Actors of personnel policy in bodies of the national police of Ukraine: concept, characteristics, classification

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Actors of personnel policy in bodies of the national police of Ukraine: concept, characteristics, classification

Ruslan Horiachenko

Postgraduate Student at the Department of Police Law, National Academy of Internal Affairs

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to generally characterise the actors of personnel policy in the bodies of the National Police of Ukraine, to determine their general and special characteristics, to outline their system, to differentiate various criteria, as well as to reveal their place and role in the administrative and legal mechanism for making personnel policy in the bodies and units of the National Police of Ukraine.

Results. Various scientific definitions of “actors of personnel policy” are analysed, and their advantages and disadvantages are underlined. In addition, the characteristics inherent in all actors of the personnel policy of the National Police of Ukraine, without exception, and the characteristics of the system of such actors as a single and integral element are determined. The author formulates an original definition of the concept of “the system of actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the National Police of Ukraine”, as well as justifies the expediency of including individual constituent elements in such a system. Multilevel classification of actors involved in making personnel policy in bodies of the National Police of Ukraine, based on criteria, such as a place of personnel policy in the bodies of the National Police of Ukraine in the general political structure of the State, the scope of competence, nature and specificity of tasks and functions, the nature of the relationship between the actors of personnel policy and the objects of their impact. The analysis reveals conceptual shortcomings in the organisation of the system of personnel policy actors in the bodies of the National Police of Ukraine, which negatively affect the quality of personnel policy, and markedly reduce the effectiveness of its implementation.

Conclusions. Most heads of territorial and other structural bodies and subdivisions of the police make their own “adjustments” in the personnel policy, which, on the one hand, allow for the local and regional interests and needs of such bodies and units; on the other hand, they create unequal conditions for the recruitment and performance of police officers (including subjective appointments). Moreover, the situation is aggravated by the large turnover of senior staff and, consequently, the frequent change in the direct (local) conditions of service in a police body (unit).

Key words: State powers, general and special competence, personnel policy in the bodies of the National Police of Ukraine, legal and regulatory mechanism, organisational and functional independence, the system of personnel policy actors in the bodies of the National Police of Ukraine, actors of general and special competence, actors of personnel policy.

Анотація

Руслан Горяченко,

аспірант кафедри поліцейського права, Національна академія внутрішніх справ

СУБ'ЄКТИ КАДРОВОЇ ПОЛІТИКИ В ОРГАНАХ НАЦІОНАЛЬНОЇ ПОЛІЦІЇ УКРАЇНИ: ПОНЯТТЯ, ХАРАКТЕРНІ ОЗНАКИ, КЛАСИФІКАЦІЯ

The literature review reveals that today scientists interpret the concept of “actors of personnel policy” in different ways. For example, in some cases such actors are considered as “bearers of certain (defined in the legal field) powers, rights and duties on development and implementation of personnel policy” (Kop- tiev, 2006, р. 37; Kovbasiuk, Vashchenko, Surmin, 2012, р. 65; Korolenko, Yurochko, 2018, р. 11); in others, as “bodies and officials that according to the legislation, are participants in management relations, are vested with certain powers and functions in the field of personnel management, are able to implement them and are legally liable” (Klochko, 2012, р. 140).

A word-for-word analysis of the above-mentioned definitions suggests that scientists identify the main features of the actors of personnel policy as follows: the granting of certain powers; certain rights and duties; the legal and regulatory mechanism for activities; capacity to assume legal liability. However, we do not advocate this approach, and we believe it is appropriate to make a few criticisms of it. First, these features do not reveal all the specifics of the legal status of the actors of personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU. Second, some of the above topics need to be clarified (in particular, in terms of specifying the nature of the powers) or unified (for example, the use of the category of “competence” instead of “rights and duties”). Third, highlighting some traits seems inappropriate at all (first of all, it concerns “legal liability”), while the really important traits are not mentioned.

Our research allows for concluding that it would be appropriate to identify main features that are common to all personnel policy actors in the bodies of the NPU without exception.

