Best Practices in Public-Sector Human Resources • 369

BEST PRACTICES IN PUBLIC-SECTOR

HUMAN RESOURCES: WISCONSIN
STATE GOVERNMENT

Robert J. Lavigna1

There is widespread agreement that government human resource systems and processes must
become more responsive, flexible, and efficient. However, reform remains more a goal than a
reality. The Wisconsin Department of Employment Relations, the state government central
personnel/HRM office, has aggressively improved the state human resource/civil service system.
Improvements include modernizing state civil service laws, delegating decision-making to oper-
ating agencies, developing creative ways to assess job applicants, making greater use of technol-
ogy, expanding recruiting activities, creating more flexibility in compensation, expanding affir-
mative action efforts, and forging partnerships with public employee labor unions. These re-
forms have resulted in faster hiring, well-qualified job candidates, a more diverse work force, and
better ways to reward and retain talent. The department has implemented these improvements
while still preserving fundamental principles of merit, fairness, and openness. © 2002 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.

The Demand for Change in Public Sector
Human Resource Management
Today, public sector organizations across the na-
tion are under pressure to radically change the
way they do business. While the demand for re-
form in government addresses virtually every as-
pect of public sector performance, discussions
about reinventing government inevitably turn to
human resource management (HRM).
At every level of government, HRM/per-
sonnel systems are being criticized as inflex-
ible, unresponsive, slow, rule-bound, and
user-unfriendly. Critics charge that HRM pro-
cesses often hinder, rather than help, public-
sector managers do their jobs. Of course,
negative criticism is heard in most organiza-
tions, public and private. However, this is a
particularly important issue in the public sec-
tor where effectiveness depends almost en-
tirely on attracting, retaining, and motivating
talented employees.
The shortcomings of public sector per-
sonnel have been widely catalogued, ana-
lyzed and publicized by blue-ribbon panels
such as the National Commission on the
State and Local Public Service (Winter
Commission), the National Performance
Review (now the National Partnership for
Reinventing Government), and others. Rec-
ommendations for HRM/personnel reform
include:
• Decentralizing personnel processes to
give operating units more decision-
making authority;
• Eliminating restrictive rules;
• Simplifying job classification, com-
pensation, and performance manage-
ment systems to give managers more
flexibility to assign, motivate, and re-
ward employees; and
• Making hiring and firing easier and
faster.

Human Resource Management, Fall 2002, Vol. 41, No. 3, Pp. 369–384
© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.10047
370 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2002
Unfortunately, HRM reform remains more
a goal than a reality in many public-sector or-
ganizations. While there is widespread agree-
ment that HRM systems must become more
responsive and flexible, turning this rhetoric
into reality is a difficult challenge in the com-
plex environment of government.
The Paradox of Reform
One of the greatest challenges to HRM re-
form is balancing the demands of the many
constituencies served by the government: this
lengthy list includes elected chief executives,
While there is politically appointed leaders, legislators, line
wide agreement managers, rank-and-file employees, unions,
that HRM
systems must
veterans, minority groups, women’s groups,
become more personnel appeals commissions and boards,
responsive and courts, job applicants, the public, and so on.
flexible, turning These stakeholders, all of whom must be in-
this rhetoric into volved in any change process, have different
reality is a tough
and often conflicting agendas. Moreover,
challenge in the
complex government personnel processes are designed
environment of to be open, accessible, and inclusive. These
government. goals often interfere with the need to improve
efficiency and responsiveness.
As a result, simply managing government
HRM systems is an imposing task; reforming
them is a far more difficult propositon. Al-
though the goal of then-Vice President Gore’s
National Performance Review (1993)—“to
make government work better and cost less”—
sounds eminently reasonable, this is a diffi-
cult challenge. Reform efforts that do not
recognize that government must balance a
wide range of conflicting interests and influ-
ences are doomed to failure.
Of course, this challenge does not mean
that we cannot reform government personnel
practices; it just makes change harder to imple-
ment and more complicated. Demands for
more flexibility and responsiveness in key HR
areas, such as hiring and firing, are clearly jus-
tified. However, these demands can conflict
with other pressures for merit-based hiring,
due process, public access, affirmative action,
veterans’ preference, or whistle-blower protec-
tion. For example, consider what the chair-
man of the House Post Office and Civil Service
Committee said about civil service reform:
“I’m not interested in a reform that makes it
easy for an agency manager to hire his
neighbor’s son or daughter over a more quali-
fied applicant. Simply giving greater discre-
tion to managers is a recipe for bringing back
the spoils system.” In other words, there are
two sides to the reform coin: a change that
may appear to some stakeholders to be a nec-
essary improvement can be viewed by others
as a prescription for abuse.
Despite This Paradox, HRM Systems Must
Be Reformed
Although reforming public personnel practices
may be difficult, it is essential. For govern-
ment to serve taxpayers well, the public sec-
tor must improve its ability to attract, develop,
and retain talented people. This is a daunting
undertaking today and will only become more
difficult in the future. The shrinking work
force, its growing diversity, and the increasing
competition for talent call for new approaches
to public sector personnel practices. Merit sys-
tems, which have served so well for so long,
must be redefined and reshaped to become
more flexible and responsive.
The Wisconsin Model: Reforming HRM,
While Maintaining Merit Principles and
Cooperative Labor Relations
The Wisconsin State Government HRM sys-
tem is grounded in two fundamental and time-
honored principles: merit and collective bar-
gaining. The state’s merit system, created in
1905, is the third oldest state system and one
of the nation’s most comprehensive. State gov-
ernment employs over 40,000 civil servants,
and state law requires that all vacancies in
these positions must be filled “through meth-
ods which apply the merit principle, with ad-
equate civil service safeguards.”
Collective bargaining in Wisconsin Gov-
ernment also has long history, tracing its roots
to the beginnings of organized labor in the
United States. The largest public sector union
in the nation—the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME)—was founded in Wisconsin by
state government employees almost seventy
years ago. Today, almost 90% of Wisconsin’s
over 40,000 permanent classified (civil service)
employees are represented by labor unions.

