Managerial personnel reserves: from patronage to meritocracy

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Higher School of Public Administration

Faculty for the Evaluation and Development of Managerial Personnel

Research Center of Public Policy and Public Administration

Managerial personnel reserves: from patronage to meritocracy

I.B. Sheburakob, Dean

T.M. Atnashev, Dr. Sci., Senior Researcher

Abstract

The article concentrates on specificity of the current model of staff reserves in the Russian system of government. The purpose of the study is to identify the specificity of the model of modern personnel reserves in comparison with the Soviet staff policy as well as with other well-known models of personnel reserve in civil service and business. We assumed that modern personnel reserves in the civil service are not direct copying of the Soviet model for selection and promotion of personnel in the nomenclature system. The article provides an organized review of expert assessments and traces the development of personnel reserves over the past twenty years. We used two types of analysis in our work: asynchronous comparative analysis with the Soviet model, as well as synchronous comparison with similar practices of the corporate sector. The authors conclude that modern reserves of managerial personnel and SGS (State Geodetic Service) personnel reserves do not have direct analogs in the meritocratic models of the civil service in OECD countries, the corporate sector or in the Soviet past. We are talking about a unique combination of personnel technology, which has arisen in modern Russian society as a response to the often-opposing requests and representations of main stakeholders.

Keywords: managerial personnel reserve, staff reserve, meritocracy, public administration, public servant motivation, incentives, values, authorities

Аннотация

Резервы управленческих кадров: от патронажа к меритократии

И.Б. Шебураков, декан факультета оценки и развития управленческих кадров, Высшая Школа Государственного Управления;

Т.М. Атнашев, д.н., с.н.с., Научно-исследовательский центр публичной политики и государственного управления, Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации (РАНХиГС)

Предметом статьи является специфика сложившейся модели кадровых резервов в российской системе государственного управления. Общая цель исследования - выявление специфики модели современных кадровых резервов по сравнению с советской кадровой политикой и с другими известными моделями резервов и отбора кадров на госслужбе и бизнесе. Наша гипотеза состояла в том, что кадровые резервы на госслужбе не являются прямым воспроизведением советской модели отбора и продвижения кадров в системе номенклатуры. В статье даётся структурированный обзор экспертных оценок кадровых резервов и прослеживается эволюция практик и нормативной базы за последние двадцать лет. Мы используем асинхронный сравнительный анализ с советской моделью отбора номенклатуры на основе историографических материалов, а также синхронное сравнение с аналогичными по типу практиками корпоративного сектора. Авторы делают вывод о том, что современные резервы управленческих кадров (РУК) и кадровые резервы ГГС не имеют прямых аналогов в меритократических моделях госслужбы стран ОЭСР, корпоративном секторе или в советском прошлом. Речь идёт об уникальной комбинации кадровых технологий, возникшей в современном российском контексте в ответ на часто противоположные по смыслу запросы и представления ключевых заинтересованных сторон.

Ключевые слова: резерв управленческих кадров, кадровый резерв, меритократия, государственное управление, мотивация государственных служащих, стимулы, ценности, органы власти

Introduction

In this article, we wanted to assess the specifics of applied technologies for working with personnel reserves in modern Russia, both in the civil service and in the public sector as a whole over the past twenty years. By the general category of personnel reserves, we understand the practice of using both the managerial personnel reserves (MPR) of different levels - federal, regional, local, and personnel reserves at the level of federal executive bodies, authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. We do not consider the municipal level of management, but it is supposed that the problems in applying personnel technology here will not be fundamentally different from the problems of public service.

