Rethinking Human Resources in Public Administration: An Empirical Analysis of the Problem of the Ineffective Usage of Human Resources in the Public Sector

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, “İnsanı yaşat ki devlet yaşasın” felsefesinden referansla kamu sektöründe insan kaynaklarının etkin kullanılamaması sorununun olası neden ve sonuçlarını, uç bir örnek olan ve kamu sektöründe "kızak kadro" olarak da nitelendirilen pasif kamu görevlileri üzerinden araştırmaktır. Türk kamu yönetiminde insan kaynaklarının etkin kullanılmamasına odaklanan araştırmaların eksikliği, çalışmanın keşfedici yönü güçlü bir araştırma tasarımı kullanmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu nedenle nitel araştırma tasarımının kullanıldığı bu çalışmanın önemi, sürekli dile getirilen ancak bugüne kadar ampirik olarak araştırılmamış olan kamu kesimindeki insan kaynaklarının etkin kullanımı sorunu odağında bilgi birikimine katkı sağlamaktır. Özellikle pasif kamu görevlileri gibi hassas konularda daha kolay veri toplamak ve analiz etmek için çalışma çerçevesinde yürütülmesi mümkündür. Nitel vaka tasarımı, belirli bir sosyal/idari durum, olay ya da grup hakkında detaylı bilgi edinmeye ve sorunlara ilişkin özgün keşifler yapmaya olanak tanır. Çalışma örnekleminde yer alan 47 kamu çalışanı ile yüz yüze görüşmeler gerçekleştirilerek alan araştırması tamamlanmıştır. Alan araştırmasından elde edilen bulguların analizine göre kamu kesimindeki insan kaynaklarının etkin kullanılmamasının nedenleri şu şekilde özetlenebilir: Siyasi patronaj ilişkileri, kayırmacılık, beceriksizlik, bilgisizlik vb. Bununla birlikte insan kaynaklarının etkin kullanılmamasının sonuçları ise motivasyon kaybı ve olası iş tatminsizliği ve kişi-çevre uyumu sorunları, finansal zayıflık, ulusal performans kaybı, güven kaybı, bireysel performans kaybı ve verimsizlik olarak özetlenebilir.

Keywords

• İnsan Kaynakları
• İnsan Sermayesi
• Kamu Sektörü
• İnsan Kaynaklarının Etkin Kullanımı
• Kamu Personel Yönetimi

Rethinking Human Resources in Public Administration: An Empirical Analysis of the Problem of the Ineffective Usage of Human Resources in the Public Sector

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the possible causes and consequences of the problem of ineffective utilization of human resources in the public sector, with reference to the philosophy of "Let the people live so that the state may live", through the extreme example of passive public servants in the public sector, who are also characterized as " benched ". The lack of research focusing on the ineffective usage of human resources in Turkish public administration requires the study to use a research design with a strong exploratory aspect. The importance of this study is to contribute to the knowledge in the focus on the problem of effective use of human resources, which has been constantly mentioned but has not been empirically investigated until now. It is possible to be carried out within the framework of the study to collect and analyze data more easily, especially on sensitive issues such as inactive public officials. Qualitative case design allows to obtain detailed information about a particular social/administrative situation, event, or group and to make unique discoveries about problems. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 47 public employees in the study sample. The reasons for the ineffective usage of human resources can be summarized as follows; Political patronage relations, nepotism, incompetence, unawareness, etc. Consequences of ineffective usage of human resources can be summarized as; loss of motivation and possible job dissatisfaction and problems of person-environment fit, financial weakness, loss of national performance, loss of confidence, loss of individual performance, and inefficiency.

Keywords

• Human Resources
• Human Capital
• Public Sector
• Ineffective Usage of Human Resources
• Public Personnel Management

References

1. Adams, J. S., & Freedman, S. (1976). Equity theory revisited: Comments and annotated bibliography. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 9, 43-90.
2. Aykaç, B. (1990). Personel yönetiminde yeterlik ilkesi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 23(4), 91-109.
3. Bellé, N. (2015). Performance-related pay and the crowding out of motivation in the public sector: A randomized field experiment. Public Administration Review, 75(2), 230-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12313
4. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5. bs). Pearson.
5. Brewer, G. A., Kellough, J. E., & Rainey, H. G. (2022). The importance of merit principles for civil service systems: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(4), 686-708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X211026008
6. Canman, D., & Öktem, M. K. (1992). Kamu yönetiminde insan kaynağının geliştirilmesinde insangücü planlaması. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 25(4), 31–55.
7. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 248-267.
8. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.