The Wisconsin Department of Employ-
ment Relations is the state government’s cen-
tral personnel/HRM agency. The department
manages the state’s human resource system
to ensure that state government has a skilled,
motivated, and diverse work force. The De-
partment of Employment Relations provides
guidance and service to more than fifty state
agencies in Wisconsin, the twenty-six Univer-
sity of Wisconsin campuses, over 40,000 clas-
sified state employees, over 150 local
governments across Wisconsin, and tens of
thousands of job applicants each year. The
department is responsible for a full range of
HRM functions including applicant recruit-
ment and assessment, classification and com-
pensation, labor relations, and affirmative
action. The department is directed by a Sec-
retary who is appointed by the Governor and
confirmed by the State Senate.
While the Department of Employment
Relations develops statewide policies and sys-
tems, and has the ultimate responsibility for
Wisconsin’s HRM system, much of the day-
to-day management of state government per-
sonnel operations is performed by individual
agencies and University of Wisconsin cam-
puses. All large agencies, campuses, and most
small agencies have their own HRM staffs,
who manage the day-to-day personnel activi-
ties of their organizations.
Over the last decade, Wisconsin State
Government has established a national repu-
tation for innovation. In public policy areas
such as welfare reform, Wisconsin has become
a laboratory for experimentation, innovation,
and reform. Although not as widely publicized
as the state’s welfare reform initiatives, Wis-
consin is also reforming the state’s personnel/
civil service system. These reform efforts have
earned the Department of Employment Rela-
tions awards from organizations such as the
Ford Foundation, the International Personnel
Management Association, the National Asso-
ciation of State Personnel Executives, the
American Society for Public Administration,
the Society for Human Resource Manage-
ment, and others. In addition, Governing
magazine, in its “Grading the States” project,
rated Wisconsin’s personnel system one of the
three best in the nation in 2001 (Barrett &
Greene, 2001).
Best Practices in Public-Sector Human Resources • 371
Despite these successes, the department
continues to create more responsive, efficient,
and flexible personnel systems. At the same
time, the department is dedicated to maintain-
ing fundamental principles of merit, fairness,
and openness, as well as positive labor rela-
tions. The state is strongly committed to this
multifaceted approach.
Wisconsin’s reform strategy is to create a
consensus for change by involving all stake-
Wisconsin’s
holders and customers including the Gover-
reform strategy is
nor, the legislature, state agencies, labor to create a
unions, and interest groups. This approach has consensus for
enabled Wisconsin to make changes to im- change, by
prove service in key HRM areas including re- involving all
cruitment and selection, classification and stakeholders and
customers
compensation, diversity, and labor relations. including the
Governor, the
Recruitment and Selection: Attracting legislature, state
and Hiring Talented People agencies, labor
unions, and
interest groups.
To provide responsive, effective, and effi-
cient service to its citizens, government must
be able to attract and hire skilled and dedi-
cated public servants. For example, the Na-
tional Commission on the State and Local
Public Service (1993) report recommended
that government agencies “end civil service
paralysis” by creating more responsive hir-
ing systems.
For most civil service systems, this is
easier said than done because of the many
requirements imposed on such systems. In
Wisconsin state law alone, for example, there
are twenty-eight pages of requirements that
apply to the civil service system. Here are just
a few:
• All civil service appointments must be
made through job-related competitive
examinations in compliance with ap-
propriate validation standards;
• These examinations must be free,
open to all, and convenient to Wis-
consin residents;
• Recruitment must be active, continu-
ous, and conducted as broadly as pos-
sible;
• Applicants can appeal decisions made
at any step in the hiring process to an
independent Personnel Commission
that has decision-making authority.
372 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2002
Wisconsin’s new hiring programs were
driven by the realization that traditional civil
service hiring processes were not working ef-
fectively. In the late 1980s, it became clear that
Wisconsin’s hiring system was not meeting the
needs of customers: state agencies and job ap-
plicants. The process was inflexible, slow, and
cumbersome, and candidates interested in pub-
lic service careers were reluctant to go through
…individual a long process to compete for civil service posi-
agencies develop tions. Well-qualified minority candidates in
their own particular were unwilling to compete in an
approaches to unwieldy system that relied primarily on writ-
evaluate/examine ten examinations that could create adverse
applicants,
accept and impact. The system needed reform.
process Early in 1992, the Department of Employ-
applications, ment Relations conducted a customer survey
evaluate and to assess recruitment and hiring effectiveness.
rank candidates, With the help of Dr. Herbert G. Heneman
develop lists of
qualified
(University of Wisconsin-Madison School of
applicants, Business) and a student intern, the depart-
identify the best ment developed and distributed a sixty-ques-
qualified, and tion survey that included questions in five key
manage the areas identified during focus group discus-
process to
sions: timeliness, communication, candidate
interview the
best-qualified quality, examination quality, and responsive-
applicants. ness/service orientation.
The department sent the survey to 645 per-
sonnel professionals, line managers, and super-
visors across state government. The department
was particularly interested in the latter two
groups because, in many cases, it had only lim-
ited contact with these customers. Almost 500
responses were received (a 70% return rate).
As expected, the survey results brought
good news and bad news. Customers cited
several areas where the Department was per-
forming well (accessibility, professionalism,
and technical expertise). On the other hand,
the survey identified several areas for improve-
ment (communicating policies, improving
timeliness, and creating better and more flex-
ible processes to assess applicants). One De-
partment of Employment Relations manager
commented, only partly in jest, that the sur-
vey showed that the department was “slowly
providing poorly-qualified candidates to agen-
cies.” Clearly, however, this was not a laugh-
ing matter. The department used the data as a
basis to develop a series of new programs to
provide more responsive, efficient, and user-
friendly service.
Better Service through Innovation
The hiring innovations developed by the De-
partment of Employment Relations form an
integrated strategy with several elements:
• Delegating decision-making to oper-
ating agencies;
• Modernizing state civil service laws to
improve flexibility and responsiveness;
• Developing more creative and user-
friendly ways to evaluate candidates;
• Expanding recruiting activities to at-
tract more and better candidates;
• Conducting on-site job interviews; and
• Using technology to improve access,
efficiency and timeliness.
Delegating Decision-Making Authority
The department has delegated a substantial
amount of day-to-day HRM decision-mak-
ing authority to state government operating
agencies. Through a series of written agree-
ments, the department has specified the au-
thority delegated to each agency. For ex-
ample, individual agencies develop their own
approaches to evaluate and examine appli-
cants, accept and process applications,
evaluate and rank candidates, develop lists
of qualified applicants, identify the best
qualified, and manage the process to inter-
view the best-qualified applicants.
Delegation achieves several goals. First,
it gives line agencies direct control over their
hiring activities, enabling them to apply their
business knowledge to their hiring actions.
Second, it enables staff members from the
Department of Employment Relations to use
their technical knowledge to focus on devel-
oping new, enterprise-wide approaches to
staffing, while also providing advice and con-
sulting services to agencies.
Although state law allows the Depart-
ment of Employment Relations to delegate
decision-making authority, the department
cannot delegate its fundamental legal respon-
sibility to ensure that staffing activities fol-
low all state laws, rules, and policies. There-
fore, the department supplements delegation
by establishing formal policies and proce-
dures, conducting a comprehensive training