Personnel reserves are one of the distinguishing features of the Russian civil service. We are talking about a unique set of functions that make the personnel reserve institutions unlike either the typical personnel reserves of big corporations or meritocratic promotions in classical bureaucracies. Our analysis shows the importance of personnel reserves as a specific and “thorny” path of the gradual evolution of the modern Russian bureaucracy from patronage to meritocracy. It is very important that the current regulatory framework allows executives to use the reserves not only for selecting and attracting more qualified workers but also as a way to limit meritocratic principles, in particular, laid down in the competitive selection procedures for the civil service. This allows maintaining the “status quo” and corresponds to the established balance of interests and personnel practices in a particular government body or a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. The flexibility and the ability to use the same personnel technology both for keeping patronage and for introducing more meritocratic principles, allowed personnel reserves to become a kind of transitional link from patronage to meritocracy. A similar transformation from patronage to meritocracy went through the state services of most developed countries from the mid-19th to the end of the 20th century. As a rule, it was a series of reforms and a change in the regulatory framework as a response to crises and awareness of new needs. Personnel reserves provided more gradual and evolutionary transition in Russia, it was a kind of compensation for the discrepancy between the regulatory framework and previously established practice.

Considering the overall status and practices of working with personnel reserves in the civil service in Russia, we see an unusual combination of different models and practices:

• classical meritocracy in the civil service and its more modern version, characteristic of the open models of the civil service, the so-called “senior civil service”;

• system for selection and promotion in the Soviet nomenclature;

• corporate personnel reserves;

• manual selection, considering professionalism and personal loyalty (patronage).

This historically formed approach makes it difficult to unequivocally assess and even classify the phenomenon of personnel reserves as a whole. Today, depending on the context in different executive bodies, this institution acts as a tool for solving problems of a fundamentally different meaning. To understand the origin of this model, it is necessary to briefly analyse the history of the emergence and evolution of personnel reserves in the modern history of Russia. Wherein it is necessary to take into account the goals of principal stakeholders, challenges and constraints that accompanied the development of personnel policy in the civil service system, as well as in the field of public administration as a whole. In this text, we did not consider the specifics of functioning of personnel reserves in the state military service. However, this seems to be a significant direction for further study and comparative analysis [Balkarov, 2015; Nabiev, 2016].

Initially, the introduction of personnel reserves was a way to expand and strengthen the personnel resources available to senior executives, primarily at the federal level. But often, at the level of singular authorities and constituent entities of the Russian Federation, this mechanism remains formal or is used to weaken the conduct of competitive procedures. Below are given the characteristics of current models for personnel formation. These are based on the technology of “reserves” creation or similar technologies. The following text clarifies the estimates presented in Table 1. For each of the models, we have identified common or similar characteristics with the same tone. Here we see significant differences in each case; therefore, modern personnel reserves in the civil service have no direct analog in other types of organizations or, in the past. We will take a closer look at the specific aspects and characteristics of the models below.

Expert evaluation of personnel reserves usage in the Russian government system

In the scientific literature over the past fifteen years, the subject of personnel policy in the civil service has been well developed. We may note the generalizing works of A.G. Barabashev [Barabashev, 2013], A.V. Obolonsky [Obolonsky, Barabashev, 2009], A.V. Klimenko and N.N. Klisch [Klimenko, Klisch, 2012] as well as D.M. Rogozin [Rogozin, 2013] and S. Zudenkova [Zudenkova, 2018]. Researchers and experts point to the transitional nature of personnel policy in terms of implementation of the principles outlined in the regulatory framework of the civil service. Personnel reserves were given significantly less space as a separate personnel technology. It is necessary to understand that personnel reserves play a significant role as an instrument of personnel policy; they define the general model of the civil service, especially when appointing the posts of top and middle executives [Bartsits, 2019].

It is reasonable to divide the majority of experts who study personnel reserves, into three relatively stable groups. The first group includes authors who speak critically about the current practice of using the technology of personnel reserves in the public service both at the regional and departmental levels. The second group includes authors who draw attention to positive experience of particular regions and departments; they give generalizing recommendations for the system of personnel reserves as a whole. The third, the smallest group includes authors who give general recommendations, without an in-depth assessment of the actual experience in individual successful or unsuccessful cases. In the third case, we are talking about the mechanical transfer of models that have arisen in another context, being solutions for the sphere of public administration. Let's take a brief overview of these three approaches and offer a more systematic and comprehensive look. Such an integral approach includes both the analysis of successful practices and, the consideration of personnel reserves in a typical domestic context.

Criticism of personnel reserve technology

The authors, who can be attributed to the critics of personnel reserves format, are similar in their opinion; namely, the researchers note the following:

Imperfection and lack of clarity of the regulatory framework; it entails negative indications associated with the human factor: corruption, formalism, subjectivity in decision-making. Because of this problem, the principle of equal access to public service is not considered.

The issues of competency assessment, the system for training personnel reserve and selection criteria before being appointed to a position are poorly developed. This signifies the difference between the competencies of employees and the real needs of the civil service - the deficiency of qualified personnel.

Insufficient integration of reserves into taking the vacant posts, which in turn leads to lessening motivation of applicants for the position. In addition, specialists of personnel reserves point out the difficulty of direct assignment of MPR participants to civil service positions.

In a recent review on the general issues related to personnel reserves, N.S. Gubareva points to the pending problem of “subjectivity and corruption”, which can only be eliminated within the framework of the competence approach and the unified methodological approach to selecting candidates [Gubareva, 2017]. Researchers and experts note that the civil service's need for personnel with appropriate qualifications is not met, as well as the potential of existing human resources is not realized. The people who are in the personnel reserve cannot count on the perspective that is corresponding to their competencies. S.V. Arzhanukhin and T.E. Zerchaninova [Arzhanukhin, Zerchaninova, 2012] consider the problems of formation and use of personnel reserve, such as loss of reserve relevance, contravention of accordance of job applicants to the reserve sphere, poor career prospects for job applicants. The significant reason for the poor performance of the existing model for personnel reserves is the lack of balance between the functional (professional) and dynamic (personal) competency models, which in turn leads to the emergence of “chronic organizational and managerial pathologies”: a) the competence profile of an official does not correspond with the development strategy of the state and municipal service; b) the system of officials' training is intuitive and has not a rational character, training plans are based on a more emotional and less argumentative level.

Table 1

Authors, who study the successful experience of forming and using the personnel reserve, stress the importance of a more systematic training and evaluation of candidates. They also give recommendations on the need for systematic assessment of personnel reserve demand and the limitation of the maximum period of staying in the personnel reserve.

Analyzing the experience of the Kursk region in the framework of projects like “Governor's Thousand” and the “XXI Century Management” personnel reserve school, Y.M. Pasovets focuses on the ability to increase the number of potential candidates for reserves and, at the same time, the ability to provide core knowledge for university students - before they join the personnel reserves [Pasovets, 2016]. A.V. Zelentsov and V.S. Glukhova consider the successful transformation of personnel policy in the actions of executive authorities of the Tomsk region [Zelentsov, Glukhova, 2014]. The authors emphasize the importance of a single personnel reserve for all state bodies of the region. It should be formed by the regional administration on the basis of modern evaluation technologies (testing, interviews, group discussions, essays, etc.) and the preparation of candidates. In the region were also introduced the practices of mentorship and probation period to fasten the adaptation of the newly accepted civil service employees.

E.A. Bakhtairova considers training and educating those, who are included in the personnel reserves, as an essential element, which allows increasing the effectiveness of the personnel reserve in the civil service [Bakhtairova, 2014]. The most effective forms of such training are personal participation of personnel reserves participants in events held by the state body, internships, and mentoring. Bakhtairova offers to limit the maximum time spent in the personnel reserve up to five years [Bakhtairova, 2014].

