Keywords

1 Introduction

Public administration—not only in Germany—requires a sufficient number of qualified and motivated staff to produce services, provide infrastructures and implement policies efficiently, effectively, professionally and reliably. Managing the workforce is, therefore, one of the most crucial functions in public administration. In this chapter, we take a closer—but given the complexity of the topic—unavoidably selective look at human resource management (HRM) in general, and at related issues in particular, such as pay for performance and public service motivation (for general aspects regarding civil service systems and the institutional framework for HRM, see Chap. 13).

Our main argument is, paradoxically, that HRM reform has not been the focus of attention despite its obvious relevance for effective policy implementation. As opposed to the general trend worldwide towards convergence between public and private HRM strategies and practices, the workforce in German public administration is still managed in rather traditional and bureaucratic ways despite major challenges, such as digital transformation, demographic changes and attractiveness issues.

2 Fundamentals of Human Resource Management in German Public Administration

A qualified and motivated resource base is key for any public sector organisation. This applies especially to German public administration with its particularly high expectations in terms of reliability, compliance and fairness that are typical of a traditional, bureaucratic, continental European administrative system.

Human resource management is quite simply concerned with making sure that for every task there are sufficient numbers of qualified and motivated people available when and where they are needed with the necessary equipment. What may sound simple is, in fact, an extremely complex task if we consider that roughly 4.6 million individuals work in German public administration. Hence, it is not a straightforward exercise to describe HRM in public administration, particularly given that it comprises different groups, such as police officers and teachers, as well as organisations at all levels of government with varying staff sizes (from 20 to more than 100,000), different professions, cultures and traditions.

Traditionally, HRM in the German public sector has been highly institutionalised in three major respects:

  • The civil service and HRM are heavily regulated and thus relatively inflexible. Compliance and equality have become dominant criteria in HR processes. In addition to relevant laws and labour agreements, legal decisions made by the administrative and constitutional courts contribute to the very complex regulatory framework.

  • Values associated with traditional public bureaucracy represent the dominant perceptions and criteria of HRM. The function of the civil service is to provide stability and reliability, neutrality and professionality. Service orientation, competitiveness, mobility and flexibility, for example, play a much less important role.

  • Education and training focus predominantly on the legal framework and traditional values and tend to mutually reinforce each other. Programmes in public administration and law (many key players in the public sector HRM are lawyers) overemphasise the importance of these principles, whereas managerial aspects (e.g. strategic planning, leadership, managing costs and enhancing motivation) play a rather marginal role. Lawyers as legal professionals usually have no training at all in HRM, except for learning on the job or through (selective) continuing education.

In that sense, the institutional basis in regulative, cultural-cognitive and normative terms is relatively consistent. For example, HRM is strongly influenced by the ‘traditional principles of civil service’ and ‘selection of the best’, placing emphasis on formal qualifications, aptitude and merit, as well as seniority, experience and the privileged status of civil servants. Obviously, these values and principles are not only in line with Max Weber’s concept of bureaucracy, but also form the basis for regulations and decision-making in HRM. Furthermore, divergent strategies such as abolishing the traditional civil servant status or, at least, harmonising HRM practices in the public and private sectors have never been seriously considered.

Looking at the institutional basis of public sector HRM, there are also some problematic aspects to be considered. First, the significant differences between HRM in the public sector and in the private sector (both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations) are considered normal and are rarely challenged. Second, the public sector HRM community of practice is not well organised and, thus, does barely allow for a systematic and regular exchange of experience and ideas that are essential to innovation. Further, there are neither journals on public sector HRM nor any specific regular conferences that give support for knowledge exchange and networking. Third, there is little opportunity to discuss the challenges, practices, norms or changes in managing the people working in public sector organisations. Fourth, there has been surprisingly little political attention paid to HRM (apart from occasional law making and downsizing initiatives), despite its obvious relevance for effective policy implementation. Rather, it seems that political actors take a functioning HRM in public administration for granted. Fifth, this impression correlates with the lack of interest shown by the general public and the media in these issues. This has changed only slightly and recently in the wake of the occasional performance failure in service provision (e.g. in the city of Berlin) and corruption scandals (e.g. in military procurement). Sixth, HRM is highly decentralised and fragmented.

