemporary American writers that the developed countries are rapidly moving into the "post-industrial" era, an era in which production will be carried out by machines rather than by people. The primary problems related to increasing productivity will be rational planning for the development and manage- ment of increasingly large aggregations of capital. These historical forces require that technologies be developed which are capable of anticipating the optimal configuration of capital and, once as- sembled, to manage these large and complex systems efficiently and effectively. For Gvishiani, the seeds of such a capability are provided by general systems theory and by the techniques of management science. Systems analysis and man- agement science, according to the author, are essential because they provide the analytic and technical capability for central planning of large and complex systems. Central planning (by which one probably should assume national govern- mental planning) through systems analysis and management science will allow the rational utiliza- tion of capital for production.

Although the author focuses on American management perspectives most directly related to the "forces of production," he does not ignore the "human factor" in production. As was suggested above, he tends to say that the human relations problems are solved by workers owning the means of production. Nevertheless, he does recognize that workers are capable of improving the produc- tive process through their suggestions and through their personal productivity. This of course raises the classic problem of how to reconcile central planning with individual participation. Gvishiani's response is, in principle, interesting. He argues that participation that is meaningful to the worker and the organization is that which can have some impact on productivity. He argues further that this can only occur when participation is related to the central planning process. That is, if the realities of production require central planning for complex and extensive processes, then it is necessary to link individual participation to these central processes. The linkage is made by assuring that there is a clear specification of central responsibility. This

approach is contrasted to Western approaches to worker participation in which decentralization of responsibility plays an important part. The impli- cation of Gvishiani's argument is that Western solutions tend to confuse responsibility and there- fore make worker participation objectively and subjectively meaningless.

This review of Gvishiani's work only has pro- vided a broad overview, but it should be clear that while the Soviets share some of the same concerns and perspectives of American writers, there are some fundamental differences in premises. Aware- ness of such differences is useful for clarifying one's own position, something that is desperately needed in American public administration.

Richard Chackerian Florida State University

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Michael Kern of the Department of Government, Florida State University.

COOPERATIVE RECRUITMENT

SELECTION: AN EVALUATION

OF UTAH'S IPA EMPLOYMENT

SERVICE CENTER

In December 1972 the Utah Intergovernmental Personnel Agency established an Employment Service Center to coordinate job information, testing, and referral services for clerical positions in federal, state, local, and university jurisdictions. Since most applicants care very little about differences between state, county, and city positions, a "one-stop shopping center" can avoid needless duplication. In an era where many people are confused about the alleged unresponsiveness of government, a consolidation of personnel func- tions into a single unit can help user agencies provide intended services better.

The changes which the Center has fostered have been significant. Previous to the funding of the IPA Center, an interested applicant applied at each personnel office in which work was sought. Not only was it necessary to file an application, but it was also mandatory to be tested at each office. It would take anywhere from one to five weeks for all of this paperwork to be completed before the applicant's name could even be entered upon a register.

approach is contrasted to Western approaches to worker participation in which decentralization of responsibility plays an important part. The impli- cation of Gvishiani's argument is that Western solutions tend to confuse responsibility and there- fore make worker participation objectively and subjectively meaningless.

This review of Gvishiani's work only has pro- vided a broad overview, but it should be clear that while the Soviets share some of the same concerns and perspectives of American writers, there are some fundamental differences in premises. Aware- ness of such differences is useful for clarifying one's own position, something that is desperately needed in American public administration.

Richard Chackerian Florida State University

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Michael Kern of the Department of Government, Florida State University.

COOPERATIVE RECRUITMENT

SELECTION: AN EVALUATION

OF UTAH'S IPA EMPLOYMENT

SERVICE CENTER

In December 1972 the Utah Intergovernmental Personnel Agency established an Employment Service Center to coordinate job information, testing, and referral services for clerical positions in federal, state, local, and university jurisdictions. Since most applicants care very little about differences between state, county, and city positions, a "one-stop shopping center" can avoid needless duplication. In an era where many people are confused about the alleged unresponsiveness of government, a consolidation of personnel func- tions into a single unit can help user agencies provide intended services better.

The changes which the Center has fostered have been significant. Previous to the funding of the IPA Center, an interested applicant applied at each personnel office in which work was sought. Not only was it necessary to file an application, but it was also mandatory to be tested at each office. It would take anywhere from one to five weeks for all of this paperwork to be completed before the applicant's name could even be entered upon a register.

MARCH/APRIL 1976 MARCH/APRIL 1976

203 203

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:39:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

This contrasts sharply with the current service being offered by the Center. Applicants who live along the Wasatch Front, the geographical area which contains more than 70 per cent of Utah's population, are usually placed on IPA's register within 24 hours. They compete for positions in more than a dozen jurisdictions and over 100 agencies. Furthermore, IPA's records indicate that 32 per cent of those who are placed on the register will be employed by a participating agency within one week - less time than was previously taken by personnel offices just to complete an applicant's paperwork.

Using the IPA Center has reduced the workload for most of the participating personnel agencies, too. The personnel director of Salt Lake City indicated that the Center had reduced applicant traffic in his office by about 60 per cent. This had freed his staff for more important duties than processing clerical applications and administering routine examinations. In fact, in a survey of the 100 user agencies, 87 per cent indicated that the Center had significantly improved their recruitment process.

The Center has actively sought to improve its services over time, but results have not always been equal to efforts. For the purposes of this evaluation, efficiency is defined as the average number of referrals required to fill each order or

request; while effectiveness is defined as the number of orders received compared to the total number actually placed. Since the Center is sea-

sonally more efficient and more effective during the first two quarters, when both the supply of job applicants and the demand for applicants by user

agencies is low, the first half of each year of the Center's operation is highlighted in the table below to illustrate recent changes.

Neither efficiency nor effectiveness changed very substantially from 1973 to 1974. Efficiency improved slightly, but perhaps significantly, while effectiveness declined only 5 per cent. However in the first half of 1975, both measures show

dramatic changes in the performance of Center personnel.

These changes in the Center's performance seem to be attributable to three distinct condi- tions. First and foremost are changes in the emphasis of IPA as an agency. Besides the Employ- ment Service Center, the agency also provides management training and technical assistance in the personnel function to small cities and towns. At the beginning of 1975, the agency focused its efforts more on these latter activities and conse- quently has inadequately supervised and directed employees who are directly connected with the Employment Service Center. Secondly, federal money has been used to help fund the Center's operations. However, at the beginning of the year the Denver regional office began considering cen- tralizing some of the functions of recruitment which the Center performs in its office. Although no decision has yet been made, this uncertainty has caused both a high degree of anxiety and a low level of morale among personnel who may either lose their positions or their friends. Finally, the resulting inefficiency of personnel at the Center has caused several user agencies to hire for their own positions by soliciting walk-ins. Although applicants then register at the Center, their final selection is a mere formality. Since user agencies are automatically sent nine names, and may request an additional nine, they can easily circum- vent the merit system process. This, of course, increases the measured inefficiency and ineffec- tiveness of IPA as a supplier.

Although the Employment Service Center is neither as efficient nor as effective as it can be, it is still a progressive step for the State of Utah. It is a useful and operational concept regardless of its current difficulties. Both observers and practi- tioners can benefit from continued study of such efforts at intergovernmental personnel adminis- tration.

Norman Hill Brigham Young University

TABLE 1

January-June 1973

Efficiency Effectiveness

10.4 ref./hire 82%

January-June 1974

8.4 ref./hire 77%

January-June 1975

21.6 ref./hire 39%

MARCH/APRIL 1976

204

This content downloaded from 62.122.77.83 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:39:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions