Advertisement

The Effects of Human Resources’ Qualification Improvement on Their Efficiency in the Public and Private Sectors

  • Edmundas Jasinskas
  • Biruta Svagzdiene
  • Arturas Simanavicius
Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 9)

Abstract

In a varying and regularly learning environment the opinion has been formed, human resources of organization is the main factor ensuring the efficiency of organization activity. With a changing environment the qualification of human resources has to be properly improved both in private and public sectors. The main scientific problem is, that the methods for qualification improvement of human resources have to be applied adequately in accordance with activity features of different sectors. The research revealed, that qualification improvement methods in both sectors were different. Usually applied qualification improvement methods in the public sector were the following: self-training, seminars and trainings organized by the training agencies, dual strategy of refresher training was applied, and in the private sector the following methods were the most popular: training of internal employees, internship in other organizations, international trainings as well as mentoring and the most applied intensive qualification improvement strategy of human resources; this differently influenced the efficiency of their activities.

Keywords

Human resources management Qualification Efficiency Public and private sectors 

1 Introduction

Studies analyzing the issues of human resources’ management accentuate the significance of qualification improvement. Sakalas (2003), Lane (2000), Carmeli (2004), and Hatch and Dyer (2004) analyzed different features of qualification improvement in public and private sectors. Qualification improvement strategies and strategy types, necessary for the qualification improvement, were studied by Delery (1998), and Salamen et al. (2005), and appropriate qualification improvement types were examined by Išoraitė (2011), Ballot and Taymaz (2001).

There is a limited number of studies on efficiency issues. Valančienė and Klovienė (2009); Hatch and Dyer (2004); Deksnienė et al. (2007), Ciarniene et al. (2017) generally defined the conception of the efficiency of human resources of organization. The concept of efficiency in the public sector was determined by Bozeman and Bretschneider (1986); Raipa (2011); Gustas (2003), and the concept of efficiency in the private sector was analyzed by Žutautienė (2007), Certo et al. (2006); Karlof and Lövingsson (2005) et al. Various authors (Vasiliauskas 2007; Chlivickas et al. 2010; Schein 1978) made researches on how the qualification improvement of human resources affects the efficiency of their activity. Different studies focusing on what aspect the qualification improvement of human resources comes through the efficiency were performed.

The studies have revealed different efficiency criteria of private and public sectors. In the private sector the efficiency is associated with direct results of enterprise, particularly the financial ones (Certo et al. 2006; Žutautienė 2007; Karlof and Lövingsson 2005; Navickas and Sujeta 2006). While in the public sector, the efficiency criteria are more associated with proper management of organization and implementation of human resources’ functions (Bozeman and Bretschneider 1986; Raipa 2011; Gustas 2003; Robbins and Coulter 2007). Since in latter case the implementation of functions is important, and in other case—financial indicators, therefore obviously the prevalent qualification improvement methods as well as their influence on activity efficiency differ, in one research, however, both sectors at a time were not analyzed.

It can be assumed, that the effect of qualification improvement of human resources on the operational efficiency is the subject researched by scientists, there is a lack of studies, however, which would coherently reveal the differences between private and public sectors as well as the possibility to learn a good practice from different sectors. Thus, the research problem is, that the most proper qualification improvement methods of human resources and the effect of those methods on their activity efficiency in public and private sectors differ depending on the activity sectors.

Research objective is to reveal the effect of qualification improvement of human resources on their activity efficiency in public and private sectors.

Research tasks: to reveal the differences of qualification improvement methods of human resources in private and public sectors; to reveal the differences of assessment criteria for activity efficiency of human resources in private and public sectors; to reveal the relation of the effect of qualification improvement of human resources to the efficiency of their activity; to study and determine the effect of qualification improvement of personnel on its activity efficiency under the example of Lithuanian organizations of public and private sectors. Research methods: scientific literature analysis, questionnaire survey and statistical analysis.

2 Literature Review

In developing economy, the organization’s human resources should have an appropriate qualification, since the demand is continually changing, and regular qualification improvement is necessary. This requirement is characteristic to both sectors—private and public one. The literature analysis has shown, that qualification improvement of human resources in private and public sectors differs.

Sakalas (2003) analyzed the features of qualification improvement in the public sector. He indicates, the qualification improvement is related with a particular work in the public sector. Chlivickas (2006), who compares public and private sectors, states, that the qualification improvement of human resources in public sector is adequate to the position of a specialist, focused on the formation of new skills. As Carmeli (2004) considers in his paper, the responsibility of human capital improvement of entire organization in the public sector falls on the manager of human resources, and this is too major function for one person. It is necessary to take care of employees’ integration, motivation, improvement of trainings and skills inside the organization.

The qualification improvement in private sector, in manufacture, was researched by Hatch and Dyer (2004), who on the basis of their results indicated, that human resources were strategically significant in the production sector, that improving the qualification they obtain tacit knowledge, i.e., they do not need to be told how to do this. The knowledge obtained during qualification improvement helps to surpass the competitors as soon as new technologies appear, and human resources become more perceptive.

Different qualification improvement in different sectors is also resulted by the fact, that every organization is individual, thus its human resources are individual. To improve the qualification of employees it is necessary to have a plan and to know what type of qualified employees is preferred. This requires a qualification improvement strategy to be created.

Delery (1998) defines, that qualification improvement strategy is the strategy facilitating the organization’s planning for the qualification improvement of human resources. Every enterprise subject to environmental conditions, its priorities, internal factors of organization, is proposed to form an individual qualification improvement strategy of organization. In the literature, three qualification improvement strategies are indicated. They are shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Qualification improvement strategy. Source: made by authors based on Salamen et al. (2005), Delery (1998)

The organization following the intensive strategy and employees with appropriate education take care of their intensive training and workplace-based qualification improvement (Salamen et al. 2005). The personnel’s workplaces are changed on regular basis to get the qualification improvement possibilities of workplaces applied. The dual strategy states, that the potential of organization’s human resources should be increased concentrating on the use of employees’ skills and ambitions (Delery 1998). The responsibility of employees for development of their qualification is accentuated. This strategy creates possibilities for the employees to improve and it corresponds to poor financial resources allocated to these goals.

The third, mobility strategy, allows the organization to accentuate the importance of high education (Delery 1998). Earnings and learning are interrelated. Attention is focused on learning inside the organization. Therefore, a very high mobility of possessed personnel is ensured in case new demands emerge. According to the mobility strategy, the possibilities of employees with high education to retrain, to adjust to new work requirements are much better than of employees with lower education. It suits for the organizations where technical progress is important and for mobile organizations as well.

Since the organizations are very different and this is determined by their activity in different sectors, with individual human resources, it is necessary to establish the appropriate qualification improvement methods. Various methods for qualification improvement of human resources of organization may be selected. The choice of individual training method depends on the entirety of factors: training and education cost, duration, number of persons trained, knowledge depth, present qualification of human resources, and many other factors. Išoraitė (2011) highlights five following methods for the qualification improvement and education:
  1. 1.

    Special functional training;

     
  2. 2.

    Workplace-based training;

     
  3. 3.

    Rotation according to the functions;

     
  4. 4.

    Internship in other companies;

     
  5. 5.

    Participation in working groups;

     
  6. 6.

    Self-improvement in the process of work activities.

     

Due to many forms for qualification improvement, some are very popular and other—less. The most popular qualification improvement methods are the following: lecture, educational conversation, discussions and debates, guideline, instructions, programmed training, observations and assessments, various events, independent training.

Ballot and Taymaz (2001) and Kumpikaitė (2007) analyze human resources’ training and its evolutionary methods. The research reveals, that qualification improvement and training of human resources is one of strategic goals of organization in order to create a system, which would develop employees’ skills, considering company requirements and employee goals. The employee should have possibilities to develop the competences, the ability to adjust to any changes, to develop skills, experience, to correct the mistakes.

Adamonienė (2009) claims, that human resources became a key source for the procurement of stable competitive advantages, enhancement of their potential value and satisfaction of dynamically developing consumers‘needs of any type of business organizations.

Overall, it may be claimed, that some of submitted training methods require more investments from the organization and some of them less. Since employees working in the organization already know the work specifics, they should deepen their knowledge, and this requires competitive, professional lecturers, such chosen methods may be as follows: working in groups, excursions, internships, educational conversations, lectures, discussions, and simulation games. However, this needs much more investments than workplace-based learning, independent learning, visual material demonstration, discussion, simulation games, since the latter methods do not require expensive services of lecturers or coverage of internship expenses.

Also the latter are saving time, since you may study after work, at your leisure time, however how effectively this knowledge will be absorbed and applied depends only on the employee himself, there are no lecturers who encourage, and motivate. In addition, the use of their knowledge uncloses during the lectures or in working groups.

Thus, the selection of method for qualification refreshment mostly depends on the company’s funds allocated for the qualification improvement. This reveals the priorities in respect of an employee. The success of organization depends only on how organization takes care of human resources improvement: what methods are chosen and what investments are allocated. Only competent human resources of organization may solve the problems arisen and increase the efficiency of their activity.

The efficiency of human resources comes through particular aspects. Since human resources and their qualification improvement are analyzed, it is important to study how the efficiency of these phenomena comes through and what stands for this efficiency in the organization.

It is important to compare the main differences of efficiency concept, both in public and private sectors (see Tables 1 and 2). The concepts are compared under the following features mostly used and accentuated in the definition by scientists: human resources, financial resources, organizational management, functions and goals. This is indicated in the comparative tables.
Table 1

Key definitions of efficiency of public sector activity

Author

Definition

Definition features

Human resources

Financial indicators

Organizational management

Functions, goals

Bozeman and Bretschneider (1986)

Efficient and effective planning, arrangement, management and control of human and other resources in pursue of organization objectives

+

+

+

Raipa (2011)

The efficiency of public administration is related with more qualitative involvement of human resources into organization: formation of objectives, and implementation encouraging a teamwork, professional development of employees by upholding a working climate

+

+

Gustas (2003)

Efficiency when governmental institutions organize work in such a way to satisfy more effectively the needs of citizens, and provide services they require

+

Robbins and Coulter (2007)

The efficiency of activity shows whether the goals set by organization were reached, and whether the functions attributed to institution were implemented applying all organization resources

+

Table 2

Key definitions of efficiency of public sector activity

Author

Definition

Definition features

Human resources

Financial indicators

Organization management

Functions, goals

Certo et al. (2006)