Today, HRM in German public administration, and particularly the ‘maintaining’ stance on reform, faces serious challenges:

  • The demographic situation and changes play an increasingly important role in staff shortages and create an even greater need for change to enhance the attractiveness of public administration organisations as employers. The downsizing efforts of previous years have contributed to an imbalanced age pyramid. At a time when a large part of the staff is retiring, labour markets are becoming less and less capable of providing the much-needed workforce.

  • In the situation where staff become an increasingly scarce resource, capacity is further reduced due to high levels of part-time employment and absenteeism. For example, persistently high numbers of staff on sick leave increases awareness about the quality of work, motivation and leadership.

  • The shift in the social, ethical and cultural composition of German society in general, and in metropolitan areas in particular, raises the question of representative bureaucracy. Migration in recent years has reinforced this trend. The general shift in the values of society also increases pressure on public employers to be more diverse in several regards.

  • The digital transformation of government also has major implications for HRM, basically for all its functions, from capacity planning, recruiting and training to knowledge management, motivating people and innovation. In this context, deficiencies in HRM become clearly visible, such as lower employer attractiveness and insufficient flexibility in hiring IT experts, or inadequate internal qualification systems to develop the necessary competencies for an e-government.

  • The public sector in Germany is also under constant pressure to reduce the number of ‘precarious’ forms of employment, particularly the extensive use of time-limited contracts. Furthermore, the increasing shadow workforce of external consultants and service providers draws attention to alternative forms of employment that are not usually considered part of HRM.

Even though most of these challenges also apply to other governments, HRM in German public administration is facing a considerable gap between its traditionalist, ‘maintaining’ stance on the one hand, and problematic outcomes and increasing pressure to modernise on the other. This strategic tension will characterise the context in which HRM develops.

In recent years, the main focus of the (limited) reform activities taking place in HRM has been on flexibilisation, particularly regarding work days and work hours, opportunities to work from home, slightly increasing mobility between sectors and within the administration, access to employment and, more recently, part-time leadership. However, overall, these efforts have resulted in no substantial changes in general HRM practices—with the noticeable exception that approximately one-third of staff currently work part-time. Apart from the extraordinary job security for those with civil servant status or permanent employment contracts, flexible working hours and part-time employment significantly contribute to the attractiveness of public administration as an employer.

3 Selected Functional and Reform Topics

Given that HRM is a complex phenomenon, particularly in a federal state with local self-government, our considerations can only take a selection of functions and reform topics into account. Therefore, we will focus on:

  • HR strategy and planning;

  • HR marketing, selection and training; and

  • leadership

and complement these descriptions with considerations on related topics that have drawn particular attention in the international academic community and in recent German HRM debates, namely

  • public service motivation;

  • performance-related pay; and

  • diversity management.

Consequently, many other aspects that are indeed of some importance have to be neglected. Generally, we point out that the empirical basis for this chapter is very weak because only few empirical evidence or data is available. Therefore, we also have to acknowledge that some statements we make remain merely hypothetical or preliminary.

3.1 HR Strategy and Planning

Theoretically, every public sector organisation should formulate an explicit HR strategy based on the respective government’s personnel and employment policies. At the very least, it should be aware of the fundamental principles and guidelines as orientation towards HR decision-making, be able to formulate responses to major challenges facing its workforce and reflect upon emergent strategies as part of the organisational learning process. This managerialist and prescriptive stance is confronted with the reality that can basically be described as the absence of sound HR strategy in German public administration.

Even though evidence is sparse, it can nevertheless be assumed that most authorities have not formulated an explicit HR strategy or systematically evaluated their implicit ones. HRM is usually carried out operationally and reactively. Substantial analysis of HR-related strategic issues and the formulation and implementation of adequate deliberate strategies are relatively uncommon. Furthermore, few organisations use explicit guidelines or goals for strategic direction.