N.L. Ivanova and O.A. Vasiliev consider the successful experience of a managerial reserve formation on the example of the Vologda region [Ivanova, Vasiliev, 2011]. The significant features include competitive selection of applicants for managerial personnel reserve as well as their training. Authors note useful conclusions from experience with the personnel reserve: the formation of a personnel reserve should be carried out on the basis of preliminary evaluation of need for the personnel reserve. It is necessary to develop technologies for formation of a consolidated personnel reserve, which involves not only a reserve of managerial staff but also a personnel reserve of state authorities as well as local governments.

Yurieva and co-authors give a brief overview of the structure of personnel reserves in the Republic of Tatarstan. They make comparisons in the context of federal reserves for managerial staff, and conclude that there is an integrated system of a “closed” cycle for selection and training of the personnel [Yurieva, 2013].

We may say that the recommendations of researchers, who positively evaluate the results and efficiency of this approach, are focused on the issues of improving the quality of training and evaluation of individuals in the personnel reserve.

Typical models for reserves without domestic specifics

The third group of experts recommends the transfer of models that are already made or general principles of personnel reserves' formation without analyzing and evaluating the specifics of Russian practice. N.L. Chubarova describes the possibility of applying a competent approach in the training of managerial personnel, which initially was widely used in the United States and Western Europe. The author notes that in Russia, due to the reform of public authorities in the 2000s, and, the renewal of the personnel reserve for the administrative apparatus of the country, the issue of training and education for reserve applicants also began to consider the competence based approach [Chubarova, 2013].

E.V. Titova considers the general principles for forming and using the personnel reserve at any level and proposes a system to evaluate candidates [Titova, 2012]. These principles are: legality, systematic approach, effectiveness and efficiency of public administration, economic practicality, and unity of approaches. The recommended evaluation techniques are divided into main (questioning, testing, personal interview, interview with several members of the commission) and additional (phone interview, verifying of recommendations, writing essays). It seems that the recommendations, based on the analysis of both working and non-working mechanisms for personnel technologies in the civil service of Russia will be suitable if combined with the use of ready-made successful models based on experience of public administration in other countries. Direct and thoughtless borrowing of “best practices” without understanding of how it should work in the given context will most likely create new dysfunctions and cause unintended consequences.

Personnel reserves in modern Russia: 20 years of evolution

If you take a close look at the not so distant past, the concept of “personnel reserves” was not officially used in the USSR. There was no mechanism to form personnel reserve and select executives. In this regard, it is not about direct re-establishing of the late-Soviet institute in modern Russia; it is about the use of certain traditions from the previous period as a building material to create a new mechanism that meets the needs and ideas of key participants. Comparison with the Soviet experience helps better understanding of the specifics of the new model. Personnel reserves are more likely to combine the elements of the Soviet heritage that are most demanded in the new conditions and Western corporate practices.

Differences between Soviet “nomenclature” and modern personnel reserves

The significant works of M. Djilas, M. Voslensky and L. Onikov are based mostly on personal management experience of the authors. They give critical assessment of the personnel selection system and its development in the USSR according to their ideological positions [Djilas, 1957; Voslensky, 1991]. Djilas and Voslensky critically spoke about the class character of the Soviet nomenclature which has turned into the dominant class. According to the genre, they may not be entirely attributed to the real historical works, but they give noteworthy factual material and raise fundamental questions about the essential role of personnel policy in the Soviet system.

Modern historians studied particular aspects in the personnel policy of the internal troops, special services, and the army, as well as strategically significant projects in the field of the nuclear industry and space exploration [Artyomov, 2017].

Using all these studies, we can note several essential ideas, which will help us clarify the specifics of current techniques for personnel resources in association with the Soviet system. In the USSR, at the mass low level, there was a system of “labor reserves” for the most significant branches of the economy and large enterprises. The modern expression “personnel reserve” was rarely used in determination of senior executives until the end of the 1980s. One of the first mentions of the term “reserve” in the context of senior executive training is found in the article by V. Ozar in 1973 “Management staff, its selection, and training” [Ozar, 1973]. This paper does not talk about the official designation of an institution, but rather about a new academic term and a peculiar approach to management tasks. M. Voslensky says that in the Soviet Union, the phrase “get into the clip” was more common [Voslen- sky, 1991]. At the same time, Voslensky already uses the term “personnel reserve” as his own scientific definition of nomenclature. In the late Soviet texts, the expression “reserve” was used for an expert description of a system work with nomenclature employees. The “reserve” was understood as a system for selection and promotion, designed to prepare the flow and work as a filtering mechanism of applicants for a centralized managerial system. Now, the term “reserve” is often understood as a particular association of candidates, which is used if applicants selected in other ways are not enough.

In the late Soviet period, within the framework of the USSR political system, there was a complex and integral system for selection and training of managerial personnel. It included formal and informal evaluation and promotion techniques. An important principle for the formation of the “nomenclature” as a set of significant positions in the country (the appointment of which was actually approved by top party executives) was its over-departmental character: managers, selected through a system of personal recommendations and mutual evaluation, held different managerial positions within the party, state bodies or industry. A similar setting for the training of public administration executives, including municipalities, is widely traced in modern personnel reserves.

In the Soviet Union, political system provided the direct control over all key assignments to political, administrative, military, and economic positions. For us, the most important within this political context are direct mechanisms and practices for selection. In enterprises or government bodies, party organizations controlled the process of assignments. At the same time, party affiliation and positive characteristic was a necessary condition. Exceptions took place only for assignments on leading positions in the national economy and science (Igor Kurchatov joined the Communist party only five years after his assignment as a head executive for the scientific and technical implementation of the project for creating a nuclear bomb). Assignments to leading positions were carried out by the Secretariat and the General Department of the CPSU Central Committee [Voslensky, 1991].

In the 1950s-1980s, the main criterions to select candidates for leading political and economic positions were personal recommendations from higher-level managers and, to a lesser degree, from colleagues. Such recommendations included: a) evaluation of political experience and loyalty; b) professional and personal qualities of candidates (similar to the current rating of “360 degrees”, but from top to bottom); c) assessment of a candidate's personal loyalty to the evaluator. Such mechanism made it possible to effectively evaluate and select personnel in the medium term, but at the same time, it predetermined the patronage nature of personnel policy.

Thus, the post-war USSR dealt with a centralized and transparent system for the selection of leading personnel, although the system has not been completely formalized. The role of the party and the level of centralization gradually decreased until the beginning of perestroika. Here we can talk about a kind of “privatization” in the selection and assignment of leaders for positions in republics, regions, and large enterprises in the late Soviet period.

Paradoxically, the period of perestroika that proclaimed democratization, in its beginning, was marked by the dramatically increased role of the party center, namely the General Secretary and his closest allies in personnel policy. The mass replacements that Mikhail Gorbachev and Yegor Ligachev made until 1988 were attempts to provide reforms with new personnel and support within the executive apparatus. The General Secretary became disillusioned with the current system of governance because of its bureaucratic nature, which in turn led to its radical democratization. The unprecedented widespread use of competitive elections, as the chief technique to appoint political and economic leaders since 1989 did not lead to the creation of a new sustainable system in the field of personnel policy and contributed to the disintegration of the USSR.

The system of personnel reserves in modern Russia borrows some individual elements for the selection from the Soviet nomenclature. However, within the existing regulatory framework for the state civil service, the reserves fulfil two other important directions of vertical mobility and selection, which were not presented in the USSR: a) competitive selection for lower, middle, and part of senior posts; and b) political appointments at the highest level. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the importance of managerial reserves in the system of personnel policy as one of several existing mechanisms. At the same time, the mechanism for cultivation and selection of personnel into the Soviet nomenclature through recommendations and assessments remained not fully formalized, although quite effective.

