Public Personnel Management: Current

Concerns, Future Challenges 6th

Edition – Ebook PDF Version
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/public-personnel-management-current-concerns-futur
e-challenges-6th-edition-ebook-pdf-version/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

eTextbook 978-0136026884 Public Personnel Management

https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-978-0136026884-public-
personnel-management/

Entomology and Pest Management 6th Edition – Ebook PDF

Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/entomology-and-pest-management-6th-
edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Engineering Management: Meeting the Global Challenges,

Second Edition 2nd Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/engineering-management-meeting-the-
global-challenges-second-edition-2nd-edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Working in Groups (6th Edition – Ebook PDF Version) 6th

Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/working-in-groups-6th-edition-
ebook-pdf-version-6th-edition-ebook-pdf-version/
(eBook PDF) Teaching: Dilemmas, Challenges &
Opportunities 6th Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-teaching-dilemmas-
challenges-opportunities-6th-edition/

Population and Community Health Nursing (6th Edition –

Ebook PDF Version) 6th Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/population-and-community-health-
nursing-6th-edition-ebook-pdf-version-6th-edition-ebook-pdf-
version/

Public Management: Thinking and Acting in Three

Dimensions Second Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/public-management-thinking-and-
acting-in-three-dimensions-second-edition-ebook-pdf-version/

Introduction to 80×86 Assembly Language and Computer

Architecture – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-8086-assembly-
language-and-computer-architecture-ebook-pdf-version/

Cyberethics 6th Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/cyberethics-6th-edition-ebook-pdf-
version/
 P UBLIC P ERSONNEL
M ANAGEMENT
“The text addresses all of the current and upcoming issues facing human resource
management in the public sector. In short, the book does an outstanding job of including
interesting, timely, and useful topics for the chapters.”
—Jeff Ashley, Eastern Illinois University, USA

Public Personnel Management has served as an essential, concise reader for public
personnel and human resource management courses in the fields of public administra-
tion, political science, and public policy over the last 25 years. Since the first edition,
published in 1991, the book has offered professors and students alike an in-­depth look
at cutting-­edge developments beyond standard textbook coverage, to provide a broad
understanding of the key management and policy issues facing public and nonprofit
HRM today. Original chapters are written expressly for the text by leading public admin-
istration scholars, each focusing on specific and often controversial concerns for public
personnel management, such as pensions, gender and sexuality, health care, unions, and
a multi-­generational workforce.
Now in an extensively revised sixth edition, Public Personnel Management pre­­
sents new, original chapters to examine developments of interest to researchers and
practitioners alike, including: remote working, cybersecurity, public service motivation,
the abandonment of traditional civil service at the state and local levels, the Affordable
Care Act and its implications for practice, pension systems and labor relations, affirmative
action, social equity, legislation surrounding LGBT rights, and—as the field of public
personnel management becomes more internationalized—a chapter addressing public
personnel management across Europe. This careful and thoughtful overhaul will ensure
that Public Personnel Management remains a field-­defining book for the next 25 years.

Norma M. Riccucci is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor at the School of

Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University, Newark, USA.
P UBLIC P ERSONNEL
M ANAGEMENT
C URRENT C ONCERNS ,
F UTURE C HALLENGES

Edited by Norma M. Riccucci

First published 1991, 1997 by Longman
First published 2012, 2006, 2002 by Pearson Education, Inc.
First published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
The right of the editor to be identified as the author of the editorial material,
and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Names: Riccucci, Norma, editor.
Title: Public personnel management : current concerns, future challenges /
edited by Norma M. Riccucci.
Description: Sixth edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2017. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017000145| ISBN 9781138689718 (hardback : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9781138689701 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315527055 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Civil service—United States—Personnel management. | Civil
service—Personnel management.
Classification: LCC JK765 .P947 2017 | DDC 352.60973—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017000145
ISBN: (hbk) 978-1-138-68971-8
ISBN: (pbk) 978-1-138-68970-1
ISBN: (ebk) 978-1-315-52705-5
Typeset in Garamond Light
by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk
 CONTENTS

About the Contributors vii

Preface xi

Chapter 1 Public Personnel Management: A

Cornerstone of Effective Government 1
J. Edward Kellough

Chapter 2 Human Resources Practices and Research in

Europe 12
Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Peter Leisink, and Wouter Vandenabeele

Chapter 3 Generational Differences and the Public

Sector Workforce 28
Madinah F. Hamidullah

Chapter 4 Affirmative Action and the Law 40

Norma M. Riccucci

Chapter 5 Diversity, Social Equity, and Representative

Bureaucracy 50
Susan T. Gooden

Chapter 6 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Employees in the Public Sector
Workforce 60
Charles W. Gossett

Chapter 7 Paying the Shadow Workforce: The Case of

Health Care 78
Shugo Shinohara and Frank J. Thompson

Chapter 8 Unions in the Public Sector 97

Randall S. Davis

Chapter 9 Public Employees’ Liability for

“Constitutional Torts” 110
David H. Rosenbloom

Chapter 10 Public Sector Pensions and Benefits: Reform

Challenges in a New Environment 127
Albert C. Hyde and Christian Richards

v
vi   Contents

Chapter 11 Public Service Reform and Motivation 150

R. Paul Battaglio, Jr.

Chapter 12 Workforce Planning in Turbulent Times 165

Heather Getha-Taylor

Chapter 13 The Senior Executive Service: Past, Present,

and Future 175
Jessica E. Sowa

Chapter 14 The Role of Human Resource Management in

Cybersecurity 192
Jared J. Llorens

Chapter 15 Telework in Government 200

Willow S. Jacobson

Chapter 16 Human Resources Management in Nonprofit

Organizations 221
Joan E. Pynes
Index 237
 ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Lotte Bøgh Andersen is Professor at Aarhus University and the Danish Institute for
Local and Regional Government Research. Her research interests focus on leadership,
administration and management in public organizations, especially motivation and
performance of public employees, leadership strategies, professional norms, and
economic incentives. Right now, she is leading a field experiment that investigates more
than 500 public and private leaders to find out how transformational and transactional
leadership affects employee motivation and organizational performance.

R. Paul Battaglio, Jr. is Professor of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Dallas.
His research interests include public human resource management, organization theory
and behavior, public and nonprofit management, comparative public policy, and research
methods. He is currently co-editor-in-chief of Public Administration Review (PAR ), and
was also editor-­in-chief of the Review of Public Personnel Administration. Battaglio is the
author of Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st
Century (CQ Press, 2014).

Randall S. Davis is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at

Southern Illinois University. He earned his PhD in Public Administration at the University
of Kansas. His research explores the environmental and psychological mechanisms that
contribute to individual and organizational performance in the public sector. He has
conducted research on several topics in public management including organizational
goals, role stress, employee motivation, and public employee unions.

Heather Getha-Taylor is an Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs and

Administration at the University of Kansas. Her research considers the forces transforming
public governance and the associated implications for effectively managing human
resources. She is a graduate of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs,
Syracuse University.

Susan T. Gooden is Professor of Public Administration and Policy at the L. Douglas

Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University.
She served as president of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) for
2016–2017 and is a fellow of the congressionally chartered National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA). Her most recent book is Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area
of Government (Routledge, 2014).

Charles W. Gossett is Professor of Government and of Public Policy & Administration at

California State University. He has published articles on public human resource manage-
ment, gay and lesbian politics, and African politics. In addition to his teaching role, he has
held a number of administrative positions, including Interim Provost and Vice President
for Academic Affairs. Prior to beginning his academic career, he worked for several years
at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and for the city of Washington, DC.

Madinah F. Hamidullah is an Associate Research Professor and Director of the

Undergraduate Program in the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers

vii
viii   About the Contributors

University, Newark. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Georgia, her BA in
Dance and Political Science and MPA from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Her research interests include generational differences in the workforce, public manage-
ment, issues of gender and diversity, and organizational performance.

Albert C. Hyde is currently an Adjunct Instructor and Lecturer at San Francisco State
University’s Public Administration Program and was Scholar in Residence at the School
of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC for the 2015–2016 academic
year. He was most recently co-­editor of the 8th edition of Classics of Public Administration
(Cengage Learning, 2016), and co-­author of the ninth edition of Introducing Public
Administration (Taylor & Francis, 2017).

Willow S. Jacobson is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Government

and Director of the Local Government Federal Credit Union Fellows Program at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research looks at ways to better use
human capital to achieve organizational success, including Strategic Human Capital
Management, workforce planning, and leadership. Jacobson earned a PhD from the
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

J. Edward Kellough is Professor and Graduate Coordinator in the Department of Public

Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia. He specializes in public personnel
management, public administration, and program evaluation. Recent books include The
New Public Personnel Administration, seventh edition, with Lloyd G. Nigro (Cengage
Learning, 2014); Understanding Affirmative Action: Politics, Discrimination, and the
Search for Justice (Georgetown University Press, 2006); and Civil Service Reform in the
States: Personnel Policy and Politics at the Sub-National Level, edited with Lloyd G. Nigro
(State University of New York Press, 2006). His research has also appeared in numerous
academic journals.

Peter Leisink has a chair in Public Administration and Organization Science at Utrecht
University School of Governance, the Netherlands. His research interests are: the contribu-
tion of strategic human resource management to public service performance, leadership
and motivation in (public) organizations, age-­related personnel policies, and changes in
public sector employment relations. Leisink conducted research and advised management
in government organizations, police, elderly homes, hospitals, secondary education, and
public transport. He is a co-­chair (together with Lotte Bøgh Andersen and Wouter
Vandenabeele) of the EGPA Study Group on Public Personnel Policies.

Jared J. Llorens is an Associate Professor and Director of the Public Administration

Institute in the E. J. Ourso College of Business at Louisiana State University. His scholarly
research focuses on public sector human resource management, with particular interests
in compensation and recruitment. He is Editor-­in-Chief of the journal Public Personnel
Management. His research has been published in a variety of academic outlets, and he
is a co-­author of Public Personnel Management: Context and Strategies, 6th edition
(Routledge, 2010). Llorens received his B.A. from Loyola University, New Orleans, his
M.P.Aff. from the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, and his
PhD in Public Administration from the University of Georgia. He is also a former U.S.
Presidential Management Intern, having served as a Human Resources Specialist with the
U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
 About the Contributors   ix

Joan E. Pynes is Professor of Public Administration at the University of South Florida,

Tampa, Florida. She is the author or co-­author four books including, most recently, of
Human Resources Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Strategic
Approach (Jossey-Bass, 2013), and co-­author of Human Resources Management for
Health Care Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, 2011) and Effective Nonprofit
Management: Context and Environments (Routledge, 2011). Her research interests are
public and nonprofit management.

Norma M. Riccucci is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor at the School of

Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University, Newark. She is the author of
several books in the areas of public human resource management and public manage-
ment. She is author of the forthcoming book, Policy Drift: Shared Powers and the Making
of U.S. Law and Policy with New York University Press. Riccucci has received a number
of national awards including the American Society of Public Administration’s Dwight
Waldo Award for a lifelong contribution to public administration. She is a fellow of the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA).

Christian Richards graduated with a Master of Public Policy from American University
in 2016. Prior to attending American, he was a Legislative Analyst with the American
Public Transportation Association and a staff member in the office of U.S. Representative
James Langevin (D-RI).

David H. Rosenbloom is Distinguished Professor of Public Administration at American

University (Washington, DC) and Chinese Thousand Talents Visiting Professor of Public
Administration at Renmin University of China. A member of the National Academy of
Public Administration (NAPA), he is recipient of the Levine, Waldo, Gaus, Brownlow,
and Mosher Awards, among others, for his scholarly contributions to the field of public
administration. Rosenbloom’s competing perspectives model of public administration as
management, politics, and law is widely used internationally.

Shugo Shinohara earned his PhD from and is a lecturer in the School of Public Affairs
and Administration at Rutgers University, Newark. He has more than eight years of prac-
tical experience with the Embassy of Japan in Uganda and the Japanese Ministry of
Infrastructure and Transport. His research interests include veterans’ affairs, local gover-
nance, history of public administration, and social equity and diversity. One of his articles
regarding the consciousness of gender inequality among public and private workers has
been published in the International Review of Administrative Sciences.

Jessica E. Sowa is an Associate Professor in the School of Public and International

Affairs in the College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore. Her current research
focuses on public and nonprofit management, including high-performance work systems,
strategic human capital management, and the management of volunteer firefighters.
Sowa served on a number of journal editorial boards in public and nonprofit manage-
ment and is currently the co-­director of the MS in Nonprofit Management and Social
Entrepreneurship program at the University of Baltimore. She recently served on the
Board of Directors of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organization and
Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) and currently serves on the board of trustees of the
Northeast Conference on Public Administration.
x   About the Contributors

Frank J. Thompson is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor in the School of

Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University, Newark and an affiliated faculty
member with the Rutgers Center for State Health Policy in New Brunswick. He has
published extensively on issues of politics and administration, implementation, public
management, and health policy. His most recent book is Medicaid Politics: Federalism,
Policy Durability, and Health Reform (Georgetown University Press, 2012). Thompson is
a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and a past President
of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. He received
several awards including the Dwight Waldo Award for a lifelong contribution to public
administration. Prior to joining the Rutgers faculty in 2008, he served as Dean of the
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany, SUNY.

Wouter Vandenabeele is an Associate Professor of Human Resources Management at

Utrecht University School of Governance and a Visiting Professor at the Public Governance
Institute at KU Leuven University. His main research interest is the role of people within
organizations and in the motivation of employees in public service delivery. He is most
known for his work on public service motivation. Vandenabeele is co-­chair (together
with Peter Leisink and Lotte Bøgh Andersen) of the Permanent Study Group on Public
Personnel Policies of the European Group of Public Administration.
 PREFACE

This book has served students, academics and practitioners of public personnel and
human resources management in the fields of public administration, political science,
and public policy over the last 25 years. Since its first edition in 1991, it has included
cutting-­edge issues in the field, topics that go well beyond textbook coverage. The book
is designed to provide readers with a broad understanding of the key management and
policy issues facing the field today. The sixth edition provides a major overhaul from the
last edition, reflecting the changes and shifts in the field.
Some of the topics included in this sixth edition include, for example, telework,
cybersecurity and public service motivation, which are at the frontiers of the practice of
public personnel and human resources management. In the last several years of the
Obama administration, shifts in policy around the upper levels of the federal government
(i.e., the Senior Executive Service or SES) have occurred. The reforms to the SES will also
be addressed in this book.
The passage of the Affordable Health Care Act has also created some unique chal-
lenges for public personnel managers. One such challenge is the “shadow workforce.”
Included in this new edition is a chapter that examines pay rates to physicians serving
Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and the effects of these rates and associated civil
service regulations on performance. Pension systems and labor relations continue to
dominate the landscape and current challenges to public personnel and are also
addressed. In addition, the field of public personnel management has become much
more internationalized over the last several years; therefore, a new chapter addressing
public personnel across Europe is also included.
Additional issues and ongoing challenges to the field are also addressed in this
edition. Topics such as affirmative action, social equity, LGBTS, and nonprofits are stan-
dard features in public personnel management, and the vast changes to these areas,
particularly transgender workers over the last four to five years will be covered in this
edition. These, as well as the other chapters, represent the critical issues that will shape
and define the field in years to come.

xi
 1 PUBLIC PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT:
A CORNERSTONE OF
EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT
J. Edward Kellough

Public personnel management, broadly conceived, encompasses all aspects of managing

government employees, but it is especially focused on administrative structures and
processes associated with employee recruitment, selection, training, development, pay,
benefits, performance appraisal, discipline, and union activity. These functions lie at the
heart of public administration. The manner in which they are performed will impact
the quality of the public workforce and the success with which government agencies
pursue their varied and complex missions. Police officers, firefighters, air traffic controllers,
airport security screeners, tax auditors, budget analysts, and other works who perform the
multiple and diverse functions of government must be carefully selected, well trained, and
capable. While organizations with top-­flight employees may occasionally fail to achieve all
that they set out to do given resource or other constraints, it is inconceivable to think that
a public organization staffed with employees with inadequate knowledge, abilities, and
skills will ever achieve desired levels of success. Effective performance of core personnel
management functions is, therefore, essential for effective government.

THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PUBLIC PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT TASK
The importance of public personnel management is matched by the vast scale on which
the tasks are performed. In part, this is a result of the sheer size of government. Recent
data, for example, reveal that there are more than 18 million public employees in the
United States. Of that number, over 4 million work in our 50 state government agencies
and close to 12 million work in various local governments including the 3,000 counties,
19,000 municipalities, and 31,000 special purpose districts, and nearly countless town-
ships and school districts. The federal government accounts for approximately 2 million
employees. In addition, the size of the federal workforce has been relatively stable since
1950, while state and local government workforces have grown substantially in size
(Nigro and Kellough, 2014).
In addition, public personnel administration is further complicated by the fact
that public employees work in a wide range of functional areas. Local jurisdictions, for
example, provide police and fire protection, sanitation services, parks and recreation,
water and other utilities, street maintenance, and numerous other functions including

1
2   J. Edward Kellough

primary and secondary education. States are involved in highway construction, correc-
tions systems, welfare programs, business regulation, and higher education, to name
only a few activities. The federal government provides for our common defense and
security, international relations and trade policy, the maintenance of our currency, the
postal service, the social security system, industry-­wide regulation, and assistance to
states and localities in diverse areas including law enforcement and education. Public
employees working in these areas are drawn from countless trades and professions, and
it is in that context that effective policies and practices must be put into place to recruit,
select, train, develop, pay, and retain high-­quality workers.
But other aspects of the context of public personnel management are important as
well. For example, the political environment in which the personnel system operates is
characterized by multiple stakeholders with often conflicting interests. Chief executives,
for instance, typically have significant formal authority over public personnel policy and
want to use that authority to control personnel practices in the executive branch to better
match preferred policy directions. Members of the legislature also have an interest in
personnel policy since they share authority with the executive and are ultimately respon-
sible for the appropriation of funds needed to run the government. Of course, legislators
and executives are politicians who respond to public pressure and who also pursue poli-
cies for ideological reasons or for their symbolic value. In addition, the work of politicians
is necessarily tied to the electoral cycle, so legislators and executives, and in particular,
those who face term limits, must operate with short time horizons. They, and the political
appointees who work under them, are often driven to act quickly if they wish to alter
the shape of the personnel system. Of course, actions they take may subsequently be
undone by succeeding executives or by the legislature resulting in the loss of continuity
in the operation aspects of personnel systems.
The courts also, as countervailing institutions of government, have an interest in,
and responsibility for, public personnel policy. Personnel systems in government rest on
a foundation of public law. Statutes establish and specify elements of public personnel
systems and laws, with applicability to both the public and private sectors, and regulate
matters ranging from fair labor standards to medical leave and nondiscrimination
policy. When disputes inevitably arise over the meaning of these statutes, we turn to the
courts for resolution. Additionally, the U.S. Constitution, because it limits government
authority, also constrains what government can do with respect to key aspects of public
management.
The public also has an interest in the operation of public personnel systems,
because we are talking about the structure and operation of government. But the public’s
expression of interest rarely goes beyond the general expression that we should employ
highly skilled, capable, and qualified people in public jobs. To accomplish that objective,
most systems today rest on a concept known as the merit principle in which employees
are hired and retained on the basis of their abilities. Employee selection rests on the
results of open and competitive examinations designed to measure applicant qualifica-
tions, employees are shielded from removal without cause directly related to perfor-
mance, and employees are required to behave in politically neutral ways. Of course these
kinds of rules constrain management and build delays and inefficiencies into the system.
As a result, organized interests with varying agendas and ideological perspectives push
from time to time for reforms to increase efficiency, streamline procedures, or contract (or
expand) employee rights.
Finally, we should stress that public employees themselves have an interest in
public personnel management. Decisions regarding personnel policy help to define the
 Chapter 1 • Public Personnel Management   3

rights and responsibilities of employees as well as the conditions of work, including pay,
benefits, and opportunities for training and promotion. Usually, employees press their
interests most effectively through associations or unions, and the relationship between the
government and employee organizations, especially public employee unions, is another
important dimension of public personnel management. In the United States, there are a
variety of approaches to managing labor relations that range from systems in jurisdictions
that engage in collective bargaining with employee unions on central issues including
wages and benefits to systems in other jurisdictions where collective bargaining is prohib-
ited and employee unions operate as little more than lobbying groups. Between these two
extremes, other jurisdictions (including the U.S. federal government) allow limited collec-
tive bargaining on selected issues other than pay and benefits.
In general, then, the importance of establishing and maintaining an effective
personnel management system in government cannot be overstressed. It is central to the
functioning of government, but the systems established are characterized by numerous
rules restricting managerial action and operate within complex environments with multiple
stakeholders with competing agendas. It is a complex system. Part of that complexity is
rooted in the unique legal environment of public personnel management. We turn now to
a fuller consideration of those issues that help to make personnel management in govern-
ment distinct from its counterpart in the private sector.

The Unique Legal Environment

The U.S. Constitution specifies the powers of government institutions but also places
limits on the exercise of those powers (see also Chapter 9). Many of these restrictions on
government authority are found in the “Bill of Rights,” the first ten amendments to the
Constitution. With respect to public personnel administration, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments are particularly important. These Amendments not only limit
ordinary governmental interactions with persons within the United States, but also restrict
the actions that government can take in its role as an employer. Specifically, we are inter-
ested in the fact that the First Amendment restrains the government’s ability to limit
speech and association, the Fourth Amendment places limits on government’s power to
conduct searches and seizures, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments limit govern-
ment’s authority to deny persons liberty or property without due process and also
constrict government’s ability to deny individuals equal protection of the law. Because
these issues (i.e., freedom of speech and association, freedom from unreasonable
searches and seizures, rights to due process, and rights to equal protection) can arise in
the employment context, the Constitution has the effect of limiting what government can
do in relation to its employees. Furthermore, because the Constitution constrains govern-
ment, but not private sector or nonprofit organizations, these constraints often make
personnel management in government more difficult than personnel management in
those organizations. Public employees retain important constitutional rights when they
enter the civil service, and the authority of personnel managers in the public sector is
limited as a result.

First Amendment Protections for Speech and Association

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press, and association,
but the First Amendment issues most commonly encountered in the context of public
personnel administration are those involving speech and association. The U.S. Supreme
Court is the final arbitrator of disputes arising over Constitutional rights and important
4   J. Edward Kellough

cases often arise in which the Court must balance public employees’ interests with the
interests of the government as an employer.
One case that addresses freedom of expression by public employees, and that set
an important precedent, arose in Texas in 1981. In that year, a young worker, Ardith
McPherson, in a local office, was overheard immediately following the attempted assas-
sination of President Ronald Reagan saying to a co-­worker, “If they go for him again, I
hope they get him” (Rankin v. McPherson, 1987, p. 381). The person overhearing the
comment reported it to the constable (Mr. Rankin) who then questioned Ms. McPherson
and subsequently terminated her employment. McPherson filed a lawsuit arguing that
her Constitutional right to freedom of speech had been denied. The District Court found
in favor of Constable Rankin, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision and
the Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court ruling with the majority arguing that when
speech by a public employee is on a matter of public concern and is not disruptive to
the workplace, it is protected from government restraint.
In addition, the Court has ruled that public employees may not be required to join
(or support) particular political parties. In Branti v. Finkel (1980), for example, the Court
indicated that dismissal of public employees for failing to support a preferred political
party is only permitted if the government can show that political party affiliation is essen-
tial to performance of the duties associated with the job. To do otherwise would be a
violation of First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association. In a later case
(Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 1990), the Court applied that same limitation
on partisan influence to other government personnel actions including promotions,
transfers, layoffs, recall after layoffs, and hiring.

Fourth Amendment Protections Against Unreasonable

Searches and Seizures
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in part, that “The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” In effect, persons in the United States have
a right to expect a reasonable measure of privacy. Of course, that right does not extend
to the conduct of criminal activities, but government is usually required to obtain a judi-
cial warrant prior to conducting searches and seizures as part of criminal investigations,
and evidence of probable cause to suspect illegal activity is necessary for a warrant to be
issued. In instances where the time needed to secure a warrant will cause a delay that
could threaten public safety, or in other circumstances such as during the process of
making an arrest, a warrant is not practical and searches and seizures can be undertaken
provided that law enforcement agents have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity
has taken place (Rosenbloom & Bailey, 2003, p. 35).
Importantly, however, government searches and seizures can also occur in the
context of public personnel management. For example, a government employer may wish
to search an employee or his/her work environment. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed
this issue in 1987 in O’Connor v. Ortega. In that case, the Court ruled that public employees
retain Fourth Amendment rights when they can reasonably expect a measure of privacy
(Rosenbloom & Bailey, 2003, p. 35). For example, the government may not search an
employee’s office, desk, cabinets, or lockers without a reasonable suspicion that the
employee has violated rules or laws. As a result, routine or unannounced searches of such
locations or of an employee’s personal possessions are prohibited absent a reasonable
basis for suspicion of improper conduct.
 Chapter 1 • Public Personnel Management   5

One exception to this policy was established, nevertheless, with regard to compul-
sory drug testing of public employees. In 1989, in National Treasury Employees Union v.
Von Raab, the Court upheld a drug-­screening program that required urinalysis tests of all
Customs Service employees who sought transfers or promotions to positions responsible
for drug interdiction or that required the use of firearms. From the perspective of the
majority, the government has an interest in ensuring that these employees are free from
the disabling effects of illegal drugs, and that interest outweighs any associated privacy
interest of employees. As a result of this ruling, public employees in jobs related to public
safety or security may be subjected to drug tests without individualized suspicion that
they have used illegal substances. Employees who are not in public safety-­related posi-
tions, however, may not be constitutionally subjected to drug testing without reasonable
individualized suspicion.

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Protections against the

Loss of Liberty or Property
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution prohibit government from
depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Fifth
Amendment constrains the federal government and the Fourteenth limits powers of the
states and local governments. At first glance, it would appear that these limitations on
government authority have no bearing on public personnel management. Certainly, in
the operation of personnel policy, we do not contemplate depriving people of their lives,
but in a series of decisions beginning in the 1970s, the Supreme Court reasoned that
under certain circumstances the dismissal of public employees could amount to a denial
of property or liberty.
With regard to employee property rights, the Court has reasoned that civil service
rules requiring that dismissal must be for just cause only create for employees a reason-
able expectation that they will not be dismissed in the absence of such a cause. In other
words, employees can reasonably expect to keep their jobs under these circumstances
as long as the work associated with those jobs is needed and the employees do nothing
to give the employer just cause for their termination. To that extent, the public employ-
ee’s job is similar to his or her property—or in other words, a property interest in
employment is created. Once that interest is established, an employee cannot be termi-
nated without procedural due process.
In a sequence of cases including Board of Regents v. Roth (1972), Perry v.
Sinderman (1972), Arnett v. Kennedy (1974), and Bishop v. Wood (1976), the Court speci-
fied the conditions under which a property interest in employment is established and the
requirements to meet due process. In addition, in Cleveland Board of Education v.
Loudermill (1985), the Court mandated that due process in termination proceedings
required (1) prior notification of the pending termination and a statement of the reason,
and (2) a right of the employee to offer an explanation in a hearing prior to termination
and to have legal representation in that hearing. The objective is to prevent unjustified
removal of a public employee. But as a result, termination proceedings take time. The
discharge of employees who have been told they will be terminated for just cause only
cannot be conducted expeditiously, and it is largely for this reason that civil service
workers are usually hired initially on a probationary basis for three to six months during
which time the promise of termination for just cause only is withheld.
Liberty interests for public employees are activated when, as is often the case,
termination damages the employee’s reputation and, as a result, he or she may be unable
6   J. Edward Kellough

to find similar work with another employer. In short, the employee’s liberty to find future
work is compromised. This situation can occur whenever government reports negative
or unflattering information regarding an employee’s behavior on the job as a reason for
dismissal. Because this can be common, termination should always follow due process
procedures, even under circumstances where employees have no property interest, such
as when an employee is serving during a probationary period.