First, personnel policy actors in the NPU are vested with State powers to make such policies. Unfortunately, the limited scope of this article does not allow us to fully describe the nature of State powers. But this is not an urgent need, as the topic is sufficiently detailed in modern scientific publications. However, it should be noted that today most administrators characterise such powers as “executive-managerial” (Yevdokymov, 2020, p. 64), which, among other things, involve the application of “power influence of public administration on subordinate actors” (Levchenko, 2019, р. 50). This characteristic once again confirms the expediency of attributing activities in making personnel policy to public administration and its coverage by all its features.

Second, personnel policy actors in the NPU have clearly defined fields of competence for making such policies. These are the rights and duties vested to each of the personnel policy actors, which together constitute the content of their activities in this field. Each actor has its own competence in the field of making personnel policy, a unique set of rights and duties. Moreover, the nature of such competence allows to distinguish separately actors of “general and special” competence (Hlushchuk, 2019, р. 311).

Third, the powers, competencies, tasks and functions of personnel policy actors in the bodies of the NPU are enshrined in the relevant legal framework. The legal and regulatory mechanism is a common feature of personnel policy in general, which is manifested in the activities of the actors who make it. Vesting such actors with State powers provides for strict legal and regulatory framework for their activities, as well as the mandatory establishment of legal liability for failure to perform or improper performance of their duties, as well as abuse of authority or influence.

Fourth, personnel policy actors in the NPU are active participants in human resources processes. Making personnel policy is a complex, multi-stage, broad-based process. Therefore, the successful implementation of its tasks requires the active and focused action of all the actors involved. Moreover, the passivity of any actor significantly reduces the effectiveness of personnel policy in general, and sometimes can even undermine all the results achieved.

Above, we have analysed only the most significant features of the actors of personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU. However, we believe that this analysis is not sufficient to reveal their place and role in the mechanism for making such policies. It is also important to identify the features that characterise the entire system of such actors as a single and integral element.

Primarily, the actors involved in making personnel policies in the bodies of the NPU are not just a set of certain bodies and officials, but their holistic and comprehensive system. Therefore, it has all the features of system formations, including: the presence of separate elements; the integrity, unity and relative autonomy of such parts; the presence of an internal structure (separate subsystems); interlinkages between all parts of the system as well as with the environment.

The next feature of the system of actors in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU is that the activities of all actors aimed at achieving a common goal. While each actor has specific goals and objectives for human resources management, they are ultimately all combined for the sole purpose of shaping, maintaining, developing and managing the human resources capacity of the NPU.

The system of actors involved in making personnel policy in the NPU is hierarchical. As is known, personnel policy in the NPU, on the other hand, is directly implemented at several organisational levels, that is, at the State, regional and local levels, as well as at the level of the central police administration, territorial and interregional territorial bodies of the NPU; on the other hand, is directly implemented at several organisational levels, such as the State, regional and local levels, as well as at the level of the central police administration, territorial and interregional territorial bodies of the NPU bodies, individual bodies, units, institutions and organisations of the police. Therefore, the degree of participation of each actor in making personnel policy, as well as the list of its tasks and functions in this field should correspond to the place that it occupies in the appropriate hierarchical structure.

Moreover, two features of the system of actors in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU are closely related to the feature mentioned above. First, this is a clear managerial relationship between such actors. Traditionally, within such hierarchical structures, scholars distinguish relationship of power and subordination, as well as of subordination and coordination. In addition, they are common to the system of personnel policy actors in the NPU, which are closely linked and interlinked. Second, there is the organisational and functional separation of the actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU, both from each other and from other of public administrators. Despite clear subordination, all personnel policy actors in the NPU are relatively independent of each other. This allows them to decide independently questions and to choose the forms and methods of their tasks.

Another feature of the system of personnel policy actors in the NPU is the coordination of their activities. This feature is of particular importance because a significant number of actors that are not subordinate to each other have been involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU: from the President of Ukraine to an employee of the personnel support unit of the police body. They all have different scope of powers and perform different tasks and functions. Objectively, there can be no subordination relationship between them. Therefore, to successfully achieve the overall goal and objectives of the personnel policies of the NPU requires a well-coordinated approach.

