 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
The Personnel Function in by David K. Hamilton In small organizations, personnel functions are handled by the director or the line managers. These people are generally more concerned with getting the work of the unit or organization accomplished than in developing good personnel practices. Indeed, most line managers are so involved and busy with the more pressing tasks of their jobs that they have very little time or thought to give to personnel functions. Their attention to personnel functions usually comes in response to a crisis. By this time it is often too late to resolve the crisis in a positive way, although policies and procedures may be implemented to avoid future crises of the exact nature. The purpose of this article is to show how personnel functions are administered in park districts in Illinois. A further purpose is to determine at what point in their development park districts start to centralize the personnel function. Additionally, the author investigates how centralization affects the distribution of personnel activities and the time line managers spend in carrying out personnel functions. The sample for this study came from the 233 park districts listed with the Illinois Association of Park Districts in its 1991- 92 directory (city park districts, the Chicago Park District and forest preserves were not included). It is felt that this directory is representative of the park districts in the state. Since there are many small districts, it was decided that a survey on personnel practices should only be sent to the larger districts. As most districts do not have a high number of employees, it was decided that a park district must have a minimum of 20 employees to be included in the survey or a minimum of $250 million equalized assessed valuation. Seventy park districts were identified that met these criteria. The survey was sent during the Summer 1992. There were 51 responses; seven were discarded because they were considerably short of the minimum 20 full-time employees criterion. The results are reported from the 44 usable responses. Twenty-three (52%) respondents reported some form of centralized personnel function. Five (11%) have a full-time personnel administrator while 19 (41%) have individuals who are assigned some centralized personnel functions in addition to their other responsibilities. A total of 21 (48%) of those responding to the survey have no centralized personnel function. Eleven percent of the districts surveyed employ a full-time manager, active in all personnel functions. Forty-one percent centralized only basic personnel functions (benefits, insurance, records) through employees who were assigned these personnel duties as part of their jobs because of close proximity or similarity to what they currently did (office and financial management). The 48% that have no central personnel staff rely on current management staff to provide personnel functions in addition to their primary job of managing their department or division. Responses to the survey revealed that the major players in the various personnel functions for those districts without a designated personnel administrator were senior administrators, department heads and, for some functions, first line supervisors. Table 1 shows the distribution of the various personnel functions across positions. According to Table 1, the senior level administrators (park district director, assistant director) are the most heavily involved of the positions. More than three-fourths of the park districts reported their involvement in staffing, salary and wage administration, training, policy making and employee/labor relations. Moreover, their involvement in all functions except safety was reported by more than 50% of the park districts. The second major position involved was department heads or superintendents. It is interesting to see how the distribution of personnel functions by position changes with a designated part-time personnel administrator. Part-time personnel administrators generally have major finance or general administrative func-
Table 1
Twenty-one park districts do not have a designated personnel administrator. There were possible multiple choices Source: Compiled from park district survey. Summer 1992.
tions. They carry such titles as payroll and finance supervisor, business manager, administrative services manager, superintendent of finance and personnel, and executive secretary to the director. The implication from these titles is that personnel is not their major concern or activity. Table 2 shows the distribution of activities among those park districts with a designated part-time administrator. It is interesting to note from Table 2 that the part-time personnel administrators are not heavily involved in all the listed personnel functions. Indeed, only with wage protection insurance are they assigned in more than 60% of the park districts. They are involved in wage administration in only four park districts, safety in five, and have no involvement in any of the labor relations (grievances, arbitration, negotiations). This may be reflective of the different levels and other major responsibilities for the part-time personnel administrators. For example, a clinical employee would not generally be involved in safety, salary and wage administration or labor relations. But one would think that the first concerns for a centralized personnel function for efficiency and control would be financial and record functions. Therefore, such activities as record keeping, administrative of medical insurance, age protection insurance and fringe benefits should be the first to be centralized. However, Table 1 shows that only between 50 and 60 percent of the park districts have made these functions a part of their part-time personnel administrator's responsibilities. This may also indicate the small amount of time or concern the part-time administrator has for personnel. However, with the part-time administrator, the distribution of personnel functions is not as concentrated as it is in those park districts with no designated part-time personnel administrator (Table 1). Department heads and senior administrators are still the most heavily involved positions in both situations, but the percentages are less in the districts with a part-time personnel administrator. In the function of record keeping and wage protection insurance, the time spent falls off dramatically with the personnel administrator recording those as major functions. Differences in involvement with each function are indicated in Table 3. As Table 3 shows, there is a redistribution of duties generally from the senior administrators and the department heads to the personnel administrators. This should increase efficiency and effectiveness for these positions as it allows them to concentrate more of their time and effort on their main responsibilities of planning and delivering park district services. It also should increase the efficiency and quality of personnel services to the extent that the personnel administrator can focus and specialize in providing the personnel functions. Big differences are shown in reduction of senior administrators' time in the training, medical insurance, wage protection and record keeping functions. These are four functions that, while important, should not demand the time of senior administrators. Likewise, fringe benefits, policy development, wage protection and record keep-
Eighteen park districts have a part-time personnel administrator. There were possible multiple choices for each personnel activity. The percentage is based on a total of 18 possible responses for each position. Source; Compiled from park district survey. Summer 1992,
Table 3
Any differences between 0 and 10 percent are not shown.