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Protections Against the

Denial of Equal Protection
In addition to providing for due process and other fundamental rights, the U.S. Constitution’s
Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits the states from denying to any person the equal
protection of the laws. Furthermore, since 1954 and the Court’s ruling in Bolling v. Sharpe,
the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted as prohibiting the
federal government from denying persons equal protection. In essence, the guarantee
of equal protection of the laws limits government’s ability to draw distinctions between
people. Of course, government does this all the time, such as when it licenses some
people (but not others) to practice a profession, or teach in the public schools, or even to
drive a car. Typically, however, these kinds of distinctions require a person claiming a
denial of equal protection (because they are excluded by such certification or licensing
requirements) to demonstrate that there is no rational basis for those requirements and the
distinctions between people that they create. Such claims are not likely to succeed. This
rational-­basis standard of equal protection review is applied in the consideration of distinc-
tions such as those associated with business regulation or licensing or other forms of
economic or social regulation that do not involve issues of race or the exercise of funda-
mental liberties such as voting rights (Grossman & Wells, 1988).
When government classifications limit fundamental freedoms or rights or force
distinctions based on race or national origin, a second and more rigorous standard of
review is triggered. This standard is known as strict scrutiny. It places the burden of
proof on the government to defend the validity of distinctions it has drawn by showing
that they serve a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored or fash-
ioned to meet that interest, meaning that there are no alternatives for achieving it that are
less-­restrictive on the rights of parties who affected by the distinctions drawn by govern-
ment. Clearly, government actions reviewed under strict scrutiny are more vulnerable
than are actions subjected to the rational basis standard of review. As an example, when
government affirmative action programs involving preferences in employment for minor-
ities are challenged on equal protection grounds by nonminority plaintiffs, strict scrutiny
is the standard applied, and it has usually resulted in such programs being invalidated by
the courts. An important exception, however, came in the case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
where the Supreme Court upheld preferential affirmative action at the University of
Michigan School of Law.
Interestingly, when the government draws distinctions between men and women,
an intermediate level of review is utilized. Under this standard, the burden is still on the
government to defend its classifications, but it must show only that those distinctions are
substantively related to an important government objective. This reduced burden was
justified by a Court that saw sex-­based distinctions as only “quasi suspect,” whereas race-­
based distinctions were considered inherently suspect. Whether this standard of equal
protection review will endure, however, is subject to question. To date, the Court has not
ruled on an equal protection challenge to the constitutionality of sex-­based preferences
in affirmative action.
 Chapter 1 • Public Personnel Management   7

HOW DID WE GET HERE? A BRIEF HISTORY OF PUBLIC

PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
In the United States, the federal Constitution places the power to appoint officers of the
government in the hands of the president. For several of the highest offices, the Senate
has the responsibility to approve or reject presidential appointments. In addition, the
very first Congress of the United States placed the power of removal in the hands of
the president through legislation passed in 1789 (Van Riper, 1958). This basic authority
over appointment and removal makes the president the central personnel officer for the
federal government, and for nearly a hundred years, from 1789 until the mid–1880s,
presidents used that power to shape the federal civil service. This exercise of presidential
authority proved to be important for the early development of the government as the
new nation struggled to place its institutions and procedures on a stable footing.

The Early Years

George Washington set a standard in the first administration by insisting that appointees
exhibit “fitness of character” in terms of moral grounding, support for the Constitution,
education, and experience. Of course, the government was small and most of the indi-
viduals appointed were drawn from the economic and social elite and from the ranks of
military officers. Those presidents who followed Washington in office in the early part of
the nineteenth century continued to rely, in part out of necessity, on this segment of the
population. Indeed, Frederick Mosher (1968) in his well-­known book entitled Democracy
and the Public Service, referred to the period of time under the first six presidents
(Washington through John Quincy Adams) as a period of “government by gentlemen,” in
recognition of the fact that the gentlemen of that era, that is, the social and economic
elite, dominated appointments in the civil service. During that time, there was relatively
little turnover, individuals held positions for extended periods, and few positions were
held by people of modest means. Indeed, the right to vote was also restricted to white
men who owned property. It was a system founded upon political authority exercised by
the president and members of his administration with assistance from political allies.
This system was disrupted only modestly following the election of Thomas
Jefferson in 1800. By that time, the American political system had developed around two
primary coalitions or political parties—the Federalists who had been led by Washington,
John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, and who advocated for the centralization of
authority at the federal or national level of government, and the Democratic-Republicans
(sometimes referred to simply as Republicans) organized and led by Jefferson and James
Madison, who advocated for greater authority for the states. As the head of a new party
operating in opposition to the Federalists, Jefferson worked to replace many of the
Federalists’ appointees in the civil service with supporters of his party. The best estimates
suggest that he replaced about 15 percent of the public service on a partisan basis,
but in doing so continued to draw on members of the elite much like his predecessors
(Van Riper, 1958). Those who followed Jefferson under the Democratic-Republican
banner (Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams) made few replacements, but
as appointments were made, they continued to prefer members of their party and looked
to the upper classes to fill positions. As Paul Van Riper notes, “The government of our
early days was a government led by the well-­educated, the well-­born, the prosperous,
and their adherents” (Van Riper, 1958, pp. 17–18). These early presidents sought men for
appointment to civil service positions who looked like them, had similar backgrounds,
8   J. Edward Kellough

shared their commitment to the Constitution, and believed that government was the
responsibility of the upper class (Nigro and Kellough, 2014). For the most part, the integ-
rity of the government was protected, but partisanship was becoming an increasingly
important criterion for civil service appointment in some of the largest states and cities,
and by the late 1820s, the elite hold on public offices began to weaken at the federal
level as well.

The Era of Spoils Politics

Andrew Jackson came to the presidency in 1829 as the leader of a new political faction,
the Democrats, who emerged following a split among Democratic-Republicans over the
election of 1824. In that contest, Jackson had won the popular vote, but no candidate
emerged with a majority of the Electoral College votes, and the selection of the president
fell to the U.S. House of Representatives who picked Jackson’s rival John Quincy Adams.
Jackson’s supporters formed the Democratic Party based in part on Jeffersonian ideals of
an agrarian and democratic society. By the mid-1820s, most states had removed property
ownership as a requirement for voting, and Jackson’s constituents were drawn from the
ranks of these newly enfranchised free men of the lower classes and especially from
newer states from the south and the west.
When he took office, Jackson articulated a set of new principles for appointment
to the federal civil service that favored his party and were based on the claim that
government work was simple enough to be completed successfully by men of humble
means. This philosophy ushered in the era of “government by the common man” as
labeled by Mosher (1968), and Jackson replaced as much as 20 percent of the federal
service on the basis of partisanship (Van Riper, 1958). A new period of political patronage
emerged.
In the years following Jackson, party control of the presidency alternated between
the Democrats and the Whigs, a party formed in opposition to Jackson and that saw
Congress as the foremost branch of the federal government. When the Whigs came into
office, they tossed out civil servants appointed by the Democrats. When Democratic
presidents came back to office, they threw out Whig appointees. Partisanship became a
primary qualification for office. Offices of the federal service and similar positions in state
and local government were viewed as the “spoils” that belonged to the victor in partisan
electoral contests. Positions were handed out as rewards for partisan loyalty, and office
holders were not above using the power of their positions for corrupt personal gain
(Van Riper, 1958). This system reached its zenith with the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.
Elected as a member of a new Republican Party, Lincoln relied heavily on patronage to
fill government positions with union loyalists and fellow Republicans.

The Emergence of the Merit System

Patronage as the basis for appointment to the civil service reigned supreme in the years
following the Civil War, until the corruption associated with spoils politics spawned the rise
of a reform movement that the majority of Republicans in Congress reluctantly embraced
when they feared they would lose control of the presidency in the 1880s. The push for
reform was also spurred by the assassination of President Garfield in 1881, who was shot
in the back by Charles Guiteau who had lobbied at the White House for a position in the
Garfield Administration and had been repeatedly turned down. Guiteau reportedly
exclaimed upon shooting Garfield, “I am a stalwart (a supporter of spoils) and Arthur is
 Chapter 1 • Public Personnel Management   9

President now.” Indeed, Vice President Chester Arthur, one of the most corrupt spoils poli-
ticians of the time, became president upon Garfield’s death, but, in an exquisite irony,
Arthur signed the Pendleton Act of 1883 that replaced spoils and patronage as a basis for
appointment to office with a rudimentary merit system for public employment.
The system set up by the Pendleton Act required employment in the federal civil
service be based on merit, meaning that employees (1) had the ability to perform their
jobs as demonstrated by passing scores on open and competitive examinations designed
to measure qualifications, (2) were obligated to remain neutral politically and would
serve with loyalty regardless of which political party was in control of the presidency,
and (3) were granted relative security of tenure in that they were protected from removal
for political reasons (Van Riper, 1958). These key principles collectively represented the
goal of achieving politically neutral competence within the civil service. The law estab-
lished a central administrative agency, the U.S. Civil Service Commission, to carry out
its provisions and issue necessary rules and regulations. The Act initially covered only
10 percent of the federal workforce, but it allowed successive presidents to extend or
reduce coverage. As the political parties rotated in and out of control of the presidency,
coverage was gradually extended to the point that by the 1930s nearly 90 percent of the
federal workforce was covered.
The unambiguous purpose of the Pendleton Act, its subsequent reauthorizations,
and similar laws that gradually spread across state and local governments was to limit the
discretion of elected executives and managers working under them. This was accom-
plished in part by restricting the selection or hiring of employees to only those individ-
uals who passed qualifying examinations and limiting the choice to among those persons
with the highest three scores on those exams—the so-­called “rule of three.” Managerial
discretion was also restricted by limiting the conditions under which employees could be
terminated. Initially, the focus was on prohibiting terminations undertaken for political
reasons, but gradually the law was expanded so that any termination without “just cause”
was prohibited, and the burden was placed on the employer to demonstrate just cause.
Eventually further restrictions limited managerial flexibility in decisions regarding
employee promotions, transfers, assignment, pay, and a host of other personnel actions.
The goal was to protect employees from political abuse and to ensure that all personnel
decisions were made on the basis of merit. Employees were to get and keep their jobs
on the basis of their relative ability and performance. Rules were to be administered in a
uniform, neutral, and nonpartisan fashion. Writing in 1962, O. Glenn Stahl argued,

In its broadest sense a merit system in modern government means a

personnel system in which comparative merit or achievement governs each
individual’s selection and progress in the service and in which the condi-
tions and rewards of performance contribute to competency and continuity
of the service. (Stahl, 1962, p. 28)

