Civil Service Reform, At-Will Employment, and George Santayana: Are We Condemned to Repeat the Past?

• Author: Russell L. Williams,James S. Bowman
• Published date: 01 March 2007
• DOI: 10.1177/009102600703600105
• Date: 01 March 2007
• Subject Matter: Article

Civil Service Reform,
At-Will Employment, and
George Santayana:
Are We Condemned to Repeat
the Past?
By Russell L. Williams, Ph.D. and James S. Bowman, Ph.D.
The competing values found in private and public sector models of personnel
management animate today’s civil service reform debate. Unfortunately, the
antagonists frequently produce as much heat as light as their positions become
entrenched and genuine dialogue suffers. In such situations, insights from another
time and place can provide a perspective on issues and events. A case in point is
philosopher and poet George Santayana who observed in 1905 that, “Those who
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Drawing upon his work,
this critique of civil service reform first briefly reviews the origins of the merit
system and the objectives of contemporary changes. Then, a case study in the
trendsetting “megastate” of Florida is analyzed. The conclusion speculates on the
future of radical reform.
“There is much forgetfulness, much callow disrespect for what is past or alien; but
there is a fund of vigour, goodness, and hope such as no nation ever possessed be-
fore. In what sometimes looks like American greediness and jostling for the front
place, all is love of achievement, nothing is unkindness…”
—George Santayana1
Aconstant tension exists between efficiency and effectiveness in American pub-
lic administration—a tension that quickly becomes evident in determining
exactly how to achieve efficiency and what constitutes effectiveness.2 This is
reflected in today’s civil service reform controversies in state and federal government
as antagonists juxtapose the competing values of business management and public
service.3 The debate is often not joined as positions become entrenched and sheer
political power prevails.4
In such situations, insights from another time and place can provide a perspec-
tive on issues and events. A case in point is philosopher and poet George Santayana
(1863-1952) who lived in the United States during an era when the patronage-based
spoils system gradually gave way to the merit-based civil service of today. A Spanish
immigrant, he subsequently studied and taught at Harvard University during his 40
Public Personnel Management Volume 36 No. 1 Spring 2007
65

---

years here, and departed, never to return, in 1912. Santayana, nonetheless, retained
a fascination for, and outlook on, American politics and culture.5
Santayana is perhaps best known in the community of philosophers for his five
volume series, The Life of Reason, published from 1905-1906. A prolific and engagingly
lyrical writer, the topics of his books, poems, letters, and essays ranged from art to
religion to social commentary. Considered by many to be an American philosopher,
Jorge Augustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana never relinquished his Spanish citizenship.
Thus, he maintained the perspective of an outside observer of the American culture
that he lived in for so long.
His often contrarian—but not mean-spirited—writings saw no need to impute
sinister motives to people, for there was, as he said, a “fund of vigour, goodness, and
hope” in America.6 Such an outlook provides an apt lens to assess the current debates.
This critique of radical reform examines how private sector employment techniques
are used as part of an effort to corporatize government. The background section
below briefly reviews the origins of the merit system and the objectives of the new
changes. This is followed by a case study of an initiative in the “megastate” of Florida.
The conclusion speculates on the future of civil service reform.
Background
“The word experience is like a shrapnel shell, and bursts into a thousand meanings.”
—George Santayana7
Modern civil service systems in the United States sprang from the “good government”
movement that emerged in the post-Civil War period. Degradation of government,
both economic and ethical, by the spoils system was the signal issue of the time. Expe-
rience had shown that it was little more than politically-driven “at-will” employment,
a doctrine that holds employees can be hired and fired for any or no reason not con-
trary to law (see Table 1). Given increasing population and industrialization, a large
nation could not be effectively governed with such an arbitrary—and scandal-ridden—
personnel system. To protect the commonweal from unscrupulous politicians, respon-
sible government administration would have to be businesslike—organized by
administrative principles, lead by a strong executive, and staffed with non-partisan
employees. “[T]he field of administration is a field of business,” said Woodrow Wilson,
a prominent reformer and founder of modern public administration.8 To ensure
against partisan manipulation and opportunism, reformers believed that public ser-
vants needed job security; clean and efficient public service would result when polit-
ical partisanship was replaced with merit qualification in personnel decisions.
Competence would be the foundation of moral public management.9 The virtue of
this view would soon become evident.
If the experience of Santayana’s times burst into “a thousand meanings”—show-
ing both the worst (spoils) and the best model (business) for government service—
it crystallized into the Pendleton Act of 1883 with the assassination of President James
66
Public Personnel Management Volume 36 No. 1 Spring 2007

---

Table One: Right to Fire, Right to Quit: Symmetrical or
Asymmetrical?
Since an employer does not exist without an employee (and vise versa), at-will
employment appears to balance employer and employee rights. Arbitrary treat-
ment by either party violates the spirit of the doctrine: to protect the freedom
of both employers and employees.10 However, such treatment—particularly on
the part of the employer—unfairly capitalizes on management prerogatives
because it ignores an employee’s future job prospects, viz., it cannot be assumed
that a ready supply of comparable jobs is available.
This asymmetry is highlighted by the employee’s residual right to go to
court—an often uncertain, slow, ugly process requiring modest organization,
but enormous individual expenditures of time and resources. Even if successful,
returning to the job under such circumstances is not conducive to high morale,
trust, and productivity. The practical effect is that only the most determined per-
son will make the necessary investment, leaving many with no means of redress.
Thus this laissez-faire, freedom of contract approach falsely assumes equal
bargaining power in the employment relationship; instead, this relationship is
typically one of a powerful employer and a relatively powerless employee.11 Fur-
thermore, exemptions to at-will often can be trumped unilaterally by organiza-
tional downsizing. In short, the doctrine subordinates the employee to the
employer. As Charles Muhl notes,12 to require employers to demonstrate valid
grounds for adverse actions does not unduly restrict them; it merely provides
some balance.13
Garfield by a disappointed office-seeker. The contemporary civil service movement
also gleaned experience from the public and private sector. This time, however, two
things were different: there was no spectacular catalyst for reform that distilled expe-
rience, and employment at-will was embraced instead of rejected. General distain for
government and the allure of the “New Economy” of the 1990s made at-will employ-
ment the centerpiece of reform, beginning in mid-decade in Georgia (and subse-
quently Florida) and in selected federal agencies (most notably, the Transportation
Security Administration). And in late 2003, the Department of Defense won approval
to remove its civilian employees (which constitute one-third of the federal workforce)
from the traditional civil service,14 joining the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Internal Revenue Service. The Securities
and Exchange Commission, NASA, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Gov-
ernment Accountability Office...