ing should not involve the time of department heads when there is a personnel administrator who can be responsible for these functions. It is interesting to note that park districts with a part-time personnel administrator may also be more concerned with the complexities and possible ramifications from various personnel functions. This is evidenced by attorneys being more involved in personnel policy development and employee/labor relations. It also appears that there is a more rational distribution of functions in park districts with a designated personnel administrator. For example, senior administrators are less involved in the staffing aspects of screening, reference checks and writing job descriptions. First line supervisors are more involved in the safety aspects of accident prevention, injury reports, etc. The board is less involved in employee/labor relations, and much of the record keeping and monitoring functions have been removed from the senior administrators and the department heads. When a full-time personnel coordinator is on staff, the senior administrator's personnel activities in all categories appear to be almost non-existent (except some work in benefits and employee relations). The top three categories—policy development, wage/salary administration and employee relations—once performed by senior administrators are now performed by the full-time personnel coordinator. This same dramatic decrease of personnel administration involvement with a full-time personnel administrator is also evidenced with department heads and first line supervisors. No park district with a full-time administrator reported first line supervision involvement in any personnel activity except staffing, training and safety. Moreover, department head involvement dropped to 20% in all categories except staffing (40%), training (60%) and policy development, medical and wage protection insurance (no involvement). There was also corresponding dramatic reductions in time spent by senior administrators when a full-time personnel administrator was present. The shift was from 78% of the park districts reporting their senior administrators spent more than 25% of their time on personnel matters with a part-time administrator, to only 40% with a full-time administrator, a drop of 38%. However, the survey results showed little change in the time other positions spent on personnel matters as the park district moved from no personnel administrator to part-time or full-time. It held steady with roughly 40% of the park districts reporting that first-line supervisors (60% for department heads) spent between 26% and 50% of their time on personnel matters regardless of whether there was no personnel administrator, a part-time or a full-time administrator. This may be explained by the part-time personnel administrator for most park districts (two-thirds) spending less than half of their time on personnel activities, with other duties taking precedent over personnel duties. Another reason for no significant decrease may be because of the increased attention and sophistication the personnel function receives with the addition of a designated personnel administrator. More time is spent generally by the total organization which allows higher level personnel duties by line managers as they are relieved of monitoring and record keeping duties. It has been shown elsewhere that the nature of their personnel duties changed with the addition of personnel staff. There is a general premise that park district employees are poorly trained in personnel administration. This premise is based on the fact that most managers are promoted or hired because of their past performance in a particular, specified field or type of work. This past work generally has very little to do with personnel management. It is hypothesized that dealing with personnel functions was not part of their professional development prior to this promotion. Table 4 shows the response to the question regarding the type of personnel training attained either prior to or after becoming a manager.
Centralization of the Personnel Function When do park districts designate a part-time or full-time personnel administrator? The survey did not show a conclusive relationship between number of employees and the existence of a full-time or part-time administrator. However, it showed trends. Part-time personnel administrators were in 38% of the districts reporting 20 to 40 full-time employees. This percentage escalates to 71% in districts with 40 to 59 full-time employees. Therefore, somewhere between hiring the fortieth and sixty-ninth full-time employee, part-time personnel administrators becomes the dominant mode. However, at least one district without designated personnel support existed with as many as 100 full-time employees. Full-time coordinators began to appear in districts with 60-79 full-time employees, with 40% reporting a full-time personnel administrator. Even at that employee level, there was an equal number of districts that used part-time coordinators, and 20% with no administrator. Districts supported both part-time and full-time personnel up to 100 employees. Beyond that, only full-time administrators were reported. However, the number of park districts which had 80 or more full-time employees was
extremely small as to render the results suspect. Conclusion Regardless of the size of the organization, personnel functions are performed. This study has looked at how the personnel function is administered in small park districts in Illinois. The study showed that senior administrators and department heads are most involved in administering the personnel function and were particularly evident with a full-time administrator. The addition of a designated personnel administrator results in a more efficient distribution of the personnel functions and suggests a better use of the time line management spends in personnel activities. The survey results show that park district management seems to be well prepared in personnel administration. This is contrary to the traditional promotional pattern of employees educated in specialized, technical fields who are promoted into management based on their specialized training and on-the-job success, not on the basis of acquiring additional management expertise and training. For those park districts too small to designate even a part-time personnel administrator, they may find it financially advantageous to share or contract out functions with a neighboring park district to achieve some of the benefits of a centralized personnel function. Some cooperative efforts which could be explored are: 1. Joint ownership/sponsorship of insurance pools with a risk manager to manage the program. The manager also helps the member districts in safety issues, loss reduction programs, etc. Some of these ideas are being implemented by some park districts and other organizations. Indeed, some municipalities have organized recruiting and screening for police officers, while others have a personnel specialist who is available for consultation and performs personnel services for each municipality. There are a number of ways that park districts can cooperate to obtain the benefits of personnel expertise while sharing the costs with other park districts. A smaller park district which could not otherwise justify the expense of personnel administrators on staff could still have access to these benefits through cooperative arrangements with other park districts. About the Author David K. Hamilton has a Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh. He is Public Administration Program Director at Roosevelt University. Acknowledgment The author expresses his appreciation for the assistance of David Price of the Mt. Prospect Park District for conducting, administering and tabulating the survey.
|
|
|