Instead of strategy, the key instrument used in HR planning is still the ‘job positions plan’ as part of the budget. Normally, it defines the number of positions the organisation is allowed to fill, differentiating between pay grades and status groups (employees and civil servants). However, exactly what the necessary or appropriate number of positions is in order to fulfil the organisation’s mandate is disputable and, in fact, disputed within the respective administrations and in the budgetary process, during which changes—usually incremental—must be confirmed. Whereas the Department of Finance is typically reluctant to accept calls for an increase in the number of positions, the rest of the administration generally argues for more capacity. This bargaining process happens independent of actual staff requirements, which are difficult to rationally assess. Even though the Federal Ministry of the Interior has issued a sophisticated handbook on how to calculate the required workforce capacity analytically based on tasks and workloads, this way of identifying the ‘right’ capacity is hardly used in practice. The handbook is perceived to be too demanding in terms of information needs and the costs of the assessment process. Projects are implemented selectively, supported by external consultants, mostly in areas where a number of people perform similar jobs, for example in the job centres or in tax administration. In other areas like education, calculations are based on general ratios (e.g. student–teacher) and often on comparisons within the particular community of practice (e.g. comparing across the states the size of police force per capita). If downsizing efforts have been undertaken for budgetary reasons, across-the-board, top-down specifications are typical and implementation predominantly depends on actual fluctuation, unsurprisingly leading to patchy results in staff capacity. Furthermore, some government functions have better lobbying support (like education or policing) than others (like general administration), which exacerbates the imbalance. In addition, decisions take a long time to implement and show effects.

However, several more or less obvious strategic issues need to be addressed in addition to the ones mentioned above. Particularly for Länder governments, HR expenses and liabilities (especially for pensions) are a ticking time bomb. For example, in the (relatively wealthy) city-state of Hamburg, pension liabilities alone accounted for €33 billion in the balance sheet for 2018, whereas total assets amounted to €46 billion. In the budget, more than a third of personnel expenses go to pensioners!

Since these (and other) strategic issues have consequences, regardless of whether or not an organisation is dealing with them systematically, the tendency to ignore problems until their effects become obvious (and it is often too late to respond appropriately) can be difficult to bear. Publicly debated examples of HR planning incapacity illustrate this observation well with the example of teachers, who—surprise!—mostly belong to the baby-boomer generation entering retirement age, but very little attention has been given to workforce planning in light of the capacity (and experience) drain that has been foreseeable for decades, resulting in actual service provision and performance problems across Germany.

3.2 HR Marketing, Selection and Training

HR marketing was not systematically institutionalised in German public administration until a few years ago. If there was a position to be filled, usually an internal offering would be published first, and if unsuccessful, published in the official bulletin or a newspaper, on the website or in online job markets. As long as there were ample sufficiently qualified applicants, this approach was considered to be useful—or at least ‘good enough’.

However, at a time when the public sector has an increasing number of jobs to fill mainly due to demographic change, the overall labour force is potentially stagnating or even in decline, and the gap between labour supply and demand is widening, sometimes dramatically. For example, in 2017, thirty-eight per cent of Berlin’s district government staff were at least 55 years old. Between 2018 and 2026 in the city-state of Hamburg, approximately thirty per cent of staff in the police, health-related occupations and firefighting will retire. Whereas this generally applies to more than a quarter of Hamburg’s city government workforce, almost forty per cent of prison staff will retire. The situation looks similar in most other administrations in Germany. At the same time, the regional labour markets are basically empty as the respective target segments have full employment.

The strategy up to now has come to seem increasingly inappropriate. This is why many organisations in German public administration have recently developed marketing strategies using several instruments like social media campaigns, creating employer brands and reflecting on their competitive positioning in the relevant labour market segments. Strategies focus less on job security (being the dominant factor explaining job or career decisions for the public sector) than diversity aspects, local patriotism and, increasingly, public service motivation (see below) as arguments. However, because most public sector organisations are late movers (with a few exceptions, like the military) and invest relatively few resources in the related efforts, the overall effects are limited. Being related to someone who works in the public sector is still an important factor that influences why young people consider working there (thus, de facto discriminating against migrants, for example).

Recruiting processes have traditionally focussed on fairness and ‘selection of the best’, even though no concours system has been established (for details on general recruitment, see Chap. 13). Hiring decisions (allegedly) follow objective, legally enforceable criteria based on position (employees) or career track (civil servants). The diagnostic instruments used are similar to those used in the private sector with a certain focus on criteria that relate to logical skills, general education, and civic engagement and (written) psychological tests, job interviews and assessment centres as methods. These methods are routinely applied with a degree of formality and usually with the participation of employee representatives. Recently, the optimisation of the recruiting process has been criticised as the long period of time it takes is a competitive disadvantage.

As in other countries, recruiting practices and the reasons why people decide to work for the public sector in Germany are prone to certain biases, in part with problematic consequences. People working in public administration tend to be more security-oriented and risk-averse, and thus relatively immobile, inflexible and reluctant to change (Tepe and Prokop 2018). These tendencies are often exacerbated during the bureaucratic socialisation process by dysfunctional incentives. This raises a serious dilemma if it is assumed that governmental organisations—particularly in Germany—will become more innovative and responsive to dynamic and increasingly demanding stakeholder expectations.

3.3 Leadership

In German public administration, as in many other countries, nowadays leadership is considered a crucial factor in the successful management of public organisations. NPM-like reforms have emphasised the role of leaders, even though managerialism has not been as influential as in other contexts. However, widened managerial accountability that results from (intra-organisational) decentralisation and the role of leadership in managing organisational change has replaced the classic bureaucratic assumption that leadership is largely irrelevant if the rules and structures work properly.

It can be assumed that the authoritarian or patriarchal leadership styles are exceptions rather than the norm, whereas delegation, coordination by means of mutual consultation and sometimes autonomy characterise leadership behaviour. Leadership practices and effectiveness largely depend on the context, and there seems to be a general consensus that there is no ‘one best way’ of approaching leadership in public administration. Instead, it should ‘fit’ the circumstances, particularly the kinds of tasks, work and followers, and so on. Given the obvious relevance of leadership, it is surprising to see that there has been little empirical research on the public sector—and only a few normative and prescriptive publications.

As a noteworthy exception, Vogel (2016) scrutinised the leadership behaviour and its antecedents in three organisations in Länder and local governments. He found that six orientations explain leadership behaviour: task, relations, change, external, ethical and administrative processing. These dimensions of leadership behaviour are correlated and almost evenly distributed, with the notable (and hardly surprising) exception of the significantly less perceived orientation around change. Based on his findings, Vogel doubts the common assumption that leadership is a weak point in German public administration, even though he finds room for improvement (ibid., pp. 234).

Looking at the factors explaining leadership behaviour, the study shows the influence of a ‘non-calculating’ motivation and particularly a distinct management orientation of leaders related to the perceived intensity and effectiveness of leadership across all six dimensions. Furthermore, the work characteristics (in terms of task complexity) of followers, as well as goal and performance orientation, have a positive influence on leadership behaviour. However, Vogel points out that the effects often vary between intended and perceived leadership (leaders’ vs. followers’ perspectives).

3.4 Public Service Motivation

The concept of public service motivation (PSM) has enjoyed a lot of attention in the academic debate since its emergence in the 1990s, whereas resonance (and relevance?) in terms of practice is rather limited, at least in Germany. However, empirical research on public service motivation allows for some observations that could be relevant for public HRM, particularly for comparative analysis.

PSM is a theoretical construct originally developed and later operationalised by Perry (1996) consisting of four major categories: attraction to policymaking, commitment to the public interest, compassion and self-sacrifice. PSM can be used as a set/index of dependent or independent variables in the sense that factors explaining or influencing PSM can be scrutinised as well as the impact of PSM, for example on employment choices, job satisfaction or performance. The PSM concept has also occasionally been applied to German public administration with ambiguous results.

In a recent study based on a survey among students of public administration, Keune et al. (2018) compared their findings on the PSM of (young) civil servants with previous empirical studies in the German context. Several results should be highlighted.

First, PSM only plays a minor role compared to other motivating factors. A secure job, the compatibility of work and private life, an interesting occupation and the perceived opportunity to work relatively autonomously are more important motivating factors than PSM-related explanations. Second, among the PSM categories, working for/in the public interest (in German, the quasi-mythical term Gemeinwohl is used for operationalisation) is the most important, followed by compassion and the wish to help others, self-sacrifice and political motivation. Third, among the PSM elements, correlations can be observed between compassion and both political motivation and working in the public interest, and there seem to be strong links between self-sacrifice/altruism and both public interest and compassion.

However, there is little reliable evidence regarding the antecedents and effects of PSM, or patterns of change, for example during a career in the public sector. Empirical studies based on a socio-economic panel (Vogel and Kroll 2016; Breitsohl and Ruhle 2016) with considerable limitations in operationalising PSM found that social and political involvement, as well as interest in politics by people working in the public sector, are positively influenced by age and that the interest in politics is negatively affected by organisational tenure. However, longitudinal observation reveals very little variation in PSM over time. Furthermore, PSM (which generally ranks low on the list of decision criteria) for some seems to explain the sector choice of members of the ‘millennial’ generation.