program on staffing and conducting periodic
“assistance visits” (audits).
Reforming State Personnel Laws
Wisconsin civil service laws are among the
most comprehensive and detailed in the na-
tion. While this reflects the state’s historical
commitment to a strong merit system, it be-
came clear several years ago that civil service
statutes needed to be changed to make state
government a more competitive employer. For
example, one statutory barrier was the “rule
of five” that limited the number of qualified
candidates hiring managers could interview
for any vacancy. Under this law, hiring man-
agers could only interview the top five candi-
dates, based on civil service scores. This rule
applied even if the candidates who ranked fifth
and sixth had identical civil service scores. In
these cases, the department was forced to
break the tie to determine which of these two
candidates could be interviewed.
In other cases, where only a few candi-
dates applied and all were qualified, the law
required the department to go through an
often time-comsuming process to numeri-
cally rank all candidates to identify the top
five. This approach was clearly inefficient
and ineffective.
The Department of Employment Rela-
tions amended this restrictive law incremen-
tally. First, in 1992, the department convinced
the Wisconsin State Legislature to modify the
certification rule only for two specific hiring
situations: for jobs that typically require col-
lege degrees and for jobs where candidates are
in critically short supply. After extensive lob-
bying and negotiation, amendments were en-
acted to eliminate arbitrary restrictions on the
number of candidates who could be inter-
viewed for these kinds of positions.
This change enabled the department to
create two successful programs—the Entry
Professional Program and the Critical Recruit-
ment Program. Both programs use applicant
assessment techniques that are more flexible,
timely, and user-friendly than traditional writ-
ten examinations. These assessment method-
ologies identify best-qualified candidates while
minimizing the bureaucratic hurdles that writ-
ten exams can create. These content-valid
Best Practices in Public-Sector Human Resources • 373
methodologies, which still meet the legal defi-
nition of “examinations,” include skills inven-
tories and résumé reviews. These approaches
also allow the use of more timely alternatives
than assigning all applicants civil service scores
and ranks. These alternatives include assess-
ing candidates on a “pass/fail” basis and sort-
ing candidates into categories such as “best
qualified, “qualified,” and “unqualified.” Fur-
ther, if a job classification included in the Criti- Wisconsin civil
service laws are
cal Recruitment Program requires a state among the most
license or certification, that credential can comprehensive
serve as the “exam.” Any applicant who has and detailed in
the credential (e.g., certified social worker, li- the nation.
censed professional engineer) is qualified and
can be immediately interviewed.
These two programs improved the state’s
ability to recruit on college campuses, assess
applicants quickly, interview more applicants,
and hire candidates faster. For example, these
programs enabled the department to provide
hiring managers with lists of qualified candi-
dates immediately after application deadlines.
The programs have also become major affir-
mative action successes that have helped di-
versify the state government work force, as
described below.
These two successful programs set the
stage for broader reform. In 1996, Governor
Tommy G. Thompson created the Commis-
sion on the Reform of the State Human Re-
source System to analyze the state’s HR system
and make recommendations for improvement.
The Commission was led by a private sector
executive and included the Secretary of the
Department of Employment Relations, union
leaders, and legislators from both parties.
The December 1996 commission report
reaffirmed Wisconsin’s commitment to a merit
system, but made several recommendations to
improve HR performance. To improve the hir-
ing process, the Commission recommended
that civil service laws be amended to extend
the flexibility used successfully in the Entry
Professional and Critical Recruitment pro-
grams to all job classifications.
In response to this recommendation, the
Department of Employment Relations crafted
a legislative proposal that repealed all arbitrary
restrictions on the number of qualified candi-
dates who could be referred to hiring manag-
ers. In addition to this major change, the
374 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2002
proposal also eliminated residency require-
ments and all restrictions on out-of-state re-
cruiting. The department then worked with the
Governor’s office to forge a bipartisan coalition
with unions, veterans’ groups, special interest
groups such as the Wisconsin Association of
Black Public Sector Employees, and legislators
from both parties. The support of these groups
was instrumental in the passage of the
department’s proposal in 1997.
Developing Creative and User-Friendly Ways
to Evaluate Candidates
A decade ago, over 60% of Wisconsin state
government vacancies were filled using mul-
tiple-choice exams. While this traditional ap-
proach to evaluating civil service candidates
has some advantages, written exams also have
disadvantages, particularly in highly competi-
tive labor markets. Candidates with other job
choices are often unwilling to go through the
written exam process, which can be time-con-
suming and user-unfriendly. Written exams
Candidates with can be particularly ineffective for public sec-
other job choices tor organizations competing for talent with
are often
private sector employers.
unwilling to go
through the In order to become more competitive for
written exam candidates like these, the Department of Em-
process, which ployment Relations has developed and imple-
can be time- mented new assessment approaches. These
consuming and new exam approaches include skills invento-
user-unfriendly.
ries, résumé reviews, achievement history
questionnaires, and other “take home” exams.
These approaches are now used to fill the
majority of vacancies in the state’s more than
2,000 job classifications. While each assess-
ment instrument evaluates different skills
based on the particular job being filled, all are
as content valid as the written exams they re-
placed. Used in combination with candidate
ranking methods such as pass-fail and band-
ing, these approaches are faster and more user-
friendly. They also make state government
more competitive with other employers, in-
cluding private sector firms. Recently, the de-
partment has taken the next step and
automated some of these approaches, enabling
candidates to apply on-line and also allowing
hiring managers to obtain their lists of quali-
fied candidates on-line. A description of this
approach follows.
Although the Department of Employment
Relations has expanded the use of alternatives
to written exams, multiple-choice tests are still
the best way to evaluate job applicants for
some jobs (e.g., office support and blue-collar
positions) where large numbers of candidates
apply. For these jobs, the department now uses
Walk-in Testing—applicants simply show up
at exam sites and take tests without having to
apply in advance.
Expanding Recruiting to Attract More and
Better Candidates
The department of Employment Relations
has also focused on recruiting more aggres-
sively. Traditionally, the main focus of the
staffing process in the public sector has been
examining applicants to identify the best
qualified. The assumption has been that
there will always be enough qualified can-
didates. In today’s tight labor market, gov-
ernment organizations can no longer afford
to make that assumption.
As a result, the public sector must recruit
aggressively to attract qualified candidates. For
public-sector organizations unaccustomed to
marketing their job opportunities, this change
involves new skills and approaches. In Wis-
consin, both the Department of Employment
Relations and operating agencies are dramati-
cally stepping up recruiting activities, in sev-
eral new ways:
• The department now has three full-
time recruiters. Until 1996, the cen-
tral HRM agency had only one
full-time recruiter. Now, in addition
to the coordinator of state recruit-
ment, the department has added a
full-time equal opportunity recruiter
and a full-time information technol-
ogy (IT) recruiter.
• These department recruiters conduct
enterprise-wide recruiting for the en-
tire state government. They promote
state government careers, focusing on
jobs that exist across state government
in fields such as office support, ac-
counting, and information technology.
• To complement these departmental
recruiting activities, several operating