Activity efficiency depends on management’s ability to make rational right decisions

+

Žutautienė (2007)

Efficiency is such use of resources when the best result is achieved. Efficiency is related with input of resources. Efficiency depends on costs, demand in the market, labor productivity, inhabitants’ capacity

+

+

Karlof and Lövingsson (2005)

The efficiency of enterprise activity reflects in profit (loss) account, since rational use of resources is indicated in it. Shareholders want to know how the resources of their company are used

+

Navickas and Sujeta (2006)

Efficiency as the rate of system adjustment to solve a particular task is defined unambiguously: considering external circumstances, which condition the system, there may be many effects. Effect is determined as the difference between the result and expenses

+

+

+

After the analysis we may see, that the public sector accentuates the efficiency through organizational management and implementation of human resources functions, however in private sector financial indicators, organizational management and company’s functions and objectives are more important.

When analyzing the concept of efficiency in more detail, in the public sector (see Table 1) some basic features may be highlighted: efficiency—well coordinated and planned human resources, efficiency—when objectives of organization are fully fulfilled, effective—when the needs of citizens of country are satisfied.

Moreover, in the private sector (see Table 2) the efficiency is associated with rational applied resources, with positive rates in profit (loss) account and with a purposeful manager’s administration in order to reach its objectives. Thus, when assessing the efficiency, it is necessary to consider, whether it will be assessed in private or public sector.

To conclude it may be stated, that activity efficiency is the indicator of organization results, which indicates whether the goals set by managers were reached, whether functions attributed are being implemented, whether rationally planned human resources are able to implement the requirements.

Dittenhofer (2001) accentuates the two main reasons, why it is important to analyze the efficiency of human resources’ activity. According to the author, the efficiency results affect organization, as well as the personnel, allow to shape up or enjoy the work results. This shows whether entire organization acts purposefully. Often the organization acts effectively, only some actions are irrational.

Certo et al. (2006) claim, that analyzing personnel’s efficiency, it is necessary to pay attention to organization’s goals and type, personnel abilities, encouraging to work creatively, whether efficient organization work is ensured, is there any motivation for innovations, how the relationship between personnel and management is moderated. It is also important to take into account manager’s abilities to administer, plan, encourage human resources, to motivate them and to create positive climate for work, and the communication with organization environment.

Kerbel (1991) also studies the manager’s role in the efficiency of human resources activity. He accentuates the following priority areas the managers of organization should focus on, in order to keep the organization effective:
  1. 1.

    Organization management—the management of organization strategic decisions.

     
  2. 2.

    Arrangement of activity—work control, planning and purposive distribution, internal purposive communication of personnel.

     
  3. 3.

    Management of financial and non-financial resources—rational use of resources, special attention is given to the management of human resources.

     
  4. 4.

    Implementation of goals and services, i.e., cognition of objects, the activity is provided for, the purposeful organization activity providing some benefit.

     
  5. 5.

    External relations—cooperation with other organizations from the same branch and spreading the information about the organization to the society.

     

To obtain exact data accumulation and its reliability, one should know how to measure the efficiency of activity, and in what rates it is measured. As Certo et al. (2006) notice, it is hard to evaluate the activity efficiency, since it is necessary to consider personnel abilities, education, type of institution, whether all resources and budgets inside the enterprise are used to ensure an effective result, whether new managerial technologies are implemented, whether employees are encouraged to develop and creatively treat their work, whether internal communication between managers and the rest of employees is strong. And Bernstein (1992) claims, that efficiency rates are the rates of operational activity, of turnover, and of working capital activity.

The factors resulting from public and private sector differ, because structural environments of these sectors are cardinally different. Public organizations have their objectives and functions officially approved by laws. The particular activity rules, public activity are financed and restricted by the state. Thus the assessment criteria of activity of private and public sectors are also different. Goods and services of the private sector are evaluated in terms of money, most of public services are free of charge, and therefore it is more complicated to assess their effect and impact on society (Anciūtė and Misiūnas 2006; Moynihan 2006; Wholey 1997). Therefore, in the public sector such rates as productivity, competence, quality of activity are applied, and in private one—financial indicators of surplus value and expenses.

For the analysis of activity efficiency rates and assessment of private sector the quantitative rates are used, while the criteria of public sector are more subjective, i.e., qualitative and more difficult to measure. Overall, it may be concluded, that efficiency of activity is an individually defined index, which shows whether organization with the most rational resources achieves the goals set and implements the functions attributed, whether it does not deviate from organization plans. There are many factors of activity efficiency, but the management of organization, investments in modern equipment, qualification improvement of human resources, planning of organization activity are some of the most significant.

The efficiency rates in private and public sectors differ. In private sector the rates of profit (loss) account are accentuated, and in the public one the productivity, activity quality, and competence are highlighted, it is surveyed how the law regulations are observed, whether tasks set by the state are fulfilled.

To conclude, we may state, efficiency is an integral concept of any activity, which is related to expected good results. The concepts of qualification improvement of human resources and efficiency are tight. This reflects in good results of human resources activity and in various strategic branches. The qualification improvement of human resources makes the organization advantaged and more competitive, increases labor productivity, enhances the employee’s self-confidence, however to assess the efficiency in private and public sectors different criteria are applied.