policy selection personnel civil service

The fall of the Soviet Union and the first years of the Russian statehood formation were marked by almost complete elimination of a single party-state system. The elimination was accompanied by weakness of executive power as well as high budget deficit. Fierce struggle between the market and the public sector and conflict between political parties created creation new mechanisms for “natural” selection in the period of uncontrolled privatization. The reason to search for new personnel policy in Russia since the mid-1990s was the lack of qualified managerial personnel, who left low-paid and non-prestigious government positions for jobs in the rapidly developing private sector. In 1997, during the second presidential term of Boris Yeltsin, after the signing of the decree “On the preparation of managerial personnel for the national economy”, it became clear that Russian government wanted to organize a system of personnel reserves to fulfill administrative positions. Federal and regional authorities began to lay regulatory and educational framework for the preparation of the required managerial personnel reserves.

The original version of “Golden personnel reserve of Russia in the XXI century” program, which was implemented by Sergei Kiriyenko in 1998-1999, suggested a large-scale federal project to prepare five thousand Russian managers with the educational process in leading universities of Russia and Western countries. The idea was to include in this program cadres that are already in the public service and managers of big private businesses [Huskey, 2004]. Regional authorities supported the initiative of the federal authorities. Being the Representative of the President in the Volga Federal District, Sergey Kiriyenko held an open competition for young district managers. A symbol of openness and use of the latest technologies was the internet portal www.kadri.ru. Regional competitions, usually less competitive and without sufficient Western educational component, differed in methods to select young candidates and character of training. But the purpose of the programs was similar - to create a “golden list” (Golden personnel reserve), which included the most promising personnel in the region [Huskey, 2004].

In 1997 and 1998, in addition to the launch of the presidential program to identify and train promising young managers, the regions and municipalities adopted the first regulatory acts that controlled personnel reserves. In February 1998, Moscow Government adopted one of the first acts on this subject. It stated that “civil servant positions for the city of Moscow should be filled primarily by individuals from the personnel reserve lists”. Only positions, for which there were no candidates from the personnel reserves, will be open for substitution through open competition. In correspondence with the status of Moscow, this decree created three levels of personnel reserve: lists of individuals, who can fill managerial positions in the city administration (office of the mayor, vice-mayor, “head of government”); lists of individuals, who can fill positions in departments and the citywide administration; lists of individuals, who can fill managerial positions at the district or prefecture level. At the last two administrative levels, the head of the authority body together with the personnel department appoints the individuals for reserve lists; then the head of the department, agency or prefect confirms specific candidates.

In the framework of multi-layer model selected executive authorities usually used their internal candidates to form personnel reserves. At the same time, at the federal level, the executive branch sought managerial cadres from more diverse sources. From the first years of Vladimir Putin's presidency, personnel reserves have become a standard feature of Russian administrative life. In the spring of 2003, the adoption of the new law on the civil service system brought official approval of their status as principal element of personnel policy; this document called for the formation of personnel reserves in the federal government and individual ministries, as well as at the level of federal subjects [Huskey, 2004].

Evolution of personnel reserves and development of the regulatory framework

Legislative use of personnel reserves came with the adoption of several particular laws: The Federal Law on July 27, 2004, No. 79-FZ “On the Civil Service of the Russian Federation”; the Federal Law on March 2, 2007, No. 25-FZ “On the Municipal Service in the Russian Federation”, and the series of Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation from February 1, 2005, No. 112 “On the Competition to Fill the Position in the Civil Service of the Russian Federation”. Before the adoption of the law No. 79-FZ, the personnel reserve at the level of individual authorities was often used as a way to provide social guarantees for dismissed or temporarily unemployed officials during organizational staff events.

The first experience of using personnel reserves was enshrined in federal laws, which set the foundations of public service. It should be noted, that although the federal law on civil service provided for the formation of personnel reserves in all state bodies and at all levels of government, it did not propose any mechanisms to accomplish this task, because there was still no unified system for staffing and managing personnel reserves.

