Decentralization and Human Resource ManagementIntroductionDecentralization is a complex process which is frequently undertaken as a matter of urgency in a highly political environment. Pressures of implementation can force decisions that in retrospect become detrimental in efforts to ensure equitable, enough, and competent staffing in an organization. A successful decentralization requires that the organization structure roles and responsibilities be well defined for a functional whole and be acceptable to the workforce. For many organizations, this is one of the most critical area which if not well managed can lead to management problems.
Different problems in human resource management arise due to different reasons including unclear or inappropriate definition of organization structures, roles and responsibilities in view with organization goals and economic needs. Similarly, roles and responsibilities may conflict with each other. Organization structures and role allocation may be disputed. Additionally, there might be inadequate communication of these organization changes, below the central level or change so frequently that no one is clear on the current status (Dwyer, 17). For intermediate, regional level, organization structures, roles and responsibilities appear to be very hard to define.
Managers in the human resource department are obliged of being technicians in the resource management centers for directing the free flow and the application of resources of human beings. When the demarcation line between national and regional policies is unclear, it can lead to conflicts on organization structure, roles and responsibilities. Many reasons that explain the essence of disputing organization structure, coupled with roles as well as the responsibilities often arise. The existence of mistrust, personality conflicts, professional pride or even jealousy can arise while in the process of implementing decentralization.
Considerable resentment of directors may arise by making them, in the post-decentralization organization structure, subordinate to a local manager who is junior in age and/or experience. Organization structure, roles and responsibilities maybe defined and then re-defined with such frequency that no stakeholder can maintain an accurate comprehension of them (Bartol et. al, 25). If there is inadequate transmission of information about the organizational changes beyond the central level, organization workers adjustment to a new, decentralized system will not be smooth. Job insecurity is generated at least in part by lack of clarity on the way decentralization would change the roles and responsibilities in and organization.
According to Hendry (131), a country may handle unnecessary issues arising amongst the decentralization of the civil servants as well as how to be cautious helps in defining and designing the issue of decentralization, thereby displaying the outcome of the whole process. The outcome of carrying out the decentralization of the management in the civil service department can be evaluated through various dimensions, namely; the capacity building, incentives, autonomy and finally the accountability. It is imperative to acknowledge the integral role that is being manifested by the four factors displayed above in order for the whole process of decentralization to be successful. The four factors are interrelated and form an important part of the success of the process of decentralization.
For instance, the programs for training the civil servants do not have the strengthening capacity of sustaining themselves until the civil servants use the motivations learnt during their training. Furthermore, for the civil service to locally improve and be accountable, they should have the mandate powered by the accounting department and the available records to offer an effective and accountable department.
At the end of the whole process, it almost impossible to hold the civil servants accountable for the decisions they make especially if they don’t have necessary autonomy in decision making (Hendry, 48).