3 The Methodology and Model

When analyzing the scientists’ studies it was noticed, that there are few empirical researches on the issues of the effects of human resources’ qualification improvement on their activity efficiency in public and private sectors. More studies are carried out in the public sector. The effects of human resources’ qualification improvement on their activity efficiency in public and private sectors are not compared.

Both Lithuanian and foreign scientists unambiguously agree, that in public and private sectors the process of qualification improvement is important for good results of human resources and organization activity. In the empirical research the rates of activity efficiency are determined depending on the sector, and are affected by the process of qualification improvement.

With a help of research performed, the situation in the organizations of Lithuanian public and private sectors, as well as the effect of qualification improvement of human resources on their activity’s efficiency was determined. After the literature analysis a new assessment model for the effects of human resources qualification improvement of organization on their activity efficiency in public and private sectors was created (see Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Research model for the effects of human resources’ qualification improvement of organization on their activity efficiency in public and private sectors. Source: made by authors under Adamonienė and Ruibyte (2010), Dittenhofer (2001), Fleischhauer (2007), Raipa (2011), Karami et al. (2008), Hatch and Dyer (2004)

To assess the effect of human resources’ qualification improvement of organization on their activity efficiency in public and private sectors in the research model it was regarded separately from the point of public and private sectors. The comparisons were selected, because the specifics of sectors differ. The private sector is more flexible and independent, and public one is regulated by the laws and restricted by financial resources and liabilities to the society. Private sector offers its employees more attractive opportunities for the professional development, more freedom to choose and make decisions compared to the public sector, which features by bureaucracy prevailing.

Subject to the specifics of the sector, i.e., public or private one, the qualification improvement methods in these sectors are also different (Patapas and Kasperavičiūtė 2009; Navickienė 2011; Kjellberg et al. 1998). Following empirical research carried out by the scientists under the practice of different methods, not only the type of a sector has an effect, but also some other elements: the investments in the process of qualification improvement (Hatch and Dyer 2004; Fleischhauer 2007), organization size, lack of competences and knowledge for human resources of organization (Karami et al. 2008; Česnulevičienė and Lakis 2002; Miliukienė and Prakapienė 2012). Thus the choice of the method for human resources’ qualification improvement of organization is affected also by qualification improvement strategy, under which the direction of development of the method and the improvement process itself is selected (Delery 1998). The selection of training methods is named as a serious problem, since without regard to human resources, and whether such method is appropriate, the result may be negative (Miliukienė and Prakapienė 2012).

Following the statements presented in the paragraph above, the first hypothesis H1 may be developed: in public and private sectors usually different training methods of qualification improvement are applied.

To analyze the research carried out by scientists, most indicate that human resources affect the efficiency of activity. Some managers name them as the element of business success (Weiss and Finn 2005). The enterprises of the private sector claim, that in order to increase possibilities and profitability of enterprises in international and local markets they should focus on the competence of organization’s human resources (Karami et al. 2008).

Both in private and public sector the qualification improvement of human resources uncloses as the component of their activity efficiency, whether through the competitive ability, or through the plans fulfilled, satisfied customers, society or positive financial indicators (Hatch and Dyer 2004; Fleischhauer 2007). The efficiency of human resources’ activity both in public and private sectors has a feedback to the process of human resources’ qualification improvement, which indicates whether qualification improvement has answered the purpose or not.

Following the statements presented above the hypothesis H2 may be developed: qualification improvement of human resources increases their activity efficiency in public and private sectors. It is important to note, that several scientists notice, that subject to sector specifics, the result of activity efficiency of human resources in these sectors differs. The efficiency of activity is hard to evaluate, since every organization is different and uses its resources individually (Certo et al. 2006).

In the public sector the rates are more qualitative (Raipa 2011): the society-oriented results (Česnulevičienė and Lakis 2002; Vienažindienė 2009), as well as the activity is reflected by the goals set to the employee, not only by the organization, but also by the laws related with the main activity and functions (Patapas and Kasperavičiūtė 2009; Navickienė 2011; Afonso et al. 2010). The efficiency of private sector is measured by quantitative rates: financial indicators (Dittenhofer 2001; Bernstein 1992; Karami et al. 2008), competitive advantage (Hatch and Dyer 2004) as well as key results of activity (Afonso et al. 2010).

Following this, the hypothesis H3 may be developed: the qualification improvement effect reflects in different results of their activity efficiency in public and private sectors. After the research these three hypotheses were verified.

To verify the hypotheses, the questionnaire in writing was applied, since the quantitative research was carried out, the main instrument of which was a questionnaire. The questions of questionnaire were selected based on Adamonienė and Ruibyte (2010); Dittenhofer (2001); Fleischhauer (2007); Raipa (2011); Karami et al. (2008); Hatch and Dyer (2004). The questionnaire consisted of 15 questions, 1–7 of which were social-demographic, and the rest 8–14 questions for the qualification improvement process and assessment of activity efficiency in the organization.

Due to the questionnaire data the hypotheses raised may be verified. The questionnaire was chosen, since it features by the least input of respondents’ time and finances, and allows to quickly gather the information for the research.

The research was carried out in the private sector—business organization (the company wanted to remain incognito and did not allow to name it in the research), and in the public sector—the administration subdivision of Municipality of typical Lithuanian city (subdivision wished to stay incognito and did not allow to name it in the research).