The law 79-FZ established the main provisions regarding the formation of a personnel reserve in the civil service. Article 64 “Personnel Reserve in the Civil Service” states that: “for the substitution of civil service vacant positions, civil servants (citizens) form the federal personnel reserve, personnel reserve of the subject of the Russian Federation, personnel reserve of the federal state body and personnel reserve of the state body of the subject of the Russian Federation”. Article 47 “Job Regulations” states that the results of work of the civil servant are taken into account not only when conducting a competition for a vacant position, but also when a civil servant is included in the personnel reserve.

In 2007, the Federal Law “On Municipal Service in the Russian Federation” secured at the legislative level the right of municipalities to create personnel reserves for filling vacant posts of municipal service. Article 33 “Personnel Reserve at the Municipal Service” states: “In municipal entities, in accordance with the municipal legal acts, a personnel reserve may be created for the substitution of vacant posts in the municipal service”. In 2013, the legal framework for personnel reserves was significantly improved. Federal Law No. 116-FZ amended the law No. 79-FZ on July 27, 2004, “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation”. The amendments affected the formation of a personnel reserve.

Ratio between different types and levels of personnel reserves

In addition to personnel reserves in the civil service, specialized reserves of managerial personnel emerged. The work on the formation of the “federal reserve of managerial personnel” is carried out to fulfil the instructions of the President of the Russian Federation on August 1, 2008, No. PR-1573. In accordance with these instructions the formation of a federal reserve of managerial personnel is being carried out. The managerial personnel reserve consists of three levels: highest, basic, and perspective.

The federal managerial personnel reserve is a database of highly qualified employees of federal executive bodies, state bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federation, state corporations and organizations, the list of which is defined by the Government of the Russian Federation, recommended by the head (“first person”) of the appropriate state body and organization.

The federal managerial personnel reserve consists of three levels:

The highest level of reserve: managerial personnel of state bodies at the federal and regional levels, state corporations and companies (requirements: managerial experience of at least six years, age up to 50 years);

Basic level of reserve: mid-level managers of state bodies at the federal and regional levels, state corporations and companies (requirements: managerial experience of at least three years, age up to 45 years);

Perspective level of reserve: state civil servants, employees of public corporations and companies under the age of 35 years.

As of December 28, 2017, the number of individuals included in the federal managerial personnel reserve was 1893 people: 381 at the highest level of reserve, 674 at the basic level of reserve, and 838 at the perspective level of reserve.

It should be noted that at the federal level, personnel reserves have always been focused on public service, while regional reserves were used for appointments to senior positions in federal state unitary enterprises, municipal unitary enterprises, state corporations, and even private enterprises. Currently, in the regions, managerial personnel reserves consist of three major groups:

• Reserve for managerial positions in executive bodies;

• Reserve of candidates for representative bodies and heads of local governments;

• Reserve for heads of state-owned enterprises and institutions, companies and organizations of regional importance with a share of regional property over 25% and more.

It is also recommended to divide reserves into three levels within each group:

• Highest - candidate's experience, competences and general level of training are sufficient for appointment to a higher managerial position;

• Basic - after completing additional training and testing, candidate may qualify for a higher managerial position;

• Perspective - promising (and young) leaders, who received additional professional education, professional training, internships in specialized state bodies, passed specialized exams and tests, may qualify for managerial positions, as well as professional growth.

As you can see, having the same three-tier system of reserves in the regions, each of these levels significantly differs from the federal method, including the substantial.

Existing programs and the formation of the unified concept for personnel reserves

At the federal level, in accordance with the Presidential list of instructions on August 1, 2008, No. PR-1573, in order to develop new methods for selecting, training and retraining participants of the federal managerial personnel reserve, the federal program “Training and retraining of managerial personnel reserve (2010-2015)” is implemented (approved by the order of the Government of the Russian Federation on April 22, 2010, No. 636-r). Considering interest of state bodies in the further training of managerial personnel and the significance of this program, it was extended by the order of the Government of the Russian Federation on December 30, 2015, No. 2775-r, until 2018. According to the information form the authors, its next extension is being prepared. The main goal of the program is to increase the professional and managerial competence of individuals, included in the federal managerial personnel reserve (according to the management level: highest, basic, and perspective). The program is coordinated by the Government Apparatus of the Russian Federation; the state customer is the Ministry of Labor of Russia.