agencies have also hired their own
recruiters, who promote specific va-
cancies in their organizations (e.g.,
social workers in the Department of
Health and Family Services). This
sharing of responsibilities allows both
the Department of Employment Re-
lations and the operating agencies to
leverage their individual resources,
knowledge and contacts.
• The department of Employment Re-
lations and operating departments
now work together to represent state
government at more recruiting events
(job fairs, campus visits, etc.) than
ever before. In 1999 and 2000, for ex-
ample, department recruiters attended
more than twice as many recruiting
events, over 100 each year, as in ear-
lier years. Recruiters attended events
not only across Wisconsin but also
outside the state, recruiting in Chi-
cago, New York, and elsewhere. At
many of these events, state recruiters
compete head-to-head with private
sector recruiters.
• State recruiters also work closely
with community organizations
across the state. The Department of
Employment Relations has devel-
oped a data base of over 300 com-
munity-based organizations that
serve minority groups, veterans, the
disabled, and others. Department
and agency recruiters use this data
base to target potential recruits us-
ing approaches such as e-mail, di-
rect mail, and personal contacts.
• Wisconsin State Government is cre-
ating a higher Internet and media pro-
file to enhance recruiting. The
Department of Employment Relations
and operating agencies recruit
through the state’s Web sites, as well
as other Internet sites. The state is also
creating a greater presence through
print advertising and general press
coverage. In 1999 and 2000, for ex-
ample, Wisconsin newspapers fea-
tured several news articles
highlighting the state’s improved hir-
ing practices. This press coverage is a
Best Practices in Public-Sector Human Resources • 375
welcome departure from media atten-
tion that often focuses more on criti-
cizing government.
Conducting On-Site Interviewing
To take advantage of this more aggressive re-
cruiting approach, the Department of Employ-
ment Relations has begun conducting on-site
interviews at job fairs, particularly for hard-
to-fill jobs in fields such as information tech-
nology. On-site interviewing allows hiring
managers to make immediate job offers to
outstanding candidates. In this process, first
used in 1999, recruiters use a fast applicant On-site
screening instrument to determine a interviewing
candidate’s basic eligibility. This screen can allows hiring
managers to
consist of several “yes/no” questions about a make immediate
candidate’s background. Candidates who an- job offers to
swer “yes” to all questions are immediately outstanding
rated as eligible and are interviewed by one or candidates.
more of the hiring managers who also attend
the recruiting event.
The hiring manager uses these interviews
to decide if each candidate is a good pros-
pect. If so, the manager usually invites and
schedules the candidate for an in-office in-
terview. However, this process also gives hir-
ing managers the ability to make immediate
job offers or at least make tentative offers con-
tingent on positive references and other back-
ground checks.
Using Technology to Improve Access,
Efficiency, and Timeliness
Wisconsin state government is also using tech-
nology to help attract and hire talented people.
Like most hiring organizations, the state ad-
vertises vacancies through the Internet, on the
Department of Employment Relations home
page. While this is not innovative today, it was
in 1993 when Wisconsin began posting jobs
on the Web.
Since then, the state has expanded the use
of Internet recruiting. For example, state agen-
cies routinely accept applications through e-mail
and the Department has even created a sepa-
rate Web page for IT vacancies. Beyond this,
the department has developed a system that the
department believes is the prototype for how the
state will communicate with, and provide ser-
376 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2002
vice to, applicants and hiring managers in the
future. This system allows candidates to submit
their application materials directly through the
Internet, and also allows hiring managers to ob-
tain their lists of qualified applicants on the Web.
This new approach was created in 1998
to fill IT vacancies. Applicants access the sys-
tem through the Department of Employment
Relations home page and can apply at any
time—seven days a week, twenty-four hours a
day. To apply, candidates complete an on-line
state application and an on-line inventory of
More IT skills, in thirteen key areas identified by IT
dramatically,
managers. These areas include programming
programs like on-
line application languages, operating systems, networking en-
and on-site vironments, software tools, and nine others.
interviewing Applicants report their education, training,
provide hiring and work experience in each of the thirteen
managers with areas in which they are interested and have
immediate access
to qualified skills. This checklist, which takes about twenty
candidates, minutes to complete, is the “exam.” When
instead of waiting the on-line applicant hits “send,” he or she is
for weeks to added to the applicant data base and immedi-
receive their ately receives an e-mail receipt.
candidate lists.
On the hiring side, the hiring manager
“orders” candidates through the Internet. The
manager creates a hiring profile by complet-
ing the same electronic form as the applicant,
except the manager is specifying the qualifi-
cations needed for the job. The manager then
immediately receives a list of the applicants
in the data base who meet the job require-
ments. The manager can then contact the
qualified applicants, conduct interviews, and
make a job offer.
This system is completely automated for
both the applicant and hiring manager. It pro-
vides the applicant with a fast and user-friendly
way to apply and, at the same time, gives the
hiring manager immediate access to a data base
of over 1,000 candidates. Recruiters from the
Department of Employment Relations and op-
erating agencies also use the system at job fairs
to allow candidates to apply immediately through
laptop computers connected to the Internet.
The Results: Faster Hiring, Well-Qualified
Candidates
Wisconsin’s hiring reforms, including Critical
Recruitment, Entry Professional, Walk-in Test-
ing, more aggressive recruiting, on-site inter-
viewing, and electronic application and certifi-
cation, are providing hiring managers with
qualified candidates faster, even for hard-to-
fill jobs in fields like information technology.
Before Walk-in Testing, for example, candidates
were required to submit written applications
six weeks before test dates. The department
then mailed individual confirmation notices.
Each year, the department received about
100,000 applications, but 40,000 of these ap-
plicants decided not to show up for their ex-
ams. Obviously, handling 100,000 applications
was expensive and time-consuming, particularly
when 40% of the applicants were “no shows.”
Now, with Walk-in Testing, the Department
announces testing opportunities just three
weeks in advance and invites applicants to walk
in to the testing centers. This approach has
reduced the testing cycle by three weeks and
eliminated the costs of handling and mailing
over 100,000 notices each year.
More dramatically, programs like on-line
application and on-site interviewing provide
hiring managers with immediate access to
qualified candidates instead of waiting for
weeks to receive their candidate lists.
Of course, hiring speed is irrelevant un-
less candidates recruited and hired are quali-
fied. To collect data on the quality of
candidates referred to hiring managers, the
Department of Employment Relations con-
tinually surveys these managers. Since the
department began conducting these surveys
in 1995, managers have assessed 95% of their
hires as “good” or “very good” (the top two
categories). The survey also asks managers
to evaluate the overall quality of all applicants
they interview for each vacancy. In 75% of
recruitments, managers have assessed the
overall quality of all candidates as “good” or
“very good.” In every case where a manager
reports that he or she is dissatisfied, the de-
partment follows up to improve the process.
These improvements can include recruiting
more aggressively or modifying the applicant
assessment approach.
Classification and Compensation: Giving
Managers More Flexibility
Wisconsin’s classification and compensation
system for state employees is designed to main-

