THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF THE WORK PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
The WPF is built upon recent literature on public administration theory and HR management theory. While the following literature review does not account for all pertinent theoretical research and discussion in the areas of HR management and public administration, these works were instrumental in the construction of the WPF.
Public Administration Theories
We need a comprehensive theoretical framework to better understand the profession of public administration. If there have been shortcomings in the search for such a framework, it is not for lack of trying. A vast number of books, journals, papers, and conference proceedings abound with discussions, frameworks, formulas, data, statistical analyses, and case studies. Nonetheless, there is still little agreement about what public programs are supposed to accomplish, and there is no universally acknowledged theoretical framework.
R. D. Behn (1995) proposed that scholars in public management entertain big questions, much like those in science. Comparing the “science” of public administration to physics, where questions like the origin of the universe led to the big bang theory, he notes that scientists do not start with data or methods; they begin with questions. Once a big question has been set, the data and methods are developed to achieve the goal. Behn’s three big questions for the field of public administration ask how to manage public programs without micromanaging, how to motivate public-sector workers to achieve public purposes, and how to measure agency achievements in a way that leads to greater success. A theoretical framework on work performance would be extremely helpful in addressing Behn’s three big questions.
J. C. N. Raadschelders (1999) documented the need for a comprehensive theory of public administration, explaining that the field suffers from identity confusion due to existential and academic crises. He explains that public administration’s existential problem stems from the need to separate itself as an independent discipline apart from political science, economics, and business administration. The academic problems, in his view, stem from epistemological questions that must be addressed by applying organizational theories to public organizations, relating theories of human action to the practice of governing, and addressing the extent to which our knowledge of public administration is scientific. Although he does not take on these challenges himself, Raadschelders does present a diagram of public administration as a body of knowledge, cataloging topics of discussion under four quadrants (what, who, why, and how) that are the foundation of the general question: what is public administration?
In The Spirit of Public Administration (1997), H. George Frederickson argues there should be three pillars of public administration theory—efficiency, economy, and social equity. In positing a compound theory of social equity, Frederickson uses the terms fairness, justice, and equity interchangeably, where the ultimate goal of social equity is a more equal distribution of opportunities, costs, and benefits. The basis for this activity is that public administrators should be good citizens who benevolently oversee public programs and actively seek to help the less fortunate.
At the 2001 national conference of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), this author presented a theoretical framework for public programs. The framework for public programs, which has been incorporated into the WPF, aligns with Frederickson’s three pillars for public administration but includes some subtle differences.
The framework for public programs begins with the central premise that public programs must follow one ethical rule: neither provide nor charge for unnecessary services. This premise is analogous to the “invisible hand” that ensures efficiency in free enterprise markets. And it leads to the fundamental question: what is the purpose of public programs? Two fundamental purposes of public programs are (1) public programs must provide important services that should not and cannot be provided by private businesses, and (2) government is responsible for advancing social justice.
The framework for public programs identifies three public program service components: (1) prevent or solve societal problems; (2) provide care and compassion; and (3) through the distribution of information and other resources, enable people to solve their own problems.
The framework also proposes four social justice components of public programs: (1) equitable laws and procedures that create a level playing field on which people who are motivated to do their best can enjoy substantial individual rewards; (2) generous distribution of our nation’s wealth to all citizens, especially the most needy; (3) due process procedures that provide a mechanism for citizen dissent; and (4) a social contract that holds people accountable for being responsible citizens and for helping themselves to the fullest extent possible when aided by public programs.
The intended impact of these public programs is to advance the belief among our citizens that (1) public programs provide important value; (2) the programs are fiscally responsible; (3) the programs balance individual rights and benefits against rights and benefits for all; and (4) because of these programs, our government is good. Thus, we have constructed a working definition of goodness, so “good” public programs are efficient, effective, and fair. (By extension, the “good” public-sector worker is also efficient, effective, and fair.)
Finally, the framework for public programs posits that the desired sustainable result of public programs is social harmony.
Human Resource Management Theories
S. E. Jackson and R. S. Schuler (1995) identify a number of contemporary theories that aid an understanding of HR management within the context of the organization. The authors describe the role-behavior perspective, institutional theory, resource-dependent theory, human capital theory, transaction costs theory, agency theory, resource-based theory, and general systems theory. These theories range from evaluating the cost and value of HR management to identifying the interpersonal and social systems that occur in organizations, which workers must understand in order to maneuver effectively. Wright and Snell’s management model (1991) uses general systems theory. Skills and abilities are presented as inputs, employee behaviors are presented as throughputs, and employee satisfaction and performance are outputs.
H. P. Hatry (2001) describes an adapted United Way model for human services programs in which program outcomes encompass “new knowledge,” “increased skills,” and “changed attitudes or values,” which lead to “modified behaviors,” which in turn lead to “improved conditions” or “altered states.”
Other HR management systems theories add aptitudes and personality traits as inputs in addition to knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) and add work duties, work activities, and tasks as processes in addition to work behaviors.
By incorporating many of the HR management topics discussed by Hatry and by Wright and Snell, the WPF adopts general systems theory as the basis for constructing a comprehensive theoretical framework for HR management. By addressing the public administration topics presented by Behn, Raadschelders, and Frederickson, as well as this author’s line of inquiry into public programs, the WPF merges HR management theory with general public administration theory.