As for the impact of PSM, Gross et al. (2019) recently scrutinised the direct and indirect effects of PSM on (self-perceived) work engagement and employee performance. They found empirical support for the hypothesis that PSM positively affects work engagement and employee performance, the ambiguous links between PSM and presenteeism and absenteeism, although no support for hypotheses assuming moderating effects of PSM on the relationships between job resources and work engagement. In explaining job performance, work engagement matters most, whereas PSM plays a far lesser role—even stress is a better explanation.

Considering the German case, the relatively high attention paid to PSM by academics seems to be somewhat disproportionate. Drawing conclusions from the results is difficult, since the empirical basis is limited. Obviously, it would make sense, for example, to appeal to the public interest in the recruitment process.

3.5 Performance-Related Pay

The traditional incentive and remuneration system in German public administration did not comprise substantial elements of pay for performance (PRP). Nowadays, even though there are differences between the levels of government and across the sixteen Länder, the remuneration systems in German public administration are still relatively similar. However, in some instances, the differences in the level of remuneration have proven challenging for some authorities. For example, the city-state of Berlin has lost personnel (e.g. in the police) to the federal government due to substantial disparities in the pay scheme. Another problem in this context is that in general the salary for a particular job is the same regardless of whether a person lives and works in a metropolitan area like Hamburg or Munich, or in a rural region where the costs of living are much lower. This has prompted some big city governments to introduce extra pay, but for all members of staff. As a third exception from the rule of equal pay, extra pay for specific jobs such as IT experts has recently been introduced.

Nonetheless, the rule is still that in order to earn a higher salary one must be a seasoned employee, more experienced or promoted to a job in a higher pay grade (where ‘jumps’ rarely occur). One major difference in salary is due to the distinction between the two status groups of civil servants and public employees (see Chap. 13, Kuhlmann and Röber 2006). The specific and systematic particularities between the two groups lead to significant differences in public workforce pay, but none of these differences are related to job performance.

Performance-related pay (PRP) has been on the reform agenda for more than twenty years now. In 1997, civil service laws were changed to create the option of bonuses based on performance. Today, the guidelines allow for bonus eligibility limited to maximum fifteen per cent of civil servants employed in the organisation, an individual bonus not higher than seven per cent of the annual salary, and total bonus payments of an organisational entity must not exceed 0.3 per cent (!) of the overall personnel expenses.

Pay for performance elements for public employees were introduced as part of a major overhaul of the labour agreements, becoming effective ten years later in 2007. The capacity for financial incentives should—potentially—have been increased to eight per cent of the personnel expenses, but was actually set at a much lower rate (e.g. two per cent in federal and local government from 2010 onwards). However, these incentives came with strings attached: pay for performance was intended to be based on clear and ‘objective’ evaluation criteria, performance agreements and reviews. Furthermore, the system was to be developed, adopted and implemented by each organisation independently. Thus, while imposing a very high standard but leaving attention to details to the organisations, HR managers and employee representatives were left dealing with the practical and fundamental challenges of implementing the system. Consequently, the outcomes from PRP were mixed and partly disillusioning. In an empirical study considering the practices of local governments in the (largest) state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Schmidt et al. (2011) and Schmidt and Müller (2013) found that even though performance-related pay had been introduced in most entities, conventional evaluation was predominantly being used for review and bonuses tended to be distributed equally, but often not on the basis of actual performance. The system lacked acceptance among the employees, had almost no effect on motivation and incentivisation was limited.

Meier (2013) surveyed twenty-one German counties and cities to analyse whether the introduction of PRP in the public service caused any crowding-out effects on intrinsic motivation and PSM. The design of the performance appraisal schemes proved to be the dominant factor influencing the perception of PRP, in particular the perceived fairness and transparency of the PRP concept. The study suggests that more than ninety per cent of employees receive at least some performance pay and that the percentage of those who receive the best performance ratings is very high (further results also in Wenzel et al. 2019).