As a consequence, management’s hands are constrained. Public managers are not able to
do whatever they wish to do when carrying out core public personnel management tasks.
By the close of the decade of the 1940s, civil service merit systems were universally
adopted across the states and in most sizeable local governments. As the merit concept
spread, however, the scope of government grew and the magnitude of the personnel
management task expanded. Concern about the extent of constraints on public personnel
management began to emerge. The perception was that the many rules and procedures
associated with personnel management were robbing managers of the flexibility they
10   J. Edward Kellough

needed to guide their organizations effectively. One of the first to raise this concern was
Wallace S. Sayre, who in a published review of a new personnel management textbook
argued that personnel administration in the public sector represented the “triumph of
techniques over purpose” (Sayre, 1948). Sayre argued that merit systems had evolved
to serve four main purposes: (1) the elimination of political party patronage form the
civil service, (2) the promotion of equal treatment of all job applicants and employees,
(3) the advancement of principles of systematized or “scientific management,” and
(4) the creation of a career public service. As a consequence, “the basic structure of civil
service administration” was characterized by “central personnel control agencies, the
‘rule of three,’ and the whole familiar arsenal of devices to neutralize and divert patronage
pressures” (p. 134). Sayre continued, noting that, “Personnel administration, then, has
tended to become characterized more by procedure, rule, and technique than by purpose
or results” (p. 135).
A similar concern was voiced years later by E. S. Savas and Sigmund G. Ginsburg
who published an influential article in 1973 entitled, “The Civil Service: A Meritless
System?” in the journal Public Interest. In that piece, Savas and Ginsburg argued that
merit systems were characterized by a “web of laws, rules, and regulations” that were
“rigid and regressive” and had the effect of preventing managers from doing their jobs
effectively. For example, the authors viewed selection procedures as so cumbersome and
time consuming that by the time reviews of qualifications of applicants were completed,
the best candidates had invariably found jobs elsewhere. Thus government was not able
to hire the best people available.
As the 1970s progressed, pressure for Civil Service reform mounted and culmi-
nated ultimately in passage of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 under
President Carter. This Act brought about the most significant change in the U.S. civil
service since passage of the Pendleton Act nearly 100 years earlier. Among other things,
the CSRA abolished the old bi-­partisan Civil Service Commission and established in its
place the U.S. Office of Personnel Management headed by a director answerable to the
president. Civil Service Commission functions that had been associated with promotion
of merit principles were placed in a new agency known as the Merit Systems Protection
Board. The top three pay grades of the white collar classification system (the General
Schedule) were combined into a new Senior Executive Service whose members could
be more easily reassigned and transferred as needs arose. A pay-­for-performance plan
was implemented for middle managers (GS Grades 13–15), and the law authorized
federal agencies to apply for and receive permission to engage in personnel manage-
ment experiments involving reductions in regulations and the implementation of greater
managerial flexibility.
Years later, in the 1990s, pressure for reform continued, and a reform agenda char-
acterized primarily by efforts to increase managerial flexibility emerged from the National
Performance Review conducted by the Clinton Administration. That effort was part of a
“reinventing government” plan promoted by Clinton and his allies and closely aligned
with a broader “new public management” movement that spread to the states and was
prominent internationally. Three central themes associated with this movement were
(1) the decentralization of authority for personnel management to line departments and
agencies; (2) the promotion and expansion of at-­will employment systems in which
employees are no longer promised that dismissal will be for just cause only, so that
discharge procedures could (in theory) be made easier; and (3) the promotion of pay-­for-
performance systems in which annual pay increases were based on the results of indi-
vidual performance appraisals. To varying degrees the states pursued these reforms, with
 Chapter 1 • Public Personnel Management   11

Georgia, Florida, and Texas at the forefront (Walters, 2002). Similar ideas were pursued
by the George W. Bush Administration in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks. Personnel systems with these characteristics were established by Bush for the
newly created Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, but by
the end of the Bush years, those reforms were washed away by a combination of political
pressure and court rulings.
Today, we are continuing to struggle with how best to structure and manage
public personnel systems. Clearly, the tasks associated with public personnel manage-
ment are of critical importance, but there are competing ideas of how to best operate the
civil service. On one hand, we want systems that protect employees from unwarranted
political manipulation and abuse. There is obviously a political interest in the manage-
ment of the civil service, but few would advocate a return to patronage or spoils politics.
This view requires, however, that we restrict political and managerial discretion over the
civil service. But in doing so, we run the risk of establishing systems that are rule-­bound
and inflexible, and that rob managers of discretion they see as necessary for running their
organizations. As our systems continue to evolve, our central dilemma remains: We must
find a way to protect employee interests while simultaneously giving managers and
political authorities the flexibility needed to effectively govern.

References
Arnett v. Kennedy (1974). 416 U.S. 134.
Bishop v. Wood (1976). 426 U.S. 341.
Board of Regents v. Roth (1972). 408 U.S. 564.
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954). 347 U.S. 497.
Branti v. Finkel (1980). 445 U.S. 507.
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985). 470 U.S. 532.
Grossman, J. B. and R. Wells. (1988) Constitutional Law and Judicial Policy Making. New
York: Longman.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). 539 U.S. 306.
Mosher, F. C. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press.
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989). 489 U.S. 656.
Nigro, L. G. and J. E. Kellough, (2014). The New Public Personnel Administration, 7th ed.
Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
O’Connor v. Ortega (1987). 480 U.S. 709.
Perry v. Sinderman (1972). 408 U.S. 593.
Rankin v. McPherson (1987). 483 U.S. 378.
Rosenbloom, D. H. and M. Bailey (2003). “What Every Public Personnel Manager Should
Know About the Constitution,” in S. W. Hays and R. C. Kearney (Eds.), Public Personnel
Administration: Problems and Prospects, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
pp. 29–45.
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990). 497 U.S. 62.
Savas, E. S. and S. G. Ginsburg (1973). “The Civil Service: A Meritless System?” Public Interest,
Vol. 32 (Summer), pp. 70–85.
Sayre, W. S. (1948). “The Triumph of Techniques Over Purpose.” Public Administration
Review, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Spring), pp. 134–137.
Stahl, O. G. (1962). Public Personnel Administration, 5th ed. New York: Harper & Row.
Van Riper, P. P. (1958). History of the United States Civil Service. New York: Harper & Row.
Walters, J. (2002). Life After Civil Service Reform: The Texas, Georgia, and Florida Experiences.
White Plains, NY: IBM.
 2 HUMAN RESOURCES
PRACTICES AND
RESEARCH IN EUROPE
Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Peter Leisink, and
Wouter Vandenabeele

Although the main objective of public personnel practices and human resources manage-
ment (HRM) is similar in Europe and the United States—through active HRM strategies
and leadership to motivate employees and ultimately achieve organizational performance
objectives—there are several differences. The context in which HRM takes place differs
between the continents and also within Europe at the level of nation-­states. The scientific
traditions in Europe and the USA are also slightly different. As these differences relate to
both practices and research, this chapter first describes the characteristics of European
HR practices followed by a discussion of public sector HRM research in Europe. Before
we summarize the main points in the conclusion, we also discuss our expectations for
future European human resources research and practice.

EUROPEAN HUMAN RESOURCES PRACTICES:

PAST, PRESENT, AND POTENTIAL
For many reasons, Europe is even more diverse than North America (Meyer and
Hammerschmid, 2010; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011). First, Europe is far from synonymous
with the European Union (EU). Only 28 of the 50 internationally recognized sovereign
states with territory located within Europe are members of the EU, and the number of
member states will be 27 after Brexit takes place in the coming years. There are also huge
economic and social differences within Europe. This makes the continent very diverse,
which evidently has an impact on HR practices. To be able to make a coherent presenta-
tion, this chapter focuses mainly on EU member states.
Second, there are several different types of administrative traditions (Parrado et al.,
2013; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011) on the European continent. These remain relevant
even for those nation-­states that have joined the EU. This is related to the very basic
institutional framework, which differs between European countries, and the framework
dealing with the relations between the EU and the member states being different from
the institutional framework in the USA. While the states in the USA also have different
state-­level constitutions and statutory laws, the US constitution is a much older and far
more institutionalized common frame for public HR practices. By contrast, in Europe
national differences in administrative traditions have contributed to differences in the
development of HRM over time and continue to influence the adaptation to joint EU
policy frameworks that are meant to affect HR practices, including those in the public

12
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
mutta tämä Mdali myy uniaan. Sillä hän sanoo jollekulle: »Anna
minulle säkki suolaa, tai muuten näen unen, että sinä kuolet», ja kun
he pelkäävät häntä, he kantavat hänelle, mitä hän tahtoo.

— Huomaan, sanoi Sanders ajattelevasti.

Hän lähetti vakoojan pois ja nousi.

Vähän ajan kuluttua hän lähetti hakemaan hausakersanttiaan.

— Mene kolmen miehen keralla, Abibu, sanoi hän, — Tembolinin

kylään, krotiilisärkän laitaan, ja tuo minulle Mdali, uneksija.

— Pääni ja sydämeni kautta, sanoi Abibu ja lähti iloisena matkalle

kanootilla.

Hän oli kymmenen päivää poissa ja palasi tyhjin toimin.

— Sillä ihmiset uhkasivat tappaa minut, sanoi hän, — kun Mdali oli
nähnyt unen minun tulostani ja sanonut, että jos minä vien hänet,
niin jokainen kylässä tulee sokeaksi. Ja, herra, koska tunnen mielesi,
en halunnut tappopalaveria, ja tulin takaisin ilman häntä, vaikka, niin
kuin tiedät, en pelkää kuolemaa.

— Teit oikein, sanoi Sanders.

Tunnin kuluttua hänen höyrylaivansa oli valmiina ja lähtenyt, ja

kahden päivän ja yön kuluttua »Zaire» tuli kylään, jossa vastassa oli
kylän päällikkö Kambori, älykäs mies.

— Herra, sanoi hän, — sanon sinulle, että jos otat uneksijan, niin
ihmiset nousevat kapinaan — ei vain minun kyläni, vaan koko
ympärillä oleva maa — sillä häntä pidetään hyvin pyhänä miehenä.
 — Minä olen hänelle pyhä mies, sanoi Sanders englanniksi ja
jatkoi matkaansa rannalle.

Hän tuli kylään kahden hausan saattamana ja meni suoraan sille

majalle, jossa Mdali piti valtaa.

Mdali oli ollut aivan tavallinen mies, ennen kuin hän alkoi uneksia.
Hän oli ollut kalankeihästäjä, ei varakkaampi eikä köyhempi kuin
muutkaan ammattitoverinsa.