Special preparations and convenient conditions for the development of the Managerial Personnel Reserve were created in the regions of Bashkortostan, Komi, Tatarstan, Udmurtia, Krasnoyarskiy Krai, Vologda, Irkutsk, Kaluga, Kursk, Leningrad, Rostov, Tver, Tomsk, and in some other regions. In these regions the necessary regulatory legal acts and organizational documents that coordinate activities in this area have been adopted, specific evaluation and training centres have been created, special project approaches to work with candidates have been used, distinct regional and interregional events are being held.

In the Perm Territory, Kaliningrad, Voronezh, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod regions, fundamentally new practices are being tried for the formation of managerial personnel reserves. They include:

1) meritocratic principles for the renewal of personnel, which were launched by the “Leaders of Russia” national managerial competition;

2) systematic and unified approach to evaluating candidates for reserves based on the “General concept for formation and use of managerial personnel reserves”, adopted in late 2017. As of January 1, 2018, the number of individuals, included in the federal managerial personnel reserve, was 8615 people.

In the field of regulation of personnel reserves in the civil service, there have been significant changes as well. The Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on March 19, 2014, No. 156 supplements the Presidential Decree on February 1, 2005, No. 112 “On the Competition for Filling the Positions of the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation” and affects the formation of the personnel reserve. According to the Presidential Decree, when holding a competition for filling a vacant position, a candidate, who has not won the competition, may be included in the personnel reserve by the decision of the competition committee. According to paragraph 23, “if the competition commission decided to include a candidate who did not win the competition to fill a vacant civil service position in the personnel reserve of a state body, an act of the state authority is issued with the permission of that individual, to include him in the state body's personnel reserve in the same group as the vacant civil service position.”

Proposed general concept for managerial personnel reserves

Today, there are different types of reserves: personnel reserves in the civil service, both for federal authorities and for the subjects of the Russian Federation; managerial personnel reserves at the federal level (including the presidential reserve), at the regional level, and at the municipal level. In some federal districts managerial personnel reserves are retained. At different levels and for different subjects, the approaches to the formation of reserves and their use still remain different, as well as the success in the use of personnel reserves is different. Based on the analysis, we propose the following target model for the use of personnel reserves, combining meritocratic principles with the requests of the heads of executive authorities for a greater degree of control and involvement in the adoption of personnel reserves than in classical models of OECD countries. The proposed model is described in Table 2 in comparison with the ideal types of “patronage” and “meritocracy”.

Table 2

Proposed model - general concept for the managerial personnel

One of the most difficult problems, the solution of which is proposed in the General concept for managerial personnel reserves, is precisely the simultaneous existence of reserves of managerial personnel at various levels, personnel reserves in the civil service, as well as personnel reserves of individual government bodies. For example, if the formation of personnel reserves in the civil service is governed by the legislation on the civil service, then this legislation does not apply to the reserves of managerial personnel.

It can be noted that persons included in the personnel reserve in the civil service can be included in the reserve both for managerial positions (in the terminology of the legislation on the civil service, as a rule, these are positions within the “Head” category) and other positions - not managerial. On the contrary, the managerial personnel reserve is:

• Managerial positions only;

• Managerial positions with a special place in the system of public administration, providing the high status (for example, at the regional level these are: ministers and their deputies);

• Positions not only in the system of state service but also at the municipal level (for example, heads of municipal districts and their deputies);

• Positions outside the state or municipal service, but significant for the sphere of public administration which includes municipal level (heads of enterprises and organizations of both the public sector and the non-public sector with a high share of state ownership).