The organizations selected were from the different sectors and this helped to reveal higher variety of opinions regarding the qualification improvement and activity efficiency. The different sectors, different numbers of employees, sizes of organization and ownership types were chosen. The first organization of the private sector was a leader in wholesale, distribution and logistics of consumer goods in Lithuania and Latvia, actively expanding its activity in Estonia. The second organization from the public sector was one of the most important public administration bodies having a huge significance for public services of the city.

Two groups of respondents were chosen: in the organization of public sector 48 respondents of 50 employees were surveyed and in the organization of private sector 33 respondents of 35 employees were surveyed. The size of research sample was estimated under the Paniotto formula and not exceeding a permissible bias of 5% in social sciences.

4 The Findings

To assess the hypothesis H1 it was important to compare the training methods applied in public and private sectors (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Training forms and methods for qualification improvement, N = 81

It was relevant to analyze in what forms and methods the qualification of human resources was improved taking into account the type of organization. The studies of Navickienė (2011), Kjellberg et al. (1998), Hatch and Dyer (2004), Fleischhauer (2007), Miliukienė and Prakapienė (2012) reveal, that due to the differences of motives, the training methods applied by organization also differ, what affects their activity’s efficiency. The liabilities to organization are higher in the private sector.

In order to find out how the application and frequency of training methods differ depending on the organization, in which respondents work, for a statistical analysis the most popular training methods were selected: independent learning (in organization of the public sector) and internal employees’ training (private organization). To analyze this relation Chi-square was used.

As Table 3 shows, a clear statistical relation between organization sector and practice of training methods was established. Since p < α (p = 0.00, α = 0.05, i.e. p < α), this means, that relations between the sector of respondent’s organization (organization of private or public sector) and training methods applied in it—independent learning, training of internal employees are statistically significant.
Table 3

Chi-square test in the analysis of practice of independent learning and internal employees’ training depending on public and private sector, N = 81

 

Chi square

Independent learning

p = 0.000

Internal employees’ training

p = 0.000

Thus the hypothesis H1 developed in this paper was confirmed: the methods applied for qualification improvement training in private and public sectors are usually different. Data shows that, indeed, different qualification improvement methods are usually applied in public and private sectors. In the public sector the most popular qualification improvement methods are the following: independent learning, seminars and trainings organized by training agencies. And in the private sector the most popular are: training of internal employees, internship in other organizations, international trainings and mentoring.

This was revealed also by analyzed empirical level of the effects of human resources qualification improvement on the efficiency of its activity in public and private sectors. As it was stated, the private sector features by innovation and adapts more rapidly to the altering environmental conditions, the public one—is regulated by various governmental laws (Hatch and Dyer 2004; Fleischhauer 2007). The private sector offers its employees more attractive possibilities for the qualification improvement (Karami et al. 2008; Česnulevičienė and Lakis 2002), more freedom to choose and make decisions than the public sector, which features by prevailing bureaucracy.

After the analysis of mostly applied training forms and methods for improvement of qualification in chosen organization, it is important to find out about the attitude of respondents to qualification improvement process in public and private sectors, since the entire consecutive process affects the efficiency of their activity.

The results obtained (Fig. 4) show, that in public and private sectors different strategies for qualification improvement are applied. In the organization of the private sector the strategy of human resources—the intensive one is mostly applied (M = 4.27), while in the organization of public sector it is little used (M = 2.29). In the public sector the most popular qualification improvement strategy is dual (polarization), which has got the highest assessment (M = 4.25), and in the private sector it is the least evaluated strategy of qualification improvement (M = 2.27). When comparing the attitude of respondents from public institution and private organization to the mobility strategy it was established, that this strategy is more characteristic to the public sector than to the private one, however the difference exists (M = 3.06 and M = 2.35 respectively). It may be claimed, that the most popular strategies for qualification improvement in appropriate sectors perfectly illustrate also the training methods obtained in particular sector.
Fig. 4

Average values of qualification improvement strategy indicated by respondents under the organization type, N = 81. Statements are assessed as follows: 5—completely agree; 4—agree, 3—neither agree, nor disagree, 2—disagree, 1—absolutely disagree

Assessing the efficiency of employees’ activity, a variable of a rank type with five possible answers was evaluated. The higher rating of this index, the stronger conviction of the respondent, that after training and qualification improvement his everyday work has become more productive. As Table 4 shows there is no big difference between the attitudes of respondents from public and private sector organizations.
Table 4

Respondents’ attitude to how the qualification improvement process has affected their activity efficiency according to organization type, N = 81

Statement

Organization of public sector

Organization of private sector

Average value (M)

1. Enterprise has made more profit

2.67

2.91

2. Improvement of financial indicators and results of your organization activity

2.83

2.91

3. Decrease of Customers’/Society’s complaints and increase of praise

3.42

3.09

4. Increase of Customers’/Society’s satisfaction

3.38

3.18

5. Image of Your organization or department

3.67

3.27

6. The cooperation among organization members has improved

3.38

3.27

7. Climate in organization has improved

3.29

3.09

8. Quality of decisions being made has increased

3.83

3.27

9. Relations and work with other institutions and organizations have improved

3.33

3.09

10. Your everyday work has become more productive

3.75

3.45

11. Your professionalism, initiative, creativity have increased

3.63

3.64

12. Earnings have increased

3.04

2.91

13. Goals, plans and expectations set for You by the management were implemented easier

3.71

3.45

14. Your personal value has increased

3.96

3.73

15. Nothing has changed

1.88

2.55

16. Employees are valued according to their activity results.

3.75

3.27

Note: Statements are assessed as follows: 5—fully agree; 4—agree, 3—neither agree, nor disagree 2—disagree, 1—absolutely disagree