tain both internal equity and external com-
petitiveness. The system does this by classi-
fying and compensating employees based on
a combination of tasks, duties, and responsi-
bilities; as well as labor market factors. A
complementary goal is to provide agencies
and managers with the flexibility they need
to attract and retain talented employees. The
Department of Employment Relations has
implemented several new approaches to
achieve this goal.
These approaches resulted, in part, from
a survey the department conducted in 1995
of a random sample of over 600 HR and line
managers and supervisors. The survey was
supplemented with focus group discussions
with twenty-nine senior-level managers.
Survey respondents and focus group par-
ticipants were asked to identify their top pri-
orities for classification and compensation
improvements. The three most frequently
mentioned potential improvements were:
• Improve the ability to reward perform-
ance;
• Decrease the time it takes to classify
or reclassify staff; and
• Provide managers with more flexibil-
ity to determine classifications and
pay.
After analyzing the survey results, the
Department of Employment Relations re-
sponded by developing new approaches to
classification and compensation. A key ele-
ment of the department’s strategy was to work
closely with customer agencies. To do this,
the department formed two advisory groups
of agency managers: the Compensation Ad-
visory Council and the Information Technol-
ogy Advisory Board. Both customer groups
have been instrumental in designing, imple-
menting, and marketing new compensation
approaches.
Perhaps the most significant new ap-
proach is the implementation of broadband
pay systems. Broadbanding consolidates mul-
tiple, but related job classifications into single
classifications; and multiple pay ranges into
fewer, but wider, pay bands. So far, the De-
partment of Employment Relations has imple-
mented broadbanding for several occupational
Best Practices in Public-Sector Human Resources • 377
groups including senior managers, informa-
tion technology professionals, and profession-
als in other occupations. In all cases,
broadbanding is designed to improve the state’s
ability to attract and retain key staff members.
For senior managers, another goal was to in-
crease organizational flexibility to utilize and trans-
fer senior managers, the highest managerial level
in the civil service. This was accomplished by re-
placing the existing five senior manager levels with In all cases,
broadbanding is
one broadband classification.
designed to
In the IT field, Wisconsin (like most em- improve the
ployers) has struggled to attract and retain state’s ability to
talent. Broadbanding helps meet this chal- attract and retain
lenge by providing state agency managers with key staff
more flexibility to offer job candidates com- members.
petitive salaries and give current employees
pay raises. IT broadbanding in Wisconsin is
particularly noteworthy because the Depart-
ment of Employment Relations negotiated this
provision with the union that represents IT
staff. Like most unions, this one was initially
unwilling to agree to a system that would give
management more pay flexibility and discre-
tion. However, after extensive negotiating, the
union agreed and broadbanding was adopted
in 1997 for over 1,200 IT employees in all
state agencies.
Wisconsin’s broadband systems have two
key characteristics:
• Agencies have a great deal of flex-
ibility in setting starting salaries. For
senior managers, for example, agen-
cies can offer starting annual sala-
ries anywhere within a $22,000
range without the approval of the
Department of Employment Rela-
tions. With the Department’s ap-
proval, agencies can increase
starting salaries up to an additional
$21,000. For senior IT positions,
agencies have $25,000 in flexibility
without departmental approval, and
another $22,000 with approval.
• Agencies also have more flexibility to
increase salaries or provide bonuses
by granting employees up to 12% an-
nually in increases or bonuses. Agen-
cies can also exceed the 12% cap with
approval from the Department of
Employment Relations.
378 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2002
Results—Improved Recruitment
and Retention
State agencies are taking advantage of the flex-
ibility built into the broadband system, and
this flexibility is paying dividends. For example,
in the first year after broadbanding was imple-
mented in 1997, IT managers used starting
pay flexibility 250 times and awarded 745 bo-
nuses or raises to their staff.
The Department of Employment Rela-
tions has also surveyed agency HR and IT di-
This aggressive rectors on the effectiveness of broadbanding.
recruiting is About 95% of HR directors and 86% of IT di-
essential because
rectors feel broadbanding has improved the
almost all
vacancies (even state’s ability to recruit and retain qualified
at senior levels) applicants.
are filled through Broadbanding was designed in part to help
open competition reduce IT staff turnover. While statewide turn-
in order to over statistics for information technology staff
maximize the
diversity of are still being collected, individual agencies
applicant lists. have already reported lower turnover. One
large agency, for example, reported that an-
nual turnover among its IT staff was reduced
from 17% to 3% in the year after broadbanding
was introduced.
As a result of the success of the initial
round of broadbanding, the Department ex-
panded the approach to another 5,000 em-
ployees in 1999, primarily in professional
occupations such as accounting, engineering,
and human resource management.
Affirmative Action: Achieving and
Maintaining Diversity
A critical Department of Employment Rela-
tions responsibility is to help state agencies
ensure that the state work force fully repre-
sents the diversity of Wisconsin’s population.
To do this, the department supports the state’s
equal employment opportunity/affirmative
action (EEO/AA) efforts by developing poli-
cies, recommending legislation, establishing
standards for agency EEO/AA plans, approv-
ing those plans, and monitoring agency
progress toward diversity goals. The depart-
ment also analyzes workforce data, identifies
job groups where women and/or minorities are
underrepresented, and provides agencies with
technical assistance to help develop diversity
programs. In an analysis of Wisconsin’s diver-
sity strategy, the International Personnel Man-
agement Association (1998) concluded: “Mul-
tiple, unconventional affirmative action pro-
grams have been implemented. Therefore, the
state does not have to rely on a single approach
to diversify its work force.”
Because recruiting is an essential build-
ing block in creating a diverse work force, the
department has expanded targeted recruiting,
particularly in areas of the state with large
minority populations. As noted earlier, the
department now has a full-time EEO recruiter
who works closely with groups and organiza-
tions across the state to ensure that
underrepresented groups have access to civil
service opportunities. This aggressive recruit-
ing is essential because almost all vacancies
(even at senior levels) are filled through open
competition in order to maximize the diver-
sity of applicant lists.
The Department of Employment Relations
has also changed the state’s affirmative action
recruiting process by formally involving state
agency affirmative action officers in recruiting
for positions that have affirmative action goals.
This important step has improved the scope and
quality of these recruitments and made AA of-
ficers full partners in the hiring process.
Of course, recruiting is only effective if
qualified minorities, women, and people with
disabilities are interviewed and hired. To pro-
vide underrepresented group members with the
best chances to succeed, Wisconsin provides
“expanded certification” for applicants in pro-
tected groups. Under this statutory program,
up to three additional qualified minorities,
women, and people with disabilities can be
added to lists of candidates referred to hiring
managers. The additional candidates, all of
whom have “passed” the civil service exam and
are therefore qualified, are added based on their
civil service scores. This inclusive approach
provides hiring mangers with greater choices,
but avoids problems that have plagued affir-
mative action programs elsewhere. That is,
Wisconsin’s approach expands opportunities for
protected group members, but does not dis-
qualify or disadvantage other applicants.
The Department of Employment Relations
also manages a successful Summer Affirmative
Action Intern Program. Each year state agen-
cies hire over one hundred minority and women

