Abstract : This report describes the PACER SHARE Productivity and Personnel Management Demonstration and the plan that has been developed to evaluate it. The report also presents statistical results concerning the quality of work life, organizational flexibility, work quality, and cost savings during the baseline period prior to the demonstration and through the demonstration's first 2 years. PACER SHARE is a 5-year federal civil service demonstration being conducted within the Directorate of Distribution (DS) at the Sacramento Air Logistics Center (SM-ALC) under the legal authority of the Office of Personnel Management. Its purpose is to determine whether several changes in federal civil service practices being tried on an experimental basis will improve productivity. The DSs at the four remaining ALCs (which perform similar functions) serve as the comparison sites. The demonstration formally began in February 1988 after several years of planning. If effective, the interventions will subsequently be considered for wider application. In broad terms, the goals of PACER SHARE are to increase the flexibility of the organization to respond to changes in workload; to enrich the quality of work life; to maintain the quality and timeliness of work as these changes are being brought about; to make quality and timeliness even better in the long run; and to enhance productivity. The demonstration is designed to attain these objectives through several innovations in personnel practices and through productivity gainsharing, which returns one-half of cost savings to the work force. The personnel system changes include job series consolidation; revised base pay determination, including pay banding and elimination of individual performance appraisals; supervisory grading criteria changes that emphasize job responsibilities and de-emphasize number of subordinates; and Demonstration On-Call hiring authority, which provides for rapid employee release and recall.
[1]
O. Williamson.
The organization of work a comparative institutional assessment
,
1980
.
[2]
Harry C. Triandis,et al.
The Human Organization: Its Management and Value.
,
1967
.
[3]
R. Zager,et al.
The Innovative organization : productivity programs in action
,
1982
.
[4]
M. Walton.
The Deming management method
,
1986
.
[5]
Joyce L. Roll,et al.
The Potential for Application of Quality Circles in the American Public Sector
,
1983
.
[6]
David A. Nadler,et al.
Quality of work life: perspectives and directions.
,
1983,
Organizational dynamics.
[7]
T. Patten,et al.
Pay: Employee compensation and incentive plans
,
1977
.
[8]
T. Moe.
The New Economics of Organization
,
1984
.
[9]
A. Michael Spence,et al.
The Economics of Internal Organization: An Introduction
,
1975
.
[10]
W. J. Vrakking,et al.
The innovative organization
,
1990
.
[11]
R. Zeckhauser,et al.
Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business
,
1990
.
[12]
Keith Bradley,et al.
Quality Circles and Managerial Interests
,
1987
.
[13]
G. Strauss.
Industrial Relations: Time of Change
,
1984
.
[14]
W. Edwards Deming,et al.
Out of the Crisis
,
1982
.
[15]
Louis E. Davis,et al.
Job Satisfaction Research: The Post‐Industrial View
,
1971
.
[16]
M. Gruneberg,et al.
Understanding job satisfaction
,
1979
.
[17]
Michael Beer,et al.
Human Resources Management: The Integration of Industrial Relations and Organizational Development
,
1984
.
[18]
E. Lawler,et al.
Quality circles after the fad.
,
1985,
Harvard business review.