Comparative Analysis
After summarizing the two articles, it is understood that Ingraham (2006) supports the idea of change in civil service reform, but wants merit to be an important aspect and oppose the idea of “at-will” employment. On the other hand, Condrey and Battaglio (2007) are in favor of “at- will” employment and changes and expansion of the civil service reform. There seem to be some similarities between the two arguments. However, there is a difference in opinions for both the writers.
Ingraham’s article gives more importance to the concept of merit. Ingraham (2006) also explains the separation of merit and civil service by stating “I argue here that because merit is a value, it can be pursued in a variety of ways. It does not reside …show more content…
In contrast to Ingraham’s argument about resistance to change, Condrey and Battaglio argue that the changes have lead to the betterment of the political system in the future, for example, in Lesson 1. According to Condrey and Battaglio (2007), “Additionally, of the 28 state governments reporting at-will policy expansion, 25 (89 percent) also reported some degree of decentralization of their personnel system” (p.427). The progress is shown with the help od data analysis.
Somewhat like Ingraham, on the issue of values, Condrey and Battaglio (2007) in lesson 2 argues that “Proponents’ aims of imposing neomanageralist values and superior performance have yet to materialize, with some evidence suggesting that views of their impacts differ from program and HRM professionals” (p.427). This argument shows somewhat similarity between the two authors that people working in the HRM field are still trying to figure out if the changes will work out or not in terms of creating value for the betterment in the public service …show more content…
According to Condrey and Battaglio (2007), an example they provide “Interestingly given in history, the exception of Texas. Texas managers said that they encountered fewer problems in disciplining or dismissing employees. However, these same managers were more likely to articulate concerns about low pay impending recruitment and retention “(p.428). This statement is a positive argument in the article as they are testing the challenges and trying to come up with possible direction for
After summarizing the two articles, it is understood that Ingraham (2006) supports the idea of change in civil service reform, but wants merit to be an important aspect and oppose the idea of “at-will” employment. On the other hand, Condrey and Battaglio (2007) are in favor of “at- will” employment and changes and expansion of the civil service reform. There seem to be some similarities between the two arguments. However, there is a difference in opinions for both the writers.
Ingraham’s article gives more importance to the concept of merit. Ingraham (2006) also explains the separation of merit and civil service by stating “I argue here that because merit is a value, it can be pursued in a variety of ways. It does not reside …show more content…
In contrast to Ingraham’s argument about resistance to change, Condrey and Battaglio argue that the changes have lead to the betterment of the political system in the future, for example, in Lesson 1. According to Condrey and Battaglio (2007), “Additionally, of the 28 state governments reporting at-will policy expansion, 25 (89 percent) also reported some degree of decentralization of their personnel system” (p.427). The progress is shown with the help od data analysis.
Somewhat like Ingraham, on the issue of values, Condrey and Battaglio (2007) in lesson 2 argues that “Proponents’ aims of imposing neomanageralist values and superior performance have yet to materialize, with some evidence suggesting that views of their impacts differ from program and HRM professionals” (p.427). This argument shows somewhat similarity between the two authors that people working in the HRM field are still trying to figure out if the changes will work out or not in terms of creating value for the betterment in the public service …show more content…
According to Condrey and Battaglio (2007), an example they provide “Interestingly given in history, the exception of Texas. Texas managers said that they encountered fewer problems in disciplining or dismissing employees. However, these same managers were more likely to articulate concerns about low pay impending recruitment and retention “(p.428). This statement is a positive argument in the article as they are testing the challenges and trying to come up with possible direction for