Various scholars have put forth frameworks for interpreting how public sector human resource management (HRM) policies and practices have tracked shifts in societal values. Although such frameworks serve important heuristic purposes, the empirical support offered for the interpretations made is generally thin. This study employs content analysis techniques to assess the relative validity of these different schemes with a focus on the priority assigned to the different values by members of Congress in debates over the federal civil service. According to the results, among the most dominant HRM-related values for the 122-year period (1883-2004) are efficiency, morality, and progress.
Beck-JorgensenT.BozemanB. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39, 354-381.
2.
BengstonD. N.XuZ. (2009). Changing national forest values. In KrippendorffK. (Ed.), The content analysis reader (pp. 283-294). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
3.
BilmesL.GouldS. (2009). The people factor: Strengthening America by investing in public service. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
4.
CookB. (1996). Bureaucracy and self-government: Reconsidering the role of public administration in American politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5.
DresangD. L. (1999). Public personnel management and policy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
6.
DuriauV. J.RegerR. K.PfarrerM. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organizational studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 5-34.
7.
EckhardtW. (1972). Compassion. Oakville, Ontario: Canadian Peace Research Institute.
8.
KaufmanH. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. American Political Science Review, 50, 1057-1073.
9.
KlingnerD. E.LynnD. B. (1997). Beyond civil service: The changing face of public personnel management. Public Personnel Management, 26, 157-173.
10.
KlingnerD. E.NalbandianJ. (1985). Public personnel management: Contexts and strategies (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
KlingnerD. E.NalbandianJ.LlorensJ. J. (2010). Public personnel management: Contexts and strategies (6th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
12.
KluckhohnC. K. (1951). Value and value orientations in the theory of action. In ParsonsT.ShilsE. B. (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388-433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
LombardM.Snyder-DuchJ.BrackenC. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587-604.
14.
LynnD. B.KlingnerD. E. (2010). Beyond civil service: The politics of the emergent paradigms. In CondreyS. E. (Ed.), Handbook of human resource management in government (3rd ed., pp. 45-71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
MooreM. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
MosherF. C. (1968). Democracy and the public service. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
MosherF. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
NaffK. C.RiccucciN. M.FreyssS. F. (2014). Personnel management in government: Politics and process (7th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
19.
NamenwirthJ. Z. (1973). Wheels of time and the interdependence of value change in America. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 3, 649-683.
20.
NeuendorfK. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
RescherN. (1969). Introduction to value theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22.
RobertsC. W. (1989). Other than counting words: A linguistic approach to content analysis. Social Forces, 68, 147-177.
23.
RobertsG. E. (2000). A history of the civil service: A values-based perspective. In CondreyS. E.MarantoR. (Eds.), Radical reform of the civil service (pp. 15-41). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
24.
RokeachM. (1979). From individual to institutional values: With special reference to the values of science. In RokeachM. (Ed.), Understanding human values: Individual and society (pp. 47-70). New York, NY: The Free Press.
25.
RosenbloomD. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review, 43, 219-227.
26.
RutgersM. R. (2014). As good as it gets? On the meaning of public value in the study of policy and management. American Review of Public Administration, 45, 29-45.
27.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2003). Biography of an ideal: A history of the federal civil service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
28.
Van DethJ. W.ScarbroughE. (1995). The concept of values. In Van DethJ. W.ScarbroughE. (Eds.), The impact of values (pp. 21-47). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29.
Van RiperP. (1958). History of the United States civil service. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson & Company.
30.
WeberR. (1985). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
WhiteR. K. (1951). Value analysis: The nature and use of the method. Glen Gardner, NJ: Libertarian Press.