PRP has opened much discussion and led to a number of problems in the German public sector. Some of the problems stem from the differentiation between public employees and civil servants because different regulations concerning PRP apply. In 2009, PRP was practically abolished at the federal level. Since 2014, there has no longer been any obligation to apply PRP at the Länder level. The unions argue that PRP does not achieve its purpose and all too often creates discord and arouses envy.

3.6 Diversity Management

In recent years, diversity management has increasingly been the focus of attention, partly due to legal changes (e.g. in anti-discrimination law) and partly because of difficulties public employers face in filling vacant positions. Furthermore, many public employers have signed the German Charta der Vielfalt (the Diversity Charter), a cross-sectoral agreement highlighting the commitment to diversity in the workforce in terms of age, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, ethnic and cultural background. Even though public administration has long been at the forefront in the fight against discrimination, in particular ensuring the rights of women and people with disabilities, women are still underrepresented in management positions (Schimeta 2012).

Diversity management in the broader sense is an innovation to HRM in German public administration. This might explain why there is still little research on the impacts of implemented strategies or the effects of an increasingly diverse workforce.

One of the most crucial strategic changes in diversity-related aspects of HRM is what is called ‘intercultural opening’ or ‘receptiveness’. Many public employers are increasingly promoting the cultural and ethnic diversity policy, particularly in recruiting and training. Several city governments (like Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and the Ruhr area) have committed themselves to the goal that at least twenty per cent of all junior staff recruited should have a ‘migration background’ or otherwise demonstrate intercultural competences; in some states, corresponding legal obligations exist. These commitments are aligned with efforts in advertising, employer branding, revisions in selection criteria and communication. Some employers, such as the city-state of Hamburg, have been relatively successful in achieving this goal. However, in most metropolitan areas, half of the younger generation grow up in migrant families and therefore these goals do not tackle underrepresentation effectively. Another key component of these strategies is to provide training in intercultural competence for staff, such as improving foreign language skills and cultural sensitivity (among clients or colleagues) and so on. Changes in HR strategies and integration policy go hand in hand.

4 Lessons Learned

This chapter covers some general and functional aspects of human resource management in German public administration. To conclude, our initial proposition that the traditionalist or ‘maintaining’ stance on HRM and its reform is increasingly challenged by internal weaknesses and external threats, can be complemented by pointing out a few major paradoxes and dilemmas:

First, the highly formalised institutional framework which corresponds with bureaucratic criteria such as equality, compliance, professionalism and qualification—ultimately aimed at stability, predictability and reliability—seem problematic in an increasingly dynamic environment demanding mobility, flexibility and innovation.

Second, this could be reflected in intensifying conflict between employers and employees. Recognising that demographic trends and labour market conditions strengthen their position, employees can exert pressure on their organisations, HR departments and leaders, heightening the need for HRM to respond to their expectations. If the institutional framework is not flexible enough, public sector employment will become unattractive, thereby limiting the public administration’s ability to recruit qualified and motivated staff, which it needs more than ever.

Third, the digital transformation of government could prove to be a catalyst for these dilemmas and their negative consequences, potentially resulting in the dramatic growth of a shadow workforce of consultants and external service providers, undermining not only administrative capacity (and, thus, legitimacy and attractiveness) but also further weakening public administration’s competitive position in the ‘war for talents’.

Finally, the greatest paradox is the low priority given to personnel on the administrative reform agenda over the past decades and the factual relevance of personnel in general, and HRM in particular, in dealing with the growing pressure and inconsistent demands from key stakeholders. Deficiencies in organisational and institutional changes or why public administration is lagging behind in digital transformation can be explained to some extent by the low level of reform activity and the lack of attention (and appreciation) paid to people working in German public administration. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that omissions of HRM reform cannot be reversed quickly as changes take years if not decades for their effects to be felt.

Regardless of our rather sceptical account of HRM in German public administration, it is worth noting that there are some examples of excellence that are comparable to practices in other sectors, for example in the military, in some federal agencies (e.g. the Federal Employment Agency), states (e.g. the city-state of Hamburg) and local governments (e.g. the city of Munich and the district office of Berlin-Neukölln). These and other cases demonstrate the opportunities of professionally managing the public workforce despite the various restrictions and the traditional bureaucratic stance. HRM can be expected to be a major focus of reform in the years to come due to the challenges described in this chapter. Last but not least, one should not forget that Germany is often envied for its reliable, professional and effective public administration, which is essentially based on its qualified workforce.