Siiski on erisused, kuigi on palju neid, kelle arvates on … kõik üks ja seesama

“Public sector human resource management (HRM) continues to attract the interest of scholars due to the distinct public-serving operating context compared to profit-driven private sector organisations (Blom et al., 2020; Boselie et al., 2019).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 800)

Eemaldumine ja lähenemine

“From the 1990s onwards, New Public Management (NPM) and subsequent management reforms were introduced that impacted public sector values, in many cases placing efficiency and effectiveness on par with traditional public values of legality and impartiality (Bezes, 2018; Leisink & Knies, 2018; Van de Walle et al., 2016). Moreover, during a similar timeframe, private sector organisations have become more socially responsible (Poole et al., 2006) and, consequently, have shifted towards a ‘model employer’ type of HRM, similar to the welfare-focussed public sector HRM (Paauwe & Farndale, 2017).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 800)

Autorid lubavad:

“The study contributes to the extant HRM literature in several ways. First, we examine the expectation that public-private sector differences have decreased over time (aka cross-sector convergence). Second, building from institutional theory, we theorise patterns of both change and continuity during this period (Beszter et al., 2015; Fernández-Alles & Llamas-Sánchez, 2008).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 801)

Ei ole olemas mingit lineaarset avalik-era dihhotoomiat:

“To address our research question, it is important first to note that there is no simple public-private sector dichotomy. Increasingly, the two sectors overlap and interrelate in several ways, largely due to outsourcing and public-private partnerships that many governments initiated as part of public management reforms in recent decades (Goldfinch & Wallis, 2010; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2017).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 801) […] “Traditional differences in HRM between private and public sector organisations originated from fundamentally different models of managing work and people. Private organisations typically adopted a ‘hard’ model of HRM, primarily aimed at improving organisational performance, while public organisations adopted the ‘soft’ model, primarily aimed at improving employee well-being (Boyne et al., 1999).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 802) […] “Based on their data and analyses, the question of whether there were substantial differences between HRM in the public and private sectors can be answered with a firm ‘yes’. However, there are two important caveats. First, both studies rely on cross-sectional data and as such only provide us with a snapshot of sectoral differences and not with any information on trends (are the differences stable, increasing, or decreasing over time). Second, this snapshot is already more than 2 decades old.” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 803)

Institutsiooniteoreetiline perspektiiv:

“We build on the work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) who coined the concept of institutional isomorphism to explain organisational change. From the three types of isomorphic change that DiMaggio and Powell (1983, pp. 150–152) distinguish, coercive isomorphism (change resulting from pressures exerted by other organisations such as legal requirements and cultural expectations in society) and mimetic isomorphism (when uncertainty drives organisations to imitate organisations that are seen as model) appear particularly relevant for our argument.” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 803)

Muudatused erasektori personalijuhtimises:

“There are two primary reasons why we posit a shift in private sector HRM towards public sector HRM through mimetic and coercive isomorphic mechanisms. First, although there are regional differences, competition in the labour market for highly skilled employees has generally increased over recent decades as a result of the ageing workforce in many Western countries and increasing international mobility (Basri & Box, 2008; Johnson & Zimmermann, 2008).” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 805) […] “Second, through the process of coercive isomorphic change, governments have introduced regulations (hard and soft laws) to stimulate equal opportunities and inclusive workplaces (Riccucci, 2018). S” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 805)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“By exploring a broad range of HRM practices clustered into four primary areas, two representing ‘soft’ HRM and two ‘hard’ HRM, we were able to uncover the extent to which the public sector continues to have a distinctive approach to managing employees. Our findings imply that only some ‘soft’ HRM practices (equal opportunities) are still dominant in the public sector, while the private sector still holds strong for the range of ‘hard’ HRM practices, which continue to be used less in the public sector.” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 820) […] “Despite these limitations, this study makes an important contribution to managerial practice. It provides both public and private organisations with insights into the distinctiveness of their HRM. It shows what HRM practices are used both within and across sectors, which provides a relevant benchmark that can help organisations build their HRM and position themselves as employers of choice.” (Knies et al., 2022, p. 821)

Knies, E., Borst, R. T., Leisink, P., & Farndale, E. (2022). The distinctiveness of public sector HRM: A four-wave trend analysis. Human Resource Management Journal32(4), 799–825. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12440