Nyt hän istui leikkauksin koristetulla tuolilla, jonka Kusaun Lalinobi

oli lahjoittanut hänelle, kun hän oli nähnyt unen, että tämän vaimo
synnyttää poikalapsen, ja hänen hartioillaan oli marakatinhännistä
tehty vaippa, jonka Tonda, Lulangu-joen päällikkö, oli lahjoittanut
hänelle siitä hyvästä, että Mdali oli uneksinut Tondan elävän
kauemmin kuin veljensä.

Hänellä oli lukuisia muita lahjoja — kädessä kirjailtu keppi,

kaulassa rautahelminauha, koristeltuja kuparirenkaita, pieni peili —
kaikki saatu palkinnoksi hänen osoittamastaan suosiosta.

Hän ei noussut Sandersin tullessa.

Viisisataa silmäparia tarkasteli Sandersia; koko takamaa oli tullut

koolle, sillä Mdali oli nähnyt unen komissaarin tulosta.

— Hei, valkea mies, sanoi Mdali äänekkäästi, — oletko tullut

minun unieni takia?

Sitten hän nousi äkkiä.

Kaksi kertaa Sanders löi häntä kepillään, ja molemmat iskut

sattuivat.
 Sanders kuuli keihäiden kalinan takanaan ja kääntyi — raskas
automaattinen pistooli kädessään.

— Minä uneksin, kärisi Sanders pistooli tähdättynä lähimpään

joukkoon, — minä näin unta, että eräs mies kohotti keihäänsä minua
vastaan ja kuoli. Ja kuoleman jälkeen hänen sielunsa joutui
paikkaan, joka oli täynnä kaloja, ja joka aamu kalat söivät siitä
palasen, ja joka ilta sielu kasvoi jälleen.

He pudottivat keihäänsä. Pureskellen rystysiään varma

hämmennyksen merkki — he katsoivat häneen kauhuissaan ja
hämillään.

— Minä uneksin, jatkoi Sanders, — että Mdali tuli minun mukanani

Kahleitten kylään, ja mitä häneltä jäi, kaiken omaisuuden, jonka
hullut olivat lahjoittaneet hänelle, kylän asukkaat jakoivat keskenään.

Kuului hyväksymisen mutinaa, mutta jotkut suhtautuivat asiaan

äreästi, ja Sanders arveli heidän olevan maalta tulleita.

Hän kääntyi Mdaliin, joka vapisevin käsin hieroi kirveleviä

olkapäitään.

— Ih, uneksija! sanoi Sanders lempeästi. — Puhu nyt ja kerro

näille ihmisille, miten kaikki asiat tulevat hyviksi, kun sinä lähdet
heidän luotaan.

Mies epäröi kohottaen kiukkuiset silmänsä komissaarin silmiin ja

huomasi niiden kylmän ilmeen.

— Miehet, sanoi hän väristen, — asia on, niin kuin herramme

sanoo.
 — Sinä uneksit niin, ehdotti Sanders.

— Minä uneksin niin, sanoi Mdali, ja kuului yleinen helpotuksen

huokaus.

— Vie hänet laivaan, sanoi Sanders. Hän puhui arabiaa Abibulle.

—
Henkesi uhalla älä anna hänen puhua kenellekään.

Hän seurasi hausoja ja vankia ja lähti aikaa hukkaamatta

matkaan.

Siten päättyi uneksijan tarina — tällä kertaa.

Mutta vaikka Mdali työskenteli Kahleitten kylässä valtakunnan

hyväksi, niin hänen työnsä kantoi hedelmiä, sillä hän oli ollut uuras
mies. Sattui useita kuolemantapauksia. Miehet ja naiset panivat
terveinä nukkumaan ja heräsivät vain kuollakseen. Eikä kukaan
pitänyt sitä merkillisenä eikä ilmoittanut siitä, sillä Mdali oli uneksinut
niin, ja se tapahtui.

Mutta huhulla on jalat kulkea ja suu kertoa; ja aikanaan Sanders

kulki pitkin maita mukanaan päämajasta pikaisesti kutsuttu lääkäri, ja
moni tapasi hänet surren.

Miehet, jotka olivat kadottaneet pahantapaiset vaimonsa, toiset,

jotka olivat haudanneet rikkaita sukulaisiaan, vaimot, jotka olivat
saaneet vapauden Mdalin unien täyttymisen kautta, istuivat vaiti ja
odottivat Sandersia pureskellen rystysiään.

Sanders jakoi oikeutta ilman muita todistuksia kuin mitä hänen

lääkärinsä voi sanoa pahanhajuisissa paikoissa; mutta sillä oli
vaikutus, ja Mdali, puunhakkaaja kahleitten kylässä, tapasi monta
tuttua naamaa.

Kahleitten kylä oli kielekkeellä, jonka oikealla puolen laskee

mereen
Isisi-joki ja vasemmalla Bokaru-joki. Se oli puhtain kylä Sandersin
hallintoalueella, mutta sen puhtautta eivät ylistäneet muut kuin
Sanders.

Siinä virtasivat voimakkaat joet niin väkevästi, etteivät

vahvimmatkaan uimarit siinä kestäneet. Ja kolmion kantaan oli
kaivettu leveä kanava, pituudeltaan viisi tai kuusisataa jaardia,
yhdistämään molempia jokia, niin että kylä pikemminkin oli saarella
kuin niemellä — ja saarelta oli vaikea pääsy, kun piikkilanka-aita oli
pantu kanavan molemmille rannoille. Sitä paitsi kanava oli kolmen
krokotiilin oleskelupaikka — ne oli komissaari Sanders
kaukonäköisenä siihen asettanut — ja niiden poispääsyn estivät
kanavan molempiin päihin vedetyt vahvat verkot.

Kylä itse oli jaettu kolmeen osaan: yksi varattu miehille, toinen
naisille ja kolmas — ainoan maihinnousupaikan vastainen —
puolelle hausakomppanialle.

Vaikka paikkaa sanottiinkin Kahleitten kyläksi, niin vain suurimmat

lurjukset siellä olivat raudoissa, ja elämä kulki tässä pikku kylässä
tasaisesti, ellei oteta lukuun sitä, että naiset asuivat korkean
rautalanka-aidan toisella puolen ja miehet toisella.

Mdali saapui, sai numeron ja peitteen. Hänet käskettiin erääseen

majaan kuuden muun vangin seuraan.
 — Olen Isisin Mdali, sanoi hän, — ja Sandi lähetti minut tänne,
koska näin unia.

— Se on hullua, sanoi majan päämies, — sillä minut hän lähetti

tänne siksi, että pieksin hänen vakoojansa — veljeni kanssa —
kunnes hän kuoli.

— Minut lähetettiin tänne, sanoi toinen mies, — koska olin

päällikkö ja aloitin sodan — minä olen Pikku Isisin Tembeli.

Toinen toisensa jälkeen he esittäytyivät ja kertoivat rikolliset

tekonsa yksinkertaisen ylpeinä.

— Minä olen unien näkijä, sanoi Mdali. — Kun minä uneksin

jotakin tapahtuvaksi, se tapahtuu, sillä minä olen paholaisten
suosiossa ja näen unissani ihmeellisiä asioita.

— Huomaan, sanoi Tembeli viisaana. — Sinä olet hullu.

*****

Ei ole vaikeata kuvitella, miten Mdali sai valtoihinsa uusien

toveriensa mielen ja luottamuksen.

Kerrotaan hänen ennustaneen erään vartian hukkumisen, joka

sitten tapahtuikin. Jokainen Tembolinista saapuva uusi vanki oli
hänen tekojensa todistaja.

Ja parhaalla tavallaan Mdali uneksi heille. Ja tällaisen suuren

unen hän heille näki:

Tapahtui, että Sandi saapui tarkastamaan Kahleitten kylää, ja kun

hän oli päässyt erään majan kohdalle, niin kuusi miestä hyökkäsi
hänen kimppuunsa ja yksi leikkasi hänen kurkkunsa, ja sotilaat
pakenivat kauhuissaan, ja vangit vapauttivat itsensä, eikä enää ollut
vankeutta.

Hän uneksi tämän kolmena peräkkäisenä yönä.

Kun hän oli kertonut ensimmäisen unensa, niin Tembeli, jolle hän
sen uskoi, sanoi miettiväisenä:

— Tuo on kyllä hyvä ajatus, mutta me olemme aseettomia, ja se ei

siis voi tulla todeksi.

— Tänä iltana se selviää minulle unessa, sanoi Mdali.

Ja seuraavana aamuna hän kertoi, miten hän näyssä oli nähnyt

vankien joukossa kongolaisen miehen, jolla oli kongolainen
partaveitsi hiuksiin pistettynä.

Ja tosiaankin siellä oli kongolainen mies, jolla oli sellainen

partaveitsi.

— Kuka leikkaisi kurkun? kysyi Tembeli. — Tämä on asia, joka

vaatii perinpohjaisen selvityksen.

Ja taas Mdali uneksi ja huomasi, että Sandersin kurkun leikkaaja

oli Koforo, puolihullu akasavalainen vanki. Kaikki oli nyt valmista
suurta hetkeä varten.

Oli syitä, joiden vuoksi Sanders ei ollut suopea nti Ruth

Glandynnelle, lähetyssaarnaajalle, ja näistä ei vähäpätöisin ollut
alituinen huoli tytön turvallisuudesta ja tietoisuus siitä, että tyttö ei
tuntenut alkuasukkaita niin hyvin kuin luuli tuntevansa — mikä oli
suurin vaara.
 Eräänä päivänä Sanders sai kirjeen, jossa neiti pyysi päästä
käymään
Kahleitten kylässä.

Sanders noitui.

Hän ei ollut ylpeä kylästään — se osoitti laittomuuden kasvamista

eräässä osassa hänen alaisistaan, ja hän oli tässä suhteessa
sangen arka. Sitä paitsi hän oli, niin kuin itsekin tiesi, sangen huono
näyttämään mitään.

Hieman pahalla tuulella hän vastasi olevansa valmis näyttämään

neidille Kahleitten kylää milloin tahansa, paitsi — hän laati
pyörryttävän listan kielletyistä päivistä.

