Human Resources Managements made in Germany: the personnel principles of a Weberian public administration.

Abstract

The “Introduction” aims to clearly define and delimit the main research goal of the dissertation and to shortly point out every chapter’s central topic. Following a germinal and narrative way of depicting things, the introductory chapter aims to give the reader the ability to gradually explore the epistemological background of German Public Administration by introducing him/her to the first steps of its development as an academic discipline, as well as its dialectical relation to other ones. Following the analysis by Michael Bauer and Stefan Becker emphasis will be given to German Public Administration’s “academic-scientific” relation to Law and Political Sciences, whereas the “disciplinary dominance” of the latter ones over the former will be stressed. Furthermore, because of the twofold character of the dissertation’s research goal, the “Introduction” clearly states that German Public Administration’s functional and ontological structure along with its personnel principles have to be simultaneously perused with its Weberian character. In particular, following the analysis by Christoph Reichard and according to data given by “giz” (“Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit”), a short reference will be made to the philosophical and structural elements of Max Weber’s “Ideal Type of Bureaucracy”, which will be conceptionally combined with the first steps of German Public Administration’s centralization and “weberianization” starting from the decade of 1870. The current chapter is used as a post-introductory one. Before one goes deeper into its “intellectual roots”, it is clarified that Human Resources Management (HRM) will be here analyzed as a wide, unified discipline, meaning that no special distinction will be here made between “private” and “public” HRM, mainly because of the introductory character of the chapter and the dialectical relation of management practices implemented to both sectors, which can functionally influence one another. Taking into consideration the analysis by Christian Scholz, the chapter firstly aims to clearly depict HRM’s diversity of definitions inside the national-German context (1.1.). Moreover, following the analysis by Michael Müller, it presents and shortly analyzes the 4 different models of HRM, i.e. the “traditional personnel management”, the “pluralist HRM”, the “market-type personnel management”, and the “unitarist HRM” (1.2.). Having referred to the above ones, the chapter puts the emphasis on the different “German-speaking” academic approaches to HRM, i.e. the “Stuttgart”, “Mannheim”, “Saarbrücken” and “Zürich” approach (1.2.). According to the analysis by Christian Scholz and Rüdiger Kabst the above approaches are described and defined as concrete and precise “German strategies” of personnel management. Last but not least, the post-introductory chapter tries to find out an ascertainment with regards to the existence of HRM inside Germany’s environment (1.3.). In particular, it tries to find out whether HRM exists as a “marginalized” discipline, rejected by the “German needs” of the country’s socio-financial conditions or has to be considered as an endeavor “under construction” (1.3.). The main goal of the 2nd chapter is to describe German Public Administration as one, which “naturally” fits -or is obliged to do so- into the German political system’s federal structure. In particular, it tries to define how the latter influences the distribution of public personnel to the German three-layered governance. The chapter starts by defining the term “Federalism” according to the analysis by Andrew Heywood and describes Germany as “unitary federation” according to the definition given by Sabine Kuhlmann (2.1.). Also, a short overview of Germany’s political systems is here given, whereas a reference is made to given principles of it (“cabinet” and “departmental” principle). Furthermore, the German political system is here described as a complex one, mainly because of the co-existence of “implementation federalism” with the system of three-layered governance. In more specific terms, emphasis is put on the analysis by Bernd Keller, according to which the distribution of administrative tasks, and thus, the one of personnel, follow the system’s federal structure (2.2.), whereas the administrative domination of the layer of “Länder” in terms of personnel density is also examined (2.2.1.). The latter is enriched with official data given by the German Ministry of Interior (“Bundesministerium des Innern”, “BMI”), which ascertain that personnel’s strongest density can be found in the level-layer of “Länder” (2.2.1.). The main goal of the third (3rd) chapter is to explore and analyze German public personnel’s ontology by examining its structure, traditional principles, internal procedures, labor relations system and recent trends. In particular, emphasis is put on its dualistic structure: the analysis is here mainly focused on the fundamental administrative distinction between civil servants and public employees, whereas differences concerning their legal status are stressed (3.1.). Furthermore, by making a reference to the German Basic Law (“Grundgesetz”), the traditional principles of the professional civil service are analyzed as a precise “Code of Administrative Ethics”, which is still dominated by Max Weber’s tradition and influences the character of German Public Administration (3.2.). Moreover, the German public personnel is here described as a “lively entity”, vital features of its “existence” (Recruitment, Training, Mobility, etc.) are deeply analyzed, whereas their relation and relevance to the terms of “centralization” and “decentralization” are taken into consideration (3.3.). In addition, public personnel’s dualistic structure is also examined, taking into consideration the field of labor relations and interests’ representation (3.4.). Last but not least, two (2) recent trends (female and part-time employment) are selectively presented as the most the dominant ones (3.5.). The main goal of the 4th chapter is to set and ascertain the Weberian character of German Public Administration as its most fundamental feature. The chapter tries to prove the non-familiarization of the German Public Administration with the procedure of transition from tradition to modernization. In particular, according to the analysis by Manfred Röber, the traditional principles of the professional civil service are here again highlighted, but analyzed as the dominant ones, which transfuse to the German Public Administration its Weberian character (4.1.). Moreover, taking into consideration the analysis by Rainer Pitschas, the Weberian character of the procedures of training and collective bargaining is analyzed, whereas the phenomenon of “flexibilization of work” through part-time employment is examined as a deviating trend from the Weberian tradition (4.3.). In addition, taking into consideration the analysis by Christoph Reichard, the sub-chapter 4.4 aims to prove lawyers’ working and professional dominance in the field of German Public Administration, whereas it tries to parallel the latter phenomenon to the principle of “Rule of Law”, which derives from the Weberian tradition. Last but not least, according to the analysis by Gerhard Hammerschmid, an attempt is made to analyze and clarify the implementation of the selective German, administrative reform attempts (“Föderalismusreform 2006”, “Föderalismusreform 2009”, “Neues Steuerungsmodel”, failed role of public managers in the German working environment) as ones, which did not succeed to fundamentally change the Weberian character of the German Public Administration (4.5.).