interns. This program gives students exposure
to state government, formal training, and on-
the-job experience. In the long term, it also in-
creases the number of minority and female
applicants for permanent positions.
Results—A More Diverse Work Force at
All Levels
These and other elements of Wisconsin state
government’s “multiple” approach to diversity
have created a work force that reflects the di-
versity of the state’s population. For example,
the percentages of minorities and women in
the state work force now exceed the percent-
ages of these protected groups in the state’s
overall labor force.2 This important goal was
achieved for the first time in 1998. In addi-
tion, over 9% of classified employees are
people with disabilities (comparative statewide
labor force market percentages are not avail-
able for this group).
Moreover, in the last four years, almost
15% of all hires into state government have
been minorities. This exceeds the 7% minor-
ity availability in the state’s overall labor force.
Further, over 12% of all hires in the Entry
Professional Program (which recruits prima-
rily college graduates) have been minorities.
This percentage far exceeds the overall minor-
ity graduation rate, 4%, in the University of
Wisconsin system.
The state has also diversified at the man-
agement levels of the civil service. For example,
the percentage of minorities in management
levels has increased to over 7% of all senior
managers and administrators. Moreover,
women now hold more than 32% of these po-
sitions. Both percentages exceed minority and
female representation at these levels in the
entire Wisconsin labor force.
As a result of the success of state govern-
ment in diversifying the civil service work force,
the Milwaukee Urban League selected the De-
partment of Employment Relations as “Minor-
ity Employer of the Year” in both 1998 and 1999.
Creating Change through
Labor–Management Cooperation
One of the most important responsibilities of
the Department of Employment Relations is
Best Practices in Public-Sector Human Resources • 379
to bargain collectively with labor unions, and
then administer these labor contracts in good
faith. Department staff members serve as chief
spokespersons during biennial contract nego-
tiations. Once signed, labor contracts have the
force of law.
A key element of the department’s suc-
cess in reforming the state HRM system is the
strong and cooperative relationship state gov-
ernment has forged with public sector labor
unions, particularly the state’s largest union,
the 27,000-member Wisconsin State Employ- …the
percentages of
ees Union (WSEU). This cooperative relation-
minorities and
ship began with the successful use of an women in the
innovative negotiation approach—“consensus state work force
bargaining”—that also paved the way for other now exceed the
HR reforms. percentages of
these protected
Since 1991, the department has been suc-
groups in the
cessfully using consensus bargaining to reach state’s overall
labor agreements with state employee unions. labor force.
That year, Wisconsin became the first state to
use this approach with a major union—the
WSEU.
The Need for a New Approach
In 1966, labor–management relations in Wis-
consin state government changed dramatically
when the governor signed the State Employ-
ment Labor Relations Act (SELRA). This new
law extended collective bargaining to Wiscon-
sin State Government and required the state
to bargain collectively with classified employ-
ees on hours and working conditions. In 1971,
SELRA was amended to include bargaining
on wages and benefits.
Implementing the new law did not go
smoothly, however. Biennial negotiations were
often confrontational, lengthy, and unproduc-
tive. As a result, bargaining dragged on for
months, with little progress in settling con-
tracts. Reaching agreement always required
mediation services.
The situation reached crisis in 1989–
1990, when bargaining between the state and
the WSEU took fourteen months. The high
cost in facilities, bargainers’ salaries, and re-
lated expenses was matched or exceeded by
the cost of the damaging publicity the pro-
tracted negotiations generated. These con-
frontational negotiations also had a
longer-term cost. After bitterly negotiating for
380 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2002
months, the state and the union were unable
to then shift gears, communicate effectively
and work together positively and productively
during the two-year term of the contract.
Consensus Bargaining—Breaking the Cycle
of Labor–Management Confrontation
In 1991, before the new bargaining cycle be-
gan, WSEU Executive Director Marty Beil and
Consensus Department of Employment Relations Secre-
bargaining is tary Jon E. Litscher decided to try a new ap-
also known as proach to avoid another round of bitter nego-
“interest-based
bargaining,”
tiations. With the strong support of Governor
“win-win Thompson, both sides agreed to try consen-
bargaining,” sus bargaining, a method that emphasizes con-
“problem-solving sensus and problem-solving instead of con-
negotiation,” and frontation.
“collaborative
Early in the year, about sixty WSEU and
bargaining.”
state negotiators attended a two-day training
seminar conducted by Wisconsin Employment
Relations Commission mediators trained in
facilitation techniques. After this training,
negotiations began in May 1991.
What Is Consensus Bargaining?
Consensus bargaining is also known as “in-
terest-based bargaining,” “win-win bargain-
ing,” “problem-solving negotiation,” and “col-
laborative bargaining.” The consensus ap-
proach contrasts sharply with adversarial and
confrontational bargaining. Traditional collec-
tive bargaining is based on the assumption that
labor and management have fundamentally
different and conflicting interests. This ap-
proach creates a “zero-sum” negotiating situ-
ation: when one side gains a concession (wins),
the other must make a concession (loses). Of
course, this creates a strong incentive for each
side to try to gain an advantage and be seen
by its stakeholders as the winner.
Consensus bargaining takes a radically
different approach based on the belief that
both parties can be winners. The approach is
grounded in the principle that labor and man-
agement have complementary, and not com-
peting, interests.
A fundamental distinction in consensus
bargaining is the difference between a “posi-
tion” and an “interest.” A position is one side’s
solution to a problem. An interest, on the other
hand, is the basic need or concern addressed
by the preferred solution. Because consensus
bargaining focuses on interests, and not posi-
tions, bargainers attempt to identify the best
approaches to meet both parties’ needs with-
out the barriers of dealing with predetermined,
hard-and-fast positions. The consensus pro-
cess has four basic steps:
1. Bargainers jointly identify all interests,
and then focus on mutual interests to
create a constructive basis to start dis-
cussions. This contrasts with tradi-
tional bargaining, which often starts
with each side making firm proposals
designed to advance the bargainers’
specific positions.
2. Once these mutual interests are iden-
tified, negotiating teams develop a
series of options to satisfy each inter-
est.
3. Once these position options are de-
veloped, negotiators agree on objec-
tive standards to evaluate the options.
4. The teams then apply the standards
and identify the options on which they
can reach consensus. As the teams
agree to options, union and manage-
ment representatives jointly draft con-
tract language.
During the actual bargaining, committees
work in small groups that include negotiators
from both management and the union. These
committees address specific bargaining issues
such as hours of work, transfers, leave, health
and safety, grievances and arbitrations, and lay-
offs. In Wisconsin, this committee approach
dramatically changed the role of each side’s
chief spokesperson. Before consensus bargain-
ing, the WSEU executive director and the
Department of Employment Relations chief
spokesperson would face each other across the
table and speak for their organizations. With
consensus bargaining, however, negotiations
now rely on the input of several groups, and
these groups make decisions. Team members
sit together around a table (not across from each
other as they do in traditional negotiations). To
an outsider, it is often impossible to quickly
determine who represents management and
who represents the union.