Tämän listan laatimisessa Sanders osoitti tavallista suurempaa

kekseliäisyyttä. Yhtenä päivänä hän ei voinut täyttää pyyntöä
»neljännestarkastuksen» vuoksi, toisena »terveyskatsastuksen»
vuoksi; eräs kielletty päivä oli »varusteiden tarkastuksen» päivä.

Aivojaan pinnistäen hän keksi kolmekymmentäviisi jaksoa

vuodessa, pituudeltaan yhdestä seitsemään päivään, jolloin
rikollisten tapaaminen oli tuiki mahdotonta; ja hän toivoi
sydämessään, että neiti luopuisi kokonaan aikeestaan.

Hänen mielipahakseen neiti vastasi heti, valiten erään päivän, joka

oli »valituspäivän» ja »korjausviikon» välissä — jotka molemmat
tilaisuudet Sandersin mielikuvitus oli loihtinut ilmoille.

Hän saapui myötävirtaa kanootillaan, jota meloi kaksikymmentä

miestä, ja Sanders tapasi hänet puolimatkassa ja otti hänet
laivaansa.
 Sanders oli pilkuttoman valkeassa puvussa, mutta hieman jäykkä
ja hyvin muodollinen.

— Ellette pahastuisi sanoistani, olisin ollut hyvin mielissäni, jos

olisitte luopunut tästä huvimatkasta.

— Tämä on tuskin huvimatka, neiti kylmästi. — Minulla on

velvollisuuksia näitä ihmisiä kohtaan — tunnustatte, että
lähetyssaarnaajat harvoin heitä näkevät — ja minusta tuntuisi siltä,
että olisin laiminlyönyt velvollisuuteni, ellen olisi käyttänyt tilaisuutta,
jonka niin hyväntahtoisesti tarjoatte minulle (Sanders kirosi itsekseen
hänen loistavaa julkeuttaan) tavatakseni heitä.

Ison hellekypäränsä alta Sanders silmäsi neitiä.

— En voi antaa teidän käydä elämänne läpi epätietoisena siitä,

etten halunnut teidän tuloanne, sanoi hän jyrkästi, ja nti Glandynnen
nenä kohosi hieman, sillä paitsi lähetyssaarnaaja hän oli myöskin
nainen.

He tulivat Kahleitten kylään eräänä säteilevänä aamuna

— No, mutta mitä pirua tämä tarkoittaa? sanoi Sanders.

Sillä vain kaksi hausaa oli jäljellä, toinen vartiana ja toinen hänen
vuorolaisenaan.

— Herra, sanoi tämä mies, kun Sanders astui maalle, —

komppanian miehet ovat menneet alas virtaa erääseen Palmujen
paikkaan.

— Kenen käskystä? kysyi Sanders.

 — Heille oli ilmoitettu, herra, sanoi mies, — he kun kuuluivat
sufilahkoon, että Profeetan siunattu poika ilmestyy siinä paikassa ja
näyttää heille paljon ihmeitä.

Komissaarille välähti valo, ja hän puoleksi hymyili, vaikka hänen

sydämensä raivosi.

— Näyttää siltä kuin uneksija Mdali vielä uneksisi, sanoi hän. —

Täällä tulee huomenna pieksäjäiset.

Hänen ensimäinen aikomuksensa oli lähettää tyttö takaisin; hän ei

pelännyt, että vartioston satunnainen poissaolo johtaisi mihinkään
vakavampaan tapahtumaan — sellainen ajatus ei hetkeksikään
johtunut hänen mieleensä — mutta hän oli varovainen mies, eikä
hänellä ollut lainkaan halua antautua vaaraan.

Hän oli jo puoleksi palaamassa veneelleen, kun päätti, että koska

tyttö oli täällä ja oli matkustanut pitkän matkan, oli selvintä tehdä,
mitä oli aiottu.

— Teidän on parasta mennä naisten puolelle, sanoi hän. —

Lähetän Abibun kanssanne — minulla puolestani on asiaa eräälle
Mdalille.

Hän avasi naisten osastoon johtavan portin ja katseli hentoa tyttöä

tämän mennessä pikku katua myöten ryhdikäs, leveäharteinen
hausa rinnallaan.

Hän käveli sen alueen poikki, joka erotti miesten osaston naisten
osastosta, avasi portin ja astui sisään sulkien sen jälkeensä.

Kukaan ei tullut puhumaan hänelle, mikä oli omituista, sillä

tavallisesti he tulivat pyytämään kuulustelua nimittäen häntä
hyväntahtoisesti hänen jokapäiväisellä nimellään, joka merkitsee
»öisin lentävää pientä teurastajalintua».

Nyt he istuivat majainsa edessä posket polvilla katsellen häntä

vaieten, peloissaan.

— Tästä minä en pidä, sanoi Sanders.

Hän pani huolimattomasti kätensä taskuun ja päästi browningin

varmistimesta. Keskisormellaan hän tutki revolverin perää, oliko
makasiini paikallaan.

Hän seisoi hyvin lakaistun tien keskellä, ja hänellä oli hyvä

näköala kadun päästä päähän.

Häthätää hän silmäsi oikealle puolen. Hän näki Ruthin puhuvan

alkuasukasnaisten kanssa — niitä oli kolme ryhmässä kyykkien
maassa.

Hänen takanaan erillään ryhmästä seisoi Abibu pitäen

winchesterkarbiinia — lahja Sandersilta — käsivarrellaan.
Komissaarin silmätessä hausa veti salaa lukkoa vireeseen.

— Abibu lataa, sanoi jokin Sandersin aivoissa.

Hän käänsi silmänsä takaisin miesten osastoon. Kukaan ei

liikkunut. Vangit istuivat majainsa edessä vaiteliaina ja odottaen.
Epäilyksen värähdys kulki hänen hermojensa läpi. Hän silmäsi
jälleen Abibuun. Tämä oli hiljaisuudessa vetäytynyt vielä
kauemmaksi naisryhmästä ja piteli nyt kivääriä kaksin käsin —
oikealla sormeillen lukon kohtaa ja vasemmalla hypistellen
makasiinia.
 Sitten hän hieman kääntyi ja nyökkäsi, ja Sanders tiesi merkin
olevan hänelle.

Sanders kääntyi nopeasti. Jos vaara uhkasi, niin se uhkasi naisten

osastosta. Hän meni nopeasti takaisin samaa tietä, jota oli tullut.
Neljä miestä, jotka olivat istuneet hiljaa, nousivat ja tulivat häntä
kohti kiirettä pitämättä.

— Herra, meillä on pyyntö, aloitti yksi.

— Mene takaisin majaasi, Tembeli! sanoi Sanders jyrkästi. —

Tulen takaisin kuulemaan pyyntönne.

— Krak!

Abibu ampui erääseen majaan, ja tyttö pakeni tietä pitkin portille

päin.

Tämän Sanders näki kääntäessään päätänsä, ja samassa nuo

neljä syöksyivät hänen kimppuunsa.

Suuri käsi peitti hänen kasvonsa ja luja peukalo pyrki hänen

silmäänsä.
Tembeli kaatui kuoliaaksi ammuttuna, ja Sanders tempaisi itsensä
irti.
Hän juoksi porttia kohti ottaen avaimen esille mennessään.

Hän kääntyi ja ampui kahta seuraajaansa, mutta näillä, ei ollut

halua taisteluun.

Hän avasi portin vakavin käsin ja sulki sen jälkeensä. Hän näki
Abibun maassa miesjoukon alla. Tyttö oli kadonnut. Sitten hän näki
tämän taistelevan kahden naisen kanssa, ja puolihullu Koforo hääri
hänen kimpussaan.

Hän pääsi naisten luo, kun toinen tarttui tyttöä tukasta ja veti
hänen päätään taaksepäin.

Koforo näki Sandersin tulevan ja laski kätensä.

— Ho, isä! sanoi hän hupsulla tavallaan. — Aion tappaa sinut,

koska olet paholainen!

Naiset peräytyivät, ja Sanders tarttui heikkoa tyttöä vyötäisiltä ja

heitti hänet pois heidän ulottuviltaan.

Koforo tuli häntä kohti herjaten ja irvistellen pieni lapionmuotoinen

partaveitsi kädessään.

Sanders tähtäsi tarkkaan, sillä hänellä oli vain viisi panosta jäljellä;
sitten hän kiinnitti huomionsa Abibuun.

Tämä makasi maassa tunnottomana; hänen kimppuunsa

hyökänneet olivat paenneet, sillä vartia ja hänen varamiehensä
ampuivat verkkoaidan läpi — ja harjaantunut hausa on tavattoman
hyvä ampuja.

Yhdessä he kantoivat tytön veneeseen, ja Abibu virotettiin ja

hänen haavansa sidottiin.

Kello neljältä iltapäivällä palasi rukoilemassa käynyt vartio, ja

Sanders pani toimeen tarkastuksen molemmissa leireissä.

— Herra, sanoi muuan, joka oli ollut vain passiivinen katselija, —

tarkoituksena oli johdattaa sinut naisten osastoon. Sen vuoksi
muutamat miehet kätkeytyivät majoihin arvellen, ettei herra kanna
pientä pyssyään naisten keskuudessa. Kaiken tämän uneksi Mdali,
joka on paennut.

— Ei yksikään mies pakene Kahleitten kylästä, sanoi Sanders. —

Mitä tietä Mdali meni?

Mies osoitti kanavan rannalla olevaa rautalanka-aitaa.

Sanders meni aidan luo ja katsoi ruohoakasvavaa kanavaa.

— Näin hänen kapuavan ensimmäisen aidan yli, sanoi hänen

tiedonantajansa, — mutta en enää toisen yli.

Komissaari kumartui ja otti käteensä heinää, jonka heitti vedessä

olevalle vihreälle pölkylle.

Pölkky avasi karsaan silmän ja murisi vihaisesti, sillä se oli saanut

hyvän aterian eikä pitänyt, että sen unta häirittiin.
AJATTELIJA JA KUMIPUU

On kolme asiaa, jotka ovat filosofian ja logiikan ulkopuolella.