Thus, relying on the identification of the features of actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU, as well as the analysis of the features that characterise the system of such actors, we can propose the author's definition as follows: The system of actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU is a coherent, hierarchical, complex and coordinated system of interrelated, subordinate and functionally separate actors, such as bodies and officials that are active participants in personnel processes, the State powers, competences, tasks and functions thereof in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU have appropriate legal and regulatory framework and activities thereof are aimed at achieving the overall goal and objectives of such policy.

In view of a large number of different legal statuses, powers and areas of competence of bodies and officials included in the system of actors for making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU now, there is a need to classify them into separate groups according to different specificities. This approach will not only reveal the role of each actor in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU, as well as identify promising ways to increase the effectiveness of their activities in this field.

It is most appropriate to classify all actors involved in making personnel policies in the NPU according to several criteria.

First, depending on the position of the personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU in the general political structure of the State, the actors involved in making such a policy may be at different hierarchical levels: 1) Actors involved in making the State personnel policy (President of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine); 2) Actors involved in making the personnel policy of executive authorities (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, National Agency for Civil Service of Ukraine); 3) Actors involved in making the personnel policy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Personnel Department of the MIA); 4) Actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU (Head of the NPU, Human Resource Department); 5) Actors involved in making the personnel policy of the bodies, enterprises, institutions, organisations belonging to the police system (heads of the relevant structural units, their personnel units).

Second, depending on the competence, all actors involved in making personnel policy in the NPU can be grouped into: 1) Actors whose competence extends to all bodies of the NPU (central level); 2) Actors whose competence is limited to a certain territory (regional and local level); 3) Actors whose competence extends to a specific body, a police unit (object level).

Third, depending on the nature and specificity of the tasks and functions of the actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU, they can be differentiated into actors of general and special competence. The former has wide-ranging powers to regulate personnel actions within the bodies and units of the NPU (Personnel Department of the MIA, Human Resources Department of the NPU). The latter, on the contrary, performs only separate, highly specialised tasks and functions (select candidates for police service, or are responsible for the training, retraining and advanced training of police officers, etc.).

Fourth, depending on the nature of the relationship between personnel policy actors and the objects on which their influence is directed, internal and external actors can be identified. The first group includes all actors within the NPU system. Consequently, their powers in making personnel policy are internal, and among the actors of personnel policy subordination relations prevail. For example, these actors are the heads of the police, heads of bodies, units, police institutions, the Human Resources Department of the NPU. In contrast, the actors in the second group are organisationally separate from the police, that is, they are not part of the NPU system. These are, for example, the President of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the VRU and others.

The next issue to be addressed in this scientific article concerns the identification of the system of actors involved in making personnel policies in the NPU. The analysis of the current legislation and the practice of the bodies of the NPU enables to conclude that today the actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU are: 1) the President of Ukraine; 2) the VRU; 3) the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; 4) the National Agency of Ukraine for Civil Service; 5) the MIA of Ukraine, in particular through the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Personnel Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and other structural units of the MIA of Ukraine; 6) the NPU, inter alia, through the Head of the NPU, the Human Resources Department of the NPU and other units of the Central Police Administration; 7) heads of bodies, units and institutions of the NPU and their Human Resources Units; 8) educational institutions and research institutions of the MIA and NPU; 9) other specialised bodies and institutions of the NPU; 10) local government bodies, trade union organisations and other public actors.

2. Shortcomings of personnel policy in the bodies of the National Police of Ukraine

A review of the statistics, analytical references and practices of the above-mentioned actors enables to identify several conceptual shortcomings in the organisation of their activities, which have a negative impact on the quality of personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU, as well as significantly reduce the effectiveness of its implementation.