The Consensus Process Has Worked
Since consensus bargaining was first used in
1991, the Department of Employment Rela-
tions and the WSEU have reached agreement
on four other biennial contracts using the
same approach. The department has also used
consensus bargaining to reach contract agree-
ments with other unions that represent health
care workers, and scientific and other profes-
sional employees.
State and union representatives agree that
the consensus problem-solving approach has
created more cooperative labor–management
relations. For example, 83% of WSEU mem-
bers ratified the first agreement reached
through the consensus process in 1991. Union
members have ratified subsequent agreements
with similar majorities. Before consensus bar-
gaining, union rank-and-file often approved
agreements by slim majorities even after
lengthy negotiations.
Consensus bargaining has also saved
time. In 1991, the first time the consensus
approach was used, the state and the WSEU
reached agreement in a then-record four and
one-half months. Since then, negotiations
have been concluded even faster—as quickly
as two months.
The consensus process has been particu-
larly effective in shaping contract language
on issues other than compensation. For ex-
ample, one contract change now enables em-
ployees to use leave instead of being
suspended without pay for attendance and/
or sick leave problems. The employee con-
tinues to work but waives an equal amount
of leave time, thus avoiding a loss of pay. This
creative solution addressed management’s
concern (interest) about sick leave abuse and
substitute worker problems, and it also met
the union’s interest in eliminating unpaid
suspension as the only way the employer
could deal with sick leave abuse. Other cre-
ative provisions that have been negotiated
through consensus include:
• An alternative grievance process that
requires more discussion and problem
resolution before a grievance is filed;
• A provision allowing workers who
transfer to new jobs to return to their
Best Practices in Public-Sector Human Resources • 381
former jobs within a few days if the
new position is not working out;
• A computerized Lay-off Referral Ser-
vice that gave employees at risk of lay-
off priority consideration for vacancies
in all agencies and the University of
Wisconsin System. This service en-
abled over 200 employees to find new
jobs in state government during a dif-
ficult period when agency reorganiza-
tions were resulting in layoffs; …consensus
• A “catastrophic leave” program that bargaining has
allows employees to donate unused also created a
vacation or personal leave to co-work- more positive
labor–
ers who have serious problems that management
could lead to loss of income; relationship.
• A series of new health and safety ini-
tiatives; and
• Creating joint labor-management com-
mittees to review issues such as union
access to new computer technology.
In addition, hundreds of grievances have
been resolved at the bargaining table. These
grievances covered issues such as sick leave,
leave during inclement weather, discipline,
work schedules, and overtime. During nego-
tiations for one contract, for example, over 400
appeals were resolved during bargaining.
Beyond these specific results, consensus
bargaining has also created a more positive
labor–management relationship. Management
and union bargaining team members have
commented on the absence of acrimony, even
when discussing tough issues. WSEU and
Department of Employment Relations repre-
sentatives also now meet regularly during each
contract term to discuss issues and potential
problems before they become crises.
Extending the Consensus Approach
Building on the success of consensus bargain-
ing, the Department of Employment Relations
continues to work closely with state labor
unions. A recent example is a joint labor–man-
agement project called “Working Together”
funded by a grant from the U.S. Federal Me-
diation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). The
department and the WSEU jointly applied for
and administered this grant. Wisconsin was
the only state to receive an FMCS labor–man-
382 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2002
agement cooperation grant during the 1998–
2000 grant period.
The project, co-chaired by WSEU Direc-
tor Beil and Department of Employment Re-
lations Secretary Peter D. Fox, identified and
replicated “best practices” in labor–manage-
ment cooperation across state government. By
identifying these practices, and then expand-
ing them to other work sites across the state,
the project was designed to create more mean-
According to ingful and satisfying work for state government
Jerry McEntee, employees. The ultimate goal, of course, was
the International
President, “The to provide better and more efficient services
Wisconsin to the citizens of Wisconsin.
experience and The grant project began with regional la-
the success with bor–management forums conducted across
the Working the state. The forums brought more than 750
Together project
should be a
labor and management representatives to-
national model.” gether to discuss and identify best practices
in cooperation. After the forums, project staff
sent out a survey to collect more detailed in-
formation on the most promising best prac-
tices identified at the forums. The project also
funded the Working Together Web site and a
statewide training program on how to imple-
ment best practices.
The training workshops were conducted
in October and November 1999. Each session
was attended by eight two-person teams, each
team consisting of a labor and management
representative from the same work site. The
teams formally applied for the workshops af-
ter receiving the endorsement of their agency
upper-level management.
The workshops were jointly conducted and
facilitated by a faculty of labor and manage-
ment leaders. By teaching together, these la-
bor and management leaders personally
demonstrated the cooperation the workshops
were designed to promote.
The faculty provided instruction on skills
needed to create cooperative relationships in-
cluding listening, building consensus, making
decisions, resolving conflict, developing goals
and objectives, and creating plans to achieve
closer cooperation. The training sessions also
included discussions of several current best
practices in labor–management cooperation.
Perhaps most important, the workshops
enabled each team to develop a specific ac-
tion plan to address a critical labor–manage-
ment issue at the team’s work site. Plans
included new approaches such as allowing
labor representatives to participate in hiring
decisions, designing more positive ways to dis-
cipline employees, involving employees in de-
veloping more equitable work schedules for
around-the-clock operations, reducing exces-
sive absenteeism and sick leave abuse, creat-
ing self-directed work teams, and improving
labor–management communication.
The project then sponsored five follow-up
sessions where the teams reported on their
progress and results. In 2000, a final session was
held where all eighty teams reported on their
results. This session culminated in a “gradua-
tion” reception at the Governor’s mansion.
The Working Together program succeeded
in producing both financial and nonfinancial
benefits. For example, in 2000, grievances filed
at the work sites that participated in the pro-
gram declined by 46%, from 990 to 532. This
reduction alone saved at least $304,000 in
staff time that would have been spent resolv-
ing these conflicts. In addition, the number
of unresolved discharge cases awaiting arbi-
tration declined by over 72%, saving another
$152,000. Moreover, DER and WSEU are
working together on a new system to resolve
discharge appeals within one year in order to
set a permanent limit on the state’s financial
liability and to address the union’s interest in
resolving these appeals faster. This initiative
will save an additional $1 million or more. In
addition to these financial benefits, agency and
labor officials who participated in the project
reported improvements in work site morale as
well as employee effectiveness and productiv-
ity.
Although the FMCS grant expired in
2000, Working Together has become a per-
manent part of Wisconsin State Government,
in part through a grant from AFSCME Inter-
national. According to Jerry McEntee, the In-
ternational President, “The Wisconsin
experience and the success with the Working
Together project should be a national model.”
The Future
Reform of the Wisconsin HRM system is still
very much a work in progress. The state’s chal-
lenge is to continue to aggressively improve
Wisconsin’s human resource systems to make