Kolme asiaa, jotka tekevät lempeät miehet raivokkaiksi ja

välinpitämättömän urhoolliseksi. Yksi on rakkaus, toinen on uskonto,
ja kolmas on maa.

Isisissä oli mies, joka oli suuri ajattelija. Hän ajatteli asioita, jotka
eivät olleet ajateltavissa, sellaisia kuin tähdet, myrskyt ja aika, joka ei
alkanut eikä loppunut koskaan.

Usein hän meni joen rantaan, istui poski polven varassa ja ajatteli
suuria asioita päivät umpeensa. Kylän asukkaat — Akalavi-särkän
rannalla — ajattelivat, eikä se ole luonnotontakaan, että hän oli hullu,
sillä tämä nuori mies pysytteli erillään elämän iloista, eikä hän
löytänyt mitään huvitusta neitosten parista; hän pysyi poissa
tansseista ja juhlista, jotka muodostivat jokivarren elämän
valoisamman puolen.

Kmaka — se oli hänen nimensä — oli Jokon poika, joka oli

Nkeman poika, jonka isä taas oli Suuren kuninkaan aikainen uljas
soturi. Ja äitinsä puolelta hän polveutui Pikisamokosta, joka myöskin
oli voimakas ja verinen mies, niin että hänessä ei sukunsa puolesta
kylläkään ollut hempeätä luonnetta. — Sen vuoksi, sanoi Joko,
hänen isänsä, — hänen täytyy olla hullu, ja jos asia voidaan järjestää
Sandin tietämättä, niin puhkaisemme hänen silmänsä ja viemme
hänet kauas metsään, jossa pedot tai nälkä hänet pian tappavat.

Kaikki sukulaiset oli kutsuttu perheneuvotteluun, koska hullu poika

on kauhistus. Hän kulkee pitkin metsiä ja kulkiessaan tai
narrimaisuudessaan hän särkee kapineita ja tekee vahinkoja, joista
perhe on laillisessa vastuussa. He keskustelivat asiasta melkein
koko yön eivätkä päässeet päätökseen. Neuvottelua jatkettiin
seuraavana päivänä, ja perheen vanhin, toisen kylän hyvin vanha ja
hyvin viisas päällikkö, antoi lausuntonsa. — Jos hän on hullu, sanoi
hän, — niin hänet on kaikkien lakien ja tapojen mukaan tuhottava.
Minä olen kokenut mies, niin kuin kaikki tiedätte, sillä olen elänyt
useita vuosia kauemmin kuin te. Antakaa minun siis tutkia Kmakaa,
onko hän hullu vaiko vain yksinkertainen, niin kuin pojat tavallisesti
naimaiässä ovat.

Sitten he päättivät kutsua Kmakan kuultavaksi, ja ne, jotka

menivät häntä hakemaan, löysivät hänet metsästä makaamasta
pehmeällä nurmella. Hän makasi kasvot maahan päin, pää
käsissään, katsellen kukkaa.

— Kmaka, sanoi häntä hakemaan tullut mies, — mitä sinä teet?

— Opiskelen, sanoi Kmaka yksinkertaisesti, — sillä tämä ruoho

opettaa minulle paljon asioita, joista en ennen tiennyt.

Toinen katsoi maahan ja nauroi.

— Se on ruoho, sanoi hän, — se ei tee hedelmää, eikä se sen

vuoksi ole mitään.
 — Se on elävä, sanoi Kmaka katsellen yhä kukan terälehtiä. — Ja
minä arvelen, että se on suurempi kuin minä, koska se on
lainkuuliainen.

— Olet tosiaankin hullu, sanoi hänen serkkunsa, — se on aivan

varma.

Hän vei hänet perheneuvotteluun.

— Löysin hänet, sanoi hän tärkeänä, — katselemasta ruohoja, ja

hän väitti niiden olevan suurempia kuin hän itse.

Perhe katsoi synkästi Kinakaan, ja vanha päällikkö aloitti

hyökkäyksen.

— Kmaka, sanotaan, että sinä olet hullu. Minä perheen päänä

olen kutsunut suvun koolle, jotta näkisimme, onko syytös tosi vai ei.
Sanotaan, että sinulla on kummallisia ajatuksia — sellaisiakin, että
tähdet ovat muka kaukaisia maita.

— Se on totta, isä, sanoi toinen.

— Sanotaan sinun myöskin arvelevan, että aurinko paistaa yöllä.

— Niin luulenkin, sanoi Kmaka, — ja tarkoitan, että se paistaa

jossakin. Sillä ei ole viisasta arvella, että joki olisi suurempi kuin
aurinko.

— Huomaan, että sinä todellakin olet hullu, sanoi vanhus kylmästi,

— sillä mitä tekemistä joella ja auringolla on keskenään.

— Herra, sanoi nuori mies vakavasti, — jokihan juoksee päivin ja

öin, joko kävelet tai makaat, näetpä sen tai olet näkemättä. Kuitenkin
typerät ajattelevat, että mitä he eivät näe, sitä ei ole olemassa. Ja
onko joki suurempi kuin aurinko? Sillä jos joki, joka on osa Suuresta
Kulusta, juoksee öisin, pitääkö auringon, joka on monta vertaa
tärkeämpi maalle, lakata paistamasta?

Vanha päällikkö pudisti päätään.

— Ei kukaan muu kuin hyvin hullu mies puhu sellaisia asioita,

sanoi hän, — sillä eikö aurinko muutu yöllä kuuksi, paitsi silloin kun
se nukkuu? Ja kun ihmiset nukkuvat ja vuohet nukkuvat, niin miksei
aurinko nuku ja ryömi maakuoppaan, niin kuin olen itse nähnyt?

He ajoivat Kmakan pois. Näytti mahdottomalta keskustella sen

enempää.

Hän nukkui majassa yksikseen. Hän palasi myöhään sinä yönä,

sillä hän oli ollut metsässä katselemassa lepakoita; mutta tullessaan
hän tapasi kuusi serkkuaan odottamasta. He kävivät häneen käsiksi,
eikä hän vastustellut.

He sitoivat hänet käsistä ja jaloista pitkään paaluun ja asettivat

hänet kanoottiin. Sitten hänen kuusi serkkuaan kävivät kanoottiin ja
meloivat nopeasti myötävirtaa. He aikoivat Paholaisten metsään,
joka on Hiljaisella joella — erämaan vesistö, johon vain krokotiilit
menevät laskemaan munansa, sillä siellä on hiekkarantoja, jotka
ovat sopivia siihen tarkoitukseen.

Päivänkoitteessa he pysähtyivät ja tehtyään tulen keittivät ruokaa.

He antoivat vangilleen hiukan kalaa ja maniokkia.

— Nälkäiset päivät odottavat sinua, veli, sanoi yksi serkuista, sillä

me aiomme lopettaa sinut, koska olet hullu.
 — En ole niin hullu, sanoi Kmaka tyynesti, — etten huomaisi
teidän hulluuttanne.

Serkku ei vastannut tietäen, että, sellaiset hullut, jotka pitivät muita

hulluina, olivat hulluimpia.

Aurinko oli noussut, ja kanootti jatkoi matkaansa Kmaka maaten

pohjalla syventyneenä katsomaan kahta muurahaista, jotka olivat
uhkarohkeasti tulleet tutkimusretkelle kanoottiin.

Äkkiä melominen taukosi.

Höyryten vastavirtaa, runko loistaen uudessa valkeassa maalissa,

punavalkea kansikatos kirkkaana tuli »Zaire», ja komissaari
Sandersin pieni sininen lippu liehui velttona laivan ainoassa
mastontyngässä.

— Melotaan lähemmäksi rantaa, sanoi serkkujen päällikkö, — sillä

tämä on Sandi, ja jos hän näkee, mitä me kuljetamme, niin hän
suuttuu.

He siirtyivät syrjään antaen laivalle lavean tilan.

Mutta Joen Sanders, joka nojasi komentosillan laitaa vasten

hellekypärä työnnettynä suojaamaan niskaa auringolta, oli nähnyt
heidät. Hän oli myöskin havainnut, että miehet äkkiä lakkasivat
melomasta, ja huomasi heidän taas alkavan voimakkaasti meloa ja
ottavan uuden suunnan.

Hän nosti sormeaan merkiksi ruorimiehelle: peräsin käännähti ja

äkkiä oli »Zaire» poikkiteloin kanootin tiellä.
 — Tällä miehellä, sanoi serkkujen ällistynyt päällikkö, — on silmät
kuin okapilla, joka näkee puiden läpi vihollisensa.

Hän lakkasi melomasta ja odotti palaveria.

— Mitä tämä on, Sambili? kysyi Sanders, kun höyrylaiva saapui

kohdalle ja puoshaka tarttui pikku alukseen. Sanders kurottautui
laivan laidan yli ja puhutteli serkkua nimeltä.

— Herra, sanoi Sambili, — en aio valehdella sinulle; tämä mies on

minun serkkuni ja on hullu. Sen vuoksi viemme hänet kuuluisan
poppamiehen luo.

Sanders nyökkäsi ja tipautti valkean tuhkan sikaristaan veteen.

— Tunnen joen paremmin kuin kukaan toinen, mutta en tiedä

sellaisesta miehestä mitään, virkkoi hän. — Myöskin olen kuullut,
että monta hullua miestä on viety Paholaisten metsään, jossa heitä
odottaa poppamies, jota he eivät ole nähneet. Ja hänen nimensä on
Iwa, joka merkitsee kuolemaa.

Kaksi hausaa kiskoi sidotun miehen laivaan.

— Päästäkää hänet, sanoi Sanders.

— Herra, sanoi serkku kiihtyneenä, — hän on hyvin hullu ja hyvin

raivokas.

— Minä olen myöskin hyvin raivokas, sanoi Sanders, — ja

sanotaan, että minä olen hullu, mutta minua ei sittenkään sidota
paaluun.