Merit system

The merit system is the process of promoting and hiring government employees based on their ability to perform a job, rather than on their political connections.[1] It is the opposite of the spoils system.

History

United States

The United States civil service began to run on the spoils system in 1829 when Andrew Jackson became president. The assassination of United States President James A. Garfield by a disappointed office seeker in 1881 proved its dangers. President Garfield was shot by Charles J. Guiteau who believed that the president owed him a civil service position and in not giving him the position, threatened the very being of the Republican Party. Two years later, the system of appointments to the United States federal bureaucracy was revamped by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which made the merit system common practice. The merit system determines the fitness of the candidate by the ability to pass a written competitive examination, given by a commission of examiners. The answers submitted by candidates must be unsigned, so as to obviate the possibility of favoritism on the part of the examiners. A list is made of the successful candidates, arranged in the order of their merit as shown by the results of the examination. Appointments must be made from this eligible list in the order of rank unless good cause can be shown why one of higher rank should be set aside for one standing lower on the list.[4]

Proponents of the system admit that the system does not always lead to the choice of most competent candidate but is effective in eliminating those most incompetent.[4] In addition the possible exclusion of most competent candidate is outweighed by the system's benefits such as limiting the ability of nepotism and political favoritism. The power of appointment being vested in the president of the United States by the United States Constitution, it is not within the power of the United States Congress to fetter the president's action by the enactment of laws restricting the exercise of the power of appointments. Thus, in the United States, the merit system has been extensively applied by the voluntary action of the president following self-imposed rules. It has been judicially determined that the civil-service rules promulgated by the president of the United States do not have the force of general law, and confer upon members of the civil service no right to invoke the aid of the courts to protect them against violation thereof. They are the president's laws, and the president alone can enforce them.[5] Working under the supervision of the president is the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB follows nine core principles when governing the executive branch workforce.

Performance Assessment

Forced Ranking

Forced Ranking is a system in which performing employees are ranked into groups a company has established. The term 'Rank and Yank' was created by the former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch. The 'Rank and Yank' encouraged terminating the employment of poor performers and replacing them with new personnel. Many like Welch and Former Chief Executive of Microsoft believe in replacing poor performers while others, such as Tom Barry, former Managing Director at BlessingWhite, believe in 're-engaging underperforming employees.'[2]

Consequences of Performance Assessment

As the United States has become Anti-Bureaucratic, it has moved away from the outdated depiction of Merit System. Twenty-eight states have established an ‘At Will’ environment where civil service employees can be fired at any time without cause. In 2014 the Department of Veteran Affairs became overwhelmed with problems with scheduling appointments. Congress called for immediate action and ordered the Department of Veteran Affairs to lay off ‘miscreant’ employees. Donald F. Kettl, a Professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, explores in his work, The Merit Principle in Crisis, ‘At will’ practices and whether they’re beneficial to the bureaucratic practices of the government. Kettl states that due to an increase in government programs, firing ‘miscreant’ bureaucratic employees would only ‘weaken the governments ability to steer’. Such repercussions such as Kettl’s are not the only measures taken by employers.[3]

Susan J. Wells, a writer for HR Magazine, expresses her take on Merit Pay and its meaning in No Results, No Raise. [4] Wells believes that the concept of ‘Tough Love’ makes a more profound impact on the balance of protecting and rewarding those whose performance excels and those whose performance could be improved. Wells elaborates that not rewarding low performers with a merit increase at the end of the year is an ideal way of showing ‘Tough Love.' The idea gives low performing employees a year to improve their performance and receive constant feedback from managerial staff.

Pros

The importance of the merit system in a work place is to provide good quality work to the public. When merit is truly assessed in the process of hiring or promoting personnel, an honest, effective, and productive workplace is created.[5] Employees build organizations and the service they provide to customers allows the organization to be successful. Without its employees or customers, an organization would be doomed. Motivated and happy employees are the key principle of the merit system. Employees who are satisfied with their jobs are likely to provide a higher level of productivity (more work in less time, costing organizations less money), less likely to quit (low or lower employee turnover rates), great communication for voicing workplace concerns (trust and comfort between supervisor and employees), little to no abuse of company benefits/incentives, i.e.: lunch breaks, sick leave, bonuses, etc. Bottom line, administration is responsible for providing and setting the atmosphere and standards of a workplace that result in success.[6]

Cons

The merit system has been criticized that it leads to uncooperative behaviors among employees, creating conflict that can negatively affect productivity. It is based on performance compensation that encourages competition among employees, creating a competitive environment that puts employees at odds with one another. This can lead to unwanted behavior that can affect productivity. Disrupting team unity to look better on reviews and personal goals becomes more important than team goals.[7]

See also

References
  1. Monitoring Merit. Institute of Public Administration of Canada. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-55061-049-9.
  2. Rao, Pramila (2013). Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Resource Management. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 217–232. ISBN 978-0-07-352736-9.
  3. Kettl, Donald F. "The Merit Principle In Crisis." Governance 28.4 (2015): 421-424. Business Source Complete. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
  4. Wells, Susan (May 5, 2005). "HR Magazine". Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved March 30, 2016.
  5. "Merit System Principles and Performance Management." U.S. Office of Personnel Management. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
  6. Caldwell, D. (1978). Employee Motivation Under Merit Systems. Public Personnel Management, 7(1), 65.
  7. Johnson, Susan Moore. Pros and Cons of Merit Pay. Fastback 203. Publications, Phi Delta Kappa, Bloomington, Indiana. 1984.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.