9. Civil Servants Law No. 657 (1965). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.657.pdf
10. Council of Ethics for Public Officials (2009) Decision: 2009/37
11. Council of Ethics for Public Officials (2010) Decision: 2010/28
12. Council of Ethics for Public Officials (2011) Decision: 2011/4
13. Council of Ethics for Public Officials (2012) Decision: 2012/2, 2012/19, 2012/26
14. Council of Ethics for Public Officials (2014) Decision: 2014/63
15. Council of Ethics for Public Officials (2016) Decision: 2016/45
16. Council of Ethics for Public Officials (2018) Decision: 2018/138, 2018/6
17. Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide for small-scale social research studys (3. bs). Open University P.
18. Dinçer, Ö., & Yılmaz, C. (2003). Kamu yönetiminde yeniden yapılanma 1. değişimin yönetimi için yönetimde değişim. T.C. Başbakanlık.
19. Dobuzinskis, L. (1997). Historical and epistemological trends in public administration. Journal of Management History, 3(4), 298–316.
20. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: a conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 283–357. John Wiley & Sons.
21. Erdem, F. (2017, Temmuz 22). 22 yıllık merkez valisi emekli oldu. Takvim. https://www.takvim.com.tr/yazarlar/erdem/2017/07/26/22-yillik-merkez-valisi-emekli-oldu
22. Findley, C. V. (2014). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda bürokratik reform: Babıâli (1789-1922). Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
23. Frank, S. A., & Lewis, G. B. (2004). Government employees: Working hard or hardly working? The American Review of Public Administration, 34(1), 36–51.
24. Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge university press.
25. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Bloch Snyderman, B. (1962). The motivation to work (2. bs). John Wiley & Sons.
26. İlyas, A. (2016). 27 Mayıs Askeri Darbesi’nin sancıları ve orduda tasfiyeler. Türk - İslam Medeniyeti Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(22), 163-178.
27. Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 193-212.
28. Jones, R. G., & Stout, T. (2015). Policing nepotism and cronyism without losing the value of social connection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(01), 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2014.3
29. Kamu-Veri. (2023). https://www.cbiko.gov.tr/projeler/kamu-veri
30. Kerse, G., & Babadağ, M. (2018). I’m Out If Nepotism is in: The Relationship Between Nepotism, Job Standardization and Turnover Intention. Ege Akademik Bakış, 18(4), Art. 4. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.2018442992
31. Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person–environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3. Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 3–50). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-001.
32. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
33. Locke, E. A. (1976). “The Nature and Cause of Job Satisfaction” in Dunnette, M. D. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1st Ed.), Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. 1297-1349.
34. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1979). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works! Organizational Dynamics, 8(2), 68-80.
35. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705.
36. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125.
37. Mutlu, K. (2000). Problems of nepotism and favoritism in the police organization in Turkey. Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 381-389. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510010343056
38. Naff, K. C., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5–16.
39. Ospina, S. M., Esteve, M., & Lee, S. (2018). Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 593-605.
40. Panizza, F., Larraburu, C. R. R., & Scherlis, G. (2018). Unpacking patronage: The politics of patronage appointments in Argentina’s and Uruguay’s Central Public Administrations. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 10(3), 59-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X1801000303
41. Park, S., & Liang, J. (2020). Merit, diversity, and performance: Does diversity management moderate the effect of merit principles on governmental performance? Public Personnel Management, 49(1), 83-110.
42. Pearce, J. L. (2015). Cronyism and nepotism are bad for everyone: The research evidence. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 41-44. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2014.10
43. Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373.
44. Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1976). Peter Prensibi (B. Tanç, Çev.). Bedir.
45. Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (2017). The case study in management research: Beyond the positivist legacy of eisenhardt and yin? In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions (pp. 345-358). SAGE Publications.
46. Public Administration Basic Law Bill (2003). https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem22/yil01/ss349m.htm
47. Ragauskas, R., & Valeškaitė, I. (2020). Nepotism, political competition and overemployment. Political Research Exchange, 2(1), 1781542. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1781542
48. Reinhardt, A., Kreiner, G. E., Gioia, D. A., & Corley, K. G. (2018). Conducting and publishing rigorous qualitative research. in C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions, SAGE, Publications.
49. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
50. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Handbook of self-determination research (ss. 3-33). The University of Rochester Press.
51. Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2017). Case study methodology. In Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y. S., (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, SAGE, USA.
52. Stančetić, V. (2020). Spoils system is not dead: The development and effectiveness of the merit system in Western Balkans. Hrvatska i Komparativna Javna Uprava: Časopis Za Teoriju i Praksu Javne Uprave, 20(3), 415-438. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.20.3.1
53. Tural, E. (2009). Son dönem Osmanlı bürokrasisi: II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi’nde bürokratlar, İttihatçılar ve parlamenterler. Ankara: TODAİE.
54. Van Loon, N., Kjeldsen, A. M., Andersen, L. B., Vandenabeele, W., & Leisink, P. (2018). Only when the societal impact potential is high? A panel study of the relationship between public service motivation and perceived performance. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(2), 139-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16639111
55. Weber, M. (2012). Ekonomi ve toplum, c.2 (L. Boyacı, Çev.; C. 2). Yarın Yayınevi.
56. White, L. D. (1958). The Republican era: 1869-1901; A study in administrative history. New York: Macmillan.
57. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8. bs). SeçkinYayınevi.
58. Yılmaz, M. (2017). Ankara’da gecenin bombası: Dev kurumun genel müdürü görevden alındı. Hürriyet. Erişim adresi: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/ankarada-gecenin-bombasi-dev-kurumun-genel-muduru-gorevden-alindi-40677535 (Erişim: 7.2.2020)