In Table 4 presented above most of statements are quite strongly expressed. When analyzing the statements related with the financial indicators, it may be noticed, that employees from private sector have stronger expressed present efficiency compared to ones from the public sector. In their opinion due to their increased competence, organization has made more profit (M = 2.91 and M = 2.67 respectively) and in general financial indicators and results of organization have improved (M = 2.91 and M = 2.83 respectively).

The customer and society-oriented results are stronger expressed by the employees from the public sector organization. Respondents of the public sector state, that due to successful qualification improvement process, the number of complaints has decreased and number of praise from the society has increased (M = 3.42), and society’s satisfaction has also increased (M = 3.38). The statements: Decrease of Customers’/Society’s complaints and increase of praise (M = 3.09) and Increase of Customer’/Society’s satisfaction (M = 3.18) were more faintly assessed than in the public enterprise.

When analyzing the block of statements, related with basic activity results, it is noticeable, that the employees of public enterprise stronger expressed, that the image of organization or department has improved (M = 3.67), while the respondents from the private enterprise expressed this statement more faintly (M = 3.27). Both the respondents from public and private sector organizations claimed, that after qualification improvement process, the cooperation among organization members (M = 3.38 and M = 3.27 respectively) as well as the climate in the organization (M = 3.29 and M = 3.09 respectively) has improved, and relations and work with other institutions and organizations as well (M = 3.33 and M = 3.09 respectively).

The employees from the public sector organization have accentuated, that qualification improvement process significantly affected the increase of quality of decisions being made (M = 3.83). In the organization of private sector respondents also think it has some effect (M = 3.27). The survey results showed, that a big part of employees from both sectors feels, that their everyday work has become more productive (M = 3.45 and M = 3.75 respectively), the employees also claim, that their professionalism, initiative, creativity have increased (M = 3.63 and M = 3.64, respectively).

There are some differences between the opinions of different sectors’ employees regarding the increase of everyday work productivity. This statement was highlighted by both sectors as one of the most significant advantages in the process of qualification improvement, however the statement assessed by the public sector employees was more pronounced (M = 3.75), while the employees of private sector have evaluated it M = 3.45. This statement confirms the research carried out by scientists Weiss and Finn (2005), Afonso et al. (2010), and Adamonienė (2009) related with the effects of qualification improvement on the efficiency of employees’ activity.

It should be noticed that, according to the respondents, in the organizations of public and private sectors being analyzed, the earnings have increased due to qualification improvement process (M = 3.04 and M = 2.91, respectively), the goals, plans and expectations set for them by the management have become simpler implemented (M = 3.71 and M = 3.45, respectively), also a personal value of respondents has increased (M = 3.96 and M = 3.73, respectively), and the respondents have been started to value according to their activity results (M = 3.75 and M = 3.27, respectively). The less part of respondents claimed, that qualification improvement had no effect at all on their everyday activities (M = 1.88 and M = 2.55, respectively).

The correlations of qualification improvement of human resources and activity efficiency of organization employees were assessed separately in respondent groups employed in public and private sectors.

The correlation results revealed, qualification improvement of the employees in public sector is statistically significantly, but faintly related with the employee’s activity efficiency, i.e., correlation coefficient is R = 0.27. While the qualification improvement of employees working in the private sector is statistically significantly related with the activity efficiency of employee, i.e., the more enterprise is involved in the qualification improvement of human resources, the more effective and productive everyday work of employee becomes (correlation coefficient R = 0.97). The particularly strong positive correlation of these factors was established (hypothesis was confirmed in the assessment of enterprises of the private sector).

Though the analysis of this case indicated, that in the public sector a statistically significant difference between activity efficiency of human resources and qualification improvement effect was not established, however on the basis of research data and its analysis, it may be deemed, that enhancement of activity efficiency due to qualification improvement process was felt. H2 hypothesis developed in this paper “Qualification improvement of human resources increases their activity efficiency in public and private sectors” may be confirmed in the case of the private sector.

The qualification improvement of employees working in the public sector is related with better basic activity results and society-oriented results (correlation coefficients R = 0.400 and R = 0.316), however it is not statistically significantly related with financial indicators. In the private sector these correlations are significantly stronger: qualification improvement of employees is related with financial indicators (correlation coefficient R = 0.692) and in particular strongly is related with basic activity results (R = 0.898) and society-oriented results (R = 0.827). The research reveals, that investments of organization in the qualification improvement of employees are in particular strongly related to higher productivity and efficiency of employees’ activity of the private sector.

Then, it may be stated, that hypothesis H3 “The effect of qualification improvement reflects in different results of their activity efficiency—in public and private sectors” may be confirmed. As the research data shows, the qualification improvement of human resources in the public sector increases the better main results of employee’s activity and reflects better society-oriented results, and in the private sector it shows higher financial indicators and increases the basic activity results and society-oriented results.