First, the dispersal of powers in the field of making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU among a significant number of “external” actors that have not only different legal status, but also organisationally and functionally are not subordinate to each other. For example, the so-called “external” actors, such as bodies and officials that are not part of the NPU or the MIA of Ukraine, have a significant number of rights and duties in the field of personnel management in the NPU. This situation leads to several negative consequences, starting from the stalling of certain personnel policies (including due to the inability to provide them with adequate financial, logistical, resource and other support) and to the establishment and strengthening of police dependence on political decisions.

In order to eliminate or at least minimise the negative consequences of this situation, in our opinion, it is necessary to take a number of organisational and legal measures, such as: to review the content and nature of the powers vested in “external” actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU; to exclude from the list of such powers those, the implementation of which makes the police (or their leaders) dependent on certain political actors; to limit as much as possible the powers of “external” actors, focusing on monitoring and supervising making personnel policies in the NPU; all rights and powers granted to “external” actors should be provided with corresponding duties aimed at balancing influence and preventing undue pressure (primarily political) on police bodies, etc.

Second, the absence of a coherent logical structure of “internal” actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU. As can be seen from the system of actors involved in making personnel policies in the NPU bodies, a very wide range of bodies, units and officials of the NPU are involved in the implementation of certain policies. Of course, such “specialisation” of personnel work has a number of advantages, such as improving the quality, promptness, proficiency of its implementation. However, it has serious shortcomings, such as the lack of proper communication and interaction between the actors of “general” and “special” competence in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU that is a particular concern. That is why, even with high efficiency in the performance of individual tasks and functions in human resources management, the overall objective of the personnel policy may remain unfulfilled. This is because the NPU Human Resources Units are not yet ready to assume full responsibility for the effective implementation of personnel policies, that is, they cannot guarantee a high quality of selection and deployment of police personnel.

In our view, this shortcoming can be remedied only by a number of structural and organisational measures, in particular: to review the general system and structure of “internal” actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the National Institute of Education, to take measures for its optimisation and unification, liquidation of actors, responsible for making only certain areas of personnel policy and not for ensuring the performance of other tasks and functions of the police (with the transfer of their powers to actors of “general competence”); to review unify the personnel powers of “internal” actors, exclusion of powers, duplicated or involving the application of different mechanisms of their implementation; to define and regulate clear responsibilities of actors for the effectiveness and quality of the implementation of various personnel policies.

Third, the lack of proper communication and interaction between the different actors involved in making personnel policies in the bodies of the NPU. As we have noted above, there are many subordination and coordination relations between such actors that should ensure that the core tasks and functions of the NPU bodies and units are carried out in a clear and uniform manner. However, due to a number of managerial and organisational factors, this is not the case. Most heads of territorial and other structural bodies and subdivisions of the police make their own “adjustments” in the personnel policy, which, on the one hand, allow for the local and regional interests and needs of such bodies and units; on the other hand, they create unequal conditions for the recruitment and performance of police officers (including subjective appointments). Moreover, the situation is aggravated by the large turnover of senior staff and, consequently, the frequent change in the direct (local) conditions of service in a police body (unit).

In order to address this shortcoming, we believe that a number of organisational and operational measures should be taken, including: to ensure the integrity and unity of personnel policies in all bodies and units of the NPU; to develop, implement and monitor rigorous adherence to standardised and harmonised personnel policies and programmes; to maximise personnel functions within the NPU Human Resources Management Units (at all stages of the personnel cycle: from career guidance to pensions for persons dismissed from police service); to limit the subjective powers of police heads in staffing of subordinate units; to expand the coordinating functions of the Personnel Department of the MIA of Ukraine in the implementation of the main areas of personnel policy in subordinate bodies and subdivisions of the police, etc.