them even more efficient and effective, while
striking the often delicate balance between ef-
ficiency and basic principles of merit, fairness,
and openness. Equally as important, is that the
Department of Employment Relations remains
committed to labor–management cooperation.
The department’s approach to change will
continue to be heavily customer-focused, as
the department works with its stakeholders
to design and implement further changes
such as:
• Enacting additional statutory reforms
to create more civil service flexibility.
These reforms include giving the De-
partment of Employment Relations
the authority to waive personnel laws
and rules for up to one year to con-
duct pilot programs.
• Creating a statewide HRM strategic
plan that integrates the goals and roles
of the Department of Employment
Relations with the goals and roles of
individual agencies and campuses.
This plan will serve as a framework
for recruiting, developing, and retain-
ing state employees; as well as antici-
pating emerging work place needs and
changes.
• Expanding on-line application to all
vacancies in state government.
• Expanding recruiting activities to in-
clude using the Internet more aggres-
sively, increasing the use of student
employment programs, and creating
a regional and even national recruit-
ing presence.
• Implementing broadbanded compen-
sation in additional occupations.
Best Practices in Public-Sector Human Resources • 383
• Replicating labor–management coop-
eration “best practices” in other work
sites across the state.
The Department of Employment Rela-
tions will also continue to focus on collecting
empirical data to continually evaluate and
adjust programs and results. Department pro-
grams to survey hiring managers on the qual-
ity of the people they interview and hire, and
to survey other managers on the impacts of
broadbanding are just two examples of con-
tinuing efforts to collect evaluation data.
Attracting and retaining the “best and
brightest” is the public sector’s most critical
challenge. Government’s ability to help solve
the critical issues facing our nation, our states
and our communities—such as eliminating
poverty, educating our children, protecting our
environment, and reducing crime—depends
on our success in attracting, motivating, and
retaining talented public servants. If we do
this, government can successfully address even
the toughest issues.
As the National Commission on the State
and Local Public Service (1993) report con-
cludes, “there are no silver bullets” to improve
government. However, Wisconsin has taken
aggressive action to demonstrate that public-
sector organizations can develop creative ways
to provide more efficient, effective, and re-
sponsive service. As one state agency manager
put it, the ability of the Department of Em-
ployment Relations to anticipate and respond
to change has resulted in “better people, bet-
ter programs, and better state government.”
The Wisconsin Department of Employment
Relations remains committed to meeting this
high standard.
384 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2002

Robert J. Lavigna is Senior Manager for Client Services with CPS, a public agency
that provides HRM products and services to the government. From 1991 to 2001, he
served as Administrator of Merit Recruitment in the Wisconsin Department of Em-
ployment Relations, directing Wisconsin’s civil service hiring system. From 1998 until
2000, he also directed a statewide Labor–Management Cooperation Program. Before
being appointed to his Wisconsin position, Bob served with the U.S. General Account-
ing Office in a variety of positions including program evaluator, human resource direc-
tor of GAO’s largest field office, and assistant to the Assistant Comptroller General.
He is Chair of the Benchmarking and Best Practices Committee co-sponsored by the
International Personnel Management Association (IPMA) and the National Associa-
tion of State Personnel Executives (NASPE). He is also a member of the IPMA Execu-
tive Council, is Past Chair of the American Society for Public Administration Section
on Personnel Administration and Labor Relations, and is a Past President of the IPMA
Central Region. Bob’s awards and honors include being selected as a “Public Official
of the Year” by Governing magazine in 2000. He has also received the highest indi-
vidual leadership awards from IPMA and NASPE, a Henry Toll Fellowship from the
Council of State Governments, and the Comptroller General’s EEO Award. He has a
B.A. in Public Affairs from George Washington University, an M.S. in HRM from the
Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, and has done Ph.D. stud-
ies at the University of Wisconsin Industrial Relations Research Institute.

REFERENCES choices: An agenda for state and local reform.

Barrett, K., & Greene, R. (2001). Grading the states:
A report card on government performance. Gov-
erning, February, 20–108.
Commission on the Reform of State Human Resource
System. (1996). Final report. Madison, WI: Author.
Gore, A. (1993). Creating a government that works
better and costs less: Report of the National
Performance Review. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Heneman, H., Huett, D., Lavigna, R., & Ogsten, D.
(1995). Assessing managers’ satisfaction with staff-
ing services. Personnel Psychology, 48, 163–172.
The National Commission on the State and Local
Public Service. (1993). Hard truths/tough
Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute
of Government.
ENDNOTES
1. Bob Lavigna was Administrator of Merit Recruit-
ment and Selection for the state of Wisconsin at
the time this article was written.
2. The state’s overall labor force includes everyone
sixteen years of age or older who is either em-
ployed or unemployed and looking for work.
3. The views expressed in this article are those
of the authors and do not reflect the official
policy or views of the U.S. Office of Person-
nel Management.