The obtained research results are confirmed by scientific research on the issues of activity efficiency carried out by Raipa (2011), Afonso et al. (2010), Dittenhofer (2001), Karami et al. (2008). Different activity efficiency rates in the sectors are determined by many factors, which were shown by the research performed: first of all, application of different training methods, and, what is the most important, different features of the whole qualification improvement process in public and private sectors.

To conclude, it may be stated, that employees from the private sector organization feel higher efficiency of activity due to qualification improvement process applied in organization, which is intensive and controlled by organization, therefore the organizations of public sector could take over a good practice of qualification improvement from the private sector.

5 Conclusion

The qualification improvement may be defined as inherent part of organization existence, in which theoretical and practical knowledge necessary to perform functional works is educated, enhanced, deepened. The selection of qualification improvement methods starts from qualification improvement strategy. There are three of them: intensive, dual, and mobility strategy. There are many methods for qualification improvement. The choice of method for the organization depends on investments provided for the enhancement of human resources of organization. The most popular qualification improvement methods are the following: lectures, educational conversation, discussions and debates, guideline, instructions, programmed training, observations and assessments, various events, independent learning.

The activity efficiency is inseparable conception from any activity related with desirable good results. The activity is effective when resources of all types are controlled effectively and qualitatively, when organization sets its own intended tasks, remains competitive and productive, regardless the essential changes. In private and public sectors, the rates of activity efficiency assessment are different. In the private sector the rates of profit (loss) account are accentuated, and in the public one the qualitative rates are highlighted: productivity, activity quality, competence, how the laws are observed, whether the tasks set by the state are fulfilled, how appropriations are adopted.

The qualification improvement of human resources and activity efficiency are strongly related. The competence of human resources reflects in good results of their financial activity and in the strategic planning, in long-term consequences: welfare of individual and society, as well as organization efficiency. The qualification improvement of human resources makes organization superior and more competitive, increases work productivity, decreases inputs, and enhances employee’s self-confidence.

The research of the effects of qualification improvement of human resources of public and private sector organizations on their activity efficiency has revealed, that in both sectors the methods of qualification improvement are different. Usually applied qualification improvement methods in the public sector: independent learning, seminars and trainings organized by the agencies, dual qualification improvement strategy applied. And in the private sector the following methods are the most popular: training of internal employees, internship in other organizations, international training and mentoring, and usually applied intensive qualification improvement strategy of human resources. This affects differently the efficiency of activity. Thus the first hypothesis—in public and private sectors usually different qualification improvement training methods are applied—after the research was confirmed.

During the different studies of qualification improvement process, when comparing the effect of qualification improvement of human resources of public and private sector organizations on their activity efficiency, it was noticed, that in the private sector the effect of qualification improvement process on positive results was higher than in the public one, where relation is weaker. On the basis of this, the second hypothesis was partly confirmed—qualification improvement of human resources increases their activity efficiency in public and private sectors.

During the research performed the results of activity efficiency in the public sector, compared to the private one, due to the effect of qualification improvement are more qualitative: this reflects in the results of their basic activity, in society-oriented results. In the private sector the effect is felt not only in the named qualitative results, but also in financial indicators. Due to this, the third hypothesis—the effect of qualification improvement reflects in different results of their activity efficiency in public and private sectors—was confirmed.

It is noticeable, that in the public sector a good practice of qualification improvement of private sector should be taken over in order the qualification improvement in the public sector more significantly affected the efficiency of activity.