Fourth, shifting the focus of the work of the actors responsible for implementing personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU to the performance of statistical, accounting, recording functions. If the review of the powers, rights and duties of the actors directly involved in the implementation of personnel policies in the bodies of the NPU reveals that most of them are limited to accounting, registration and monitoring tasks. However, back in 2002, N.P. Matiukhina in her dissertation research drew attention to the fact that “personnel departments... can only marginally claim the role of a staff management tool”, as well as underlined the expediency of reorientation of their activities to the performance of “informative, analytical and organisational” functions (Matiukhina, 2002, p. 141). Almost 20 years have passed since then, but the situation has hardly changed. Nowadays, most of their working time, human resources employees, as before, process and registrate personnel documents, prepare draft orders on personnel, formulate and issue various certificates, prepare reports for managers. With this approach, it is unlikely that they will be able to achieve the main objective of personnel policy, which is to establish, maintain, develop and manage the human resources capacity of the police bodies and units.

The above points to the need to take a number of managerial measures to strengthen the activities of those responsible for implementing personnel policies in the bodies of the NPU, such as: to review the powers of human resources officers to reduce the scope of reporting-registration and statistical powers; to abandon statistical and registration reports that are irrelevant in the current context; to place the main responsibility for the quality selection of police personnel on human resources units and their managers; as well as its efficient and effective use; to shift the focus of the work of human resources units to personnel policies such as career guidance, study and assessment of personal and professional qualities of employees, creation of a reserve of managerial personnel, organisation of mentoring, adaptation of new employees, socio-psychological support for official work, quality training, retraining and advanced training of employees; to improve personnel policy such as forecasting and planning in order to determine the prospects of staff development and to take necessary managerial measures in timely manner; constant monitoring of the situation in the field of personnel management of police bodies and units in order to determine the reasons for staff turnover and other shortcomings in this field, etc.

Fifth, a low level of proficiency among the heads and staff of the bodies and units responsible for making personnel policies in the bodies of the NPU. The problem of low proficiency is common not only to the specialised units involved in human resources work, but also to all the other actors responsible for implementing the main areas of personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU. As we have been able to ascertain, most of the human resources of the NPU do not have specialised training and do not have specific knowledge and skills in dealing with personnel. With regard to the heads of the relevant police bodies and units, who are actively involved in making personnel policy in their subordinate units, only a few have received training in personnel management. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that good results can be expected in the staffing of the NPU.

In our view, it is not possible to remedy this situation solely by the organisational and functional measures described above. Measures aimed at professionalising all actors in personnel policy without exception are also urgently needed and relevant. The most appropriate and effective measures, however, may be to increase the number of specialists with specialised training among the personnel of the police bodies, as well as experience in areas such as staffing and personnel management; to practice periodic training courses and specialised training for the employees of these units (including on socio-psychological work, professional ethics and etiquette, conflictology, the latest methods and techniques of personnel work, etc.); to organise additional training courses for police heads at all levels in the most relevant and complex areas of human resources management (including on scientific organisation of labour, modern technologies of personnel management, long-term and operational planning of personnel requirements, etc.); to establish operational and efficient communication and interrelation between the actors of personnel support, at different hierarchical levels; to expand the scope of advisory, informational, organisational, reference, training, supervisory and other powers of the Personnel Department of the MIA of Ukraine and the Human Resources Department of the NPU; to intensify educational and scientific activities of higher educational institutions with specific conditions of training in the field of personnel work in the NPU, in particular, by introducing in the curricula (including on the training of specialists at the master's degree) specialised subjects and special courses in personnel management and staffing, to development and introduce special advanced courses for personnel (including unregistered); to organise and hold various scientific events (conferences, round tables, seminars) devoted to the discussion of the most pressing problems in the field of staffing of bodies and units of the NPU, positive foreign experience in the organisation of personnel work in the police and promising areas of its implementation in the national law enforcement system.

Sixth, a systematic increase in the number of persons responsible for the implementation of certain tasks of making personnel policies in the bodies of the NPU. It is well known, nowadays a large number of actors are responsible for implementing personnel policies in the bodies of the NPU. However, a negative trend exists not only towards the continuous expansion of the network of such actors, but also towards an increase in the number of staff in the human resources services. Usually, the administration of the MIA and NPU attributes this situation to the increasing complexity of the activities of the human resources services, as well as to the expansion of their assigned tasks and functions. However, given that the NPU staff ceiling has been enshrined at the legislative level and has remained unchanged for many years, this explanation does not seem entirely appropriate.