References

  1. Adamonienė, R. (2009). Vadybinės žmogiškųjų išteklių formavimo prielaidos ir galimybės [Managerial assumptions and possibilities for the development of human resources]. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 16(1), 6–14.Google Scholar
  2. Adamonienė, R., & Ruibyte, L. (2010). Vadovų kompetencijų ugdymo sistemos formavimo kryptys [Development trends of the system for the improvement of managers’ competencies]. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 24(5), 6–14.Google Scholar
  3. Afonso, A., Schuknecht, L., & Tanzi, V. (2010). Public sector efficiency: Evidence for new EU member states and emerging markets. Applied Economics, 42(17), 2147–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anciūtė, A., & Misiūnas, A. (2006). Lietuvos pramonės finansiniai rodikliai ir efektyvumas [Financial rates and efficiency of Lithuanian industry]. Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos, 2(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
  5. Ballot, G., & Taymaz, E. (2001). Training policies and economic growth in an evolutionary world. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 12(3), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein, A. L. (1992). Financial statement analysis. Theory, application and Interpretation. Boston: IRWIN.Google Scholar
  7. Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1986). Public management information systems: Theory and prescription. Public Administration Review, 46, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carmeli, A. (2004). Strategic human capital and the performance of public sector organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20(4), 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Certo, S., Certo, C., & Trevis, S. (2006). Modern management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentilce Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Česnulevičienė, B., & Lakis, J. (2002). Valstybės tarnautojų mokymas: nuo strategijos prie praktikos [Training of civil servants: From strategy to practice]. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, 2, 85–92.Google Scholar
  11. Chlivickas, E. (2006). Verslo ir viešojo sektoriaus žmogiškųjų išteklių potencialo plėtra [Development of human resources’ potential of business and public sector]. Verslas: teorija ir praktika, 7(2), 98–107.Google Scholar
  12. Chlivickas, E., Papšienė, P., & Papšys, A. (2010). Human resources: Strategic management aspects. Business, Management and Education, 8(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ciarniene, R., Vienazindiene, M., & Vojtovic, S. (2017). Process improvement for value creation: A case of health care organization. Engineering Economics, 28(1), 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deksnienė, J., Rudytė, D., Šimaitienė, K., & Šimaitytė, D. (2007). Lietuvos tekstilės įmonių ūkinės veiklos įvertinimas ir tendencijos [The assessment and tendencies of economic activity of Lithuanian textile enterprises]. Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos., 2(9), 37–44.Google Scholar
  15. Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for research. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dittenhofer, M. (2001). Internal auditing effectiveness: An expansion of present methods. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(8), 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleischhauer, K. J. (2007). A review of human capital theory: Microeconomics. University of St. Gallen, Discussuion Paper (2007–01).Google Scholar
  18. Gustas, E. (2003). Žmogiškųjų išteklių valdymo ypatumai valstybės tarnyboje: tarnautojų veiklos vertinimas ir kvalifikacijos tobulinimas [Features of human resources’ management in civil service: Activity assessment and qualification improvement of the servants]. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, 5, 65–70.Google Scholar
  19. Hatch, N. W., & Dyer, J. H. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1155–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Išoraitė, M. (2011). Žmogiškieji ištekliai – svarbiausias konkurencinio pranašumo šaltinis strategiškai valdant organizaciją, Socialinių mokslų studijos [Human resources is the key source of competitive advantage in strategic management of organization. Studies of social sciences]. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio.Google Scholar
  21. Karami, A., Jones, B. M., & Kakabadse, N. (2008). Does strategic human resource management matter in high-tech sector? Some learning points for SME managers. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 8, 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karlof, B., & Lövingsson, F. (2005). A to Z of management concepts and models. London: Thorogood Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Kerbel, R. M. (1991). Beyond persuasion. Organizational efficiency and president power. Albany: State university of New York press.Google Scholar
  24. Kjellberg, Y., Söderström, M., & Svensson, L. (1998). Training and development in the Swedish context: Structural change and a new paradigm? Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(4/5), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumpikaitė, V. (2007). Human resource training evaluation. Engineering Economics, Work Humanism, 55(5), 29–36.Google Scholar
  26. Lane, J. E. (2000). The public sector: Concepts, models and approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Miliukienė, G. G., & Prakapienė, D. (2012). Karininkų profesionalumo ugdymas: problemos ir tobulinimo galimybės [Development of professional skills of military officers: Problems and improvement possibilities]. Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos, 28(4), 177–186.Google Scholar
  28. Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Navickas, V., & Sujeta, L. (2006). Tarptautinės logistikos sistemos poveikis nacionalinei ekonomikai [The effect of international logistics system on national economy]. Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos: mokslo straipsnių rinkinys, 2(7), 113–116.Google Scholar
  30. Navickienė, Ž. (2011). Lietuvos policijos pareigūnų kvalifikacijos tobulinimas: požiūris į šio proceso optimizavimą [Professional development of Lithuanian police officers: Approach to the optimization of this process]. Profesinis rengimas: tyrimai ir realijos, 21, 68–81.Google Scholar
  31. Patapas, A., & Kasperavičiūtė, R. (2009). Valstybės tarnautojų mokymo ir kvalifikacijos tobulinimo sistemos efektyvumas Policijos departamente prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos [Efficiency of training and professional development system for civil servants at the police department under the ministry of interior of the Republic of Lithuania]. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, 28, 79–88.Google Scholar
  32. Raipa, A. (2011). Naujojo viešojo valdymo indikatorių diagnozavimo galimybės [Possibilities for diagnosis of new public management indicators]. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, 10(2), 167–182.Google Scholar
  33. Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2007). Management (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentilce Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Sakalas, A. (2003). Personalo vadyba [Personnel management]. Vilnius: Margi raštai.Google Scholar
  35. Salamen, G., Storey, J., & Billsberry, J. (2005). Strategic human resource management. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Schein, H. E. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  37. Valančienė, V., & Klovienė, L. (2009). Dimensions of performance measurement system in changes research. Inžinerinė Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 4, 41–48.Google Scholar
  38. Vasiliauskas, A. (2007). Strateginis valdymas [Strategic management]. Kaunas: Technologija.Google Scholar
  39. Vienažindienė, M. (2009). Žmogiškųjų išteklių valdymas virsmo iš viešojo administravimo į naująją viešąją vadybą kontekste: teorinis ir praktinis aspektai [Management of human resources in the context of transformation from public administration into a new public management: Theoretical and practical aspects]. Economics and Management, 14, 641–648.Google Scholar
  40. Weiss, D. S., & Finn, R. (2005). HR metrics that count: Aligning human capital management to business results. Human Resource Planning, 28, 33–38.Google Scholar
  41. Wholey, J. S. (1997). Monitoring performance in the public sector. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Žutautienė, J. (2007). Verslo ekonomika [Business economics]. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edmundas Jasinskas
    • 1
  • Biruta Svagzdiene
    • 1
  • Arturas Simanavicius
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sports Management, Economics and SociologyLithuanian Sports UniversityKaunasLithuania

Personalised recommendations