Indeed, human resources officers now perform a much greater number of tasks of making personnel policy in the NPU. This situation should not, however, be regarded as an absolute justification for the expansion of such units. In our view, there are other more rational ways of optimising their activities, in particular: to streamline the structure and number of personnel units in order to determine their best balance with the headcount of the body (unit) of the police; to “audit” the functional powers of personnel units (cancellation of those duplicate tasks that are outdated or irrelevant); to improve the general level of professional training of personnel services; to introduce modern personnel methods and technologies into the practice of their activities; to computerise standard personnel procedures; to rationalise work with accounting, statistical, reporting and other documentation; to practice provision of individual personnel services by external “highly specialised” actors (various consulting, auditing, information, design, advisory and other firms), etc.

Conclusions

The above list does not exhaust all the problems of organising the activities of the system of actors involved in making personnel policy in the bodies of the NPU. However, unless the above-mentioned shortcomings are addressed, any other measures aimed at improving the quality and efficiency of the police force will be doomed to failure.

References

administrative legal personnel policy national policy

1Hlushchuk, Ye. (2019). E-uriaduvannia yak mekhanizm hromadianskoi uchasti v umovakh masshtabuvan- nia informatsiinoho polia upravlinskoi diialnosti [E-government as a mechanism of civic participation in terms of scaling the information field of management]. Naukovipratsi Natsionalnoi biblioteky Ukrainy imeni V.I. Vernads- koho - Scientific papers of the National Library of Ukraine named after VI Vernadsky, 55, 309-316 (in Ukrainian).

2levdokymov, P.V. (2020). Administratyvno-pravove rehuliuvannia realizatsii kadrovoho zabezpechennia v orhanakh publichnoi administratsii v Ukraini [Administrative and legal regulation of the implementation of staffing in public administration in Ukraine]. Candidate's thesis. Zaporizhzhia: Zaporizkyi natsionalnyi univer- sytet: (in Ukrainian).

3Klochko, A.M. (2012). Spetsyfika vzaiemodii subiekta i obiekta kadrovoho zabezpechennia orhaniv vnu- trishnikh sprav Ukrainy [The specifics of the interaction between the subject and the object of staffing of the internal affairs bodies of Ukraine]. Pivdennoukrainskyipravnychyi chasopys - South Ukrainian Law Journal, 2, 140-142 (in Ukrainian).

4Koptiev, P.B. (2006). Orhanizatsiino-pravovi zasady diialnosti pidrozdiliv po roboti z personalom OVS [Organizational and legal bases of activity of divisions on work with police personnel]. Candidate's thesis. Kharkiv (in Ukrainian).

5Korolenko, V.V., Yurochko, T.P. (2018). Kadrova polityka u sferi okhorony zdorovia Ukrainy v konteksti yevropeiskoi intehratsii [Personnel policy in the field of health care in Ukraine in the context of European integration]. Kyiv (in Ukrainian).

6Kovbasiuk, Yu.V., Vashchenko, K.O., Surmin, Yu.P. (2012). Derzhavna kadrova polityka v Ukraini: stan, problemy ta perspektyvy rozvytku [State personnel policy in Ukraine: state, problems and prospects of development]. Kyiv: NADU (in Ukrainian).

7Levchenko, M.V. (2019). Kontrol ta nahliad za pravotvorchistiu subiektiv vladnykh povnovazhen: pos- tanovka problemy [Control and supervision over the law-making of the actors of power: problem statement]. Biuleten Miniustu Ukrainy - Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, 12, 48-52 (in Ukrainian).

8Matiukhina, N.P. (2002). Upravlinnia personalom orhaniv vnutrishnikh sprav Ukrainy: orhanizatsiino-pravovi zasady [Personnel management of internal affairs bodies of Ukraine: organizational and legal principles]. Candidate's thesis. Kharkiv: Natsionalnyi universytet vnutrishnikh sprav (in Ukrainian).

Размещено на Allbest.ru