Underground Merit Systems and the Balance Between Service and Compliance

• Author: Lorna Jorgensen,Kelli Fairless,W. David Patton
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X9601600202
• Date: 01 April 1996
• Published date: 01 April 1996
• Subject Matter: Articles

Underground Merit Systems
and the Balance Between Service
and Compliance
LORNA JORGENSEN, KELLI FAIRLESS
AND
W. DAVID PATTON
Current advocates of "reinvented" government call for more responsiveness to the needs of
customers. This is true for internal as well as external customers, including government
agencies seeking services from central personnel offices. Most states have adopted merit systems
as a way to ensure open and competitive hiring for governmental service. The numerous rules
and regulations that accompany these merit systems make the process of hiring qualified
individuals slow and cumbersome and do not always ensure that the most qualified individuals
are hired. This study of the state personnel system in Idaho reflects many of the problems that
have been discussed by scholars and practitioners alike since the inception of the merit system.
Agency officials are resolving these problems in an effort to be responsive to their customers by
finding ways to circumvent many merit system rules in what has been referred to as an
"underground" merit system.
Management theory today is those who administer merit systems
j~~t dominated by advocates of
JL V JL
within public organizations. As a conse-
flexible, decentralized, and
quence, a &dquo;nether world of public person-
responsive organizations, with personnel
nel administration&dquo; often exists to circum-
systems designed to accommodate them.
vent the formal, lethargic merit system
Although the logic and attraction of the
(Shafritz, 1974). Public managers often go
principle of responsiveness are strong, it
to an underground system where favors
can run into direct conflict with
between agency managers and personnel
longstanding merit principles. Ever since
operatives are made and loopholes in the
the reform movement of the late 1800s,
system are used to allow the manager to
personnel administrators have struggled
respond to client demands or agency
with the conflicting principles of respon-
needs to &dquo;get the job done.&dquo; As Shafritz
siveness to the public (and their elected
notes, public personnel managers are
officials) and compliance to merit rules
aware of the inadequacies of the formal
and standards. This conflict has resulted
system and often acquiesce to the
in continuous adjustments to the demands
manager’s wishes. Open and competitive
for responsiveness and compliance by
personnel practices are not always strictly
5

---

adhered to, and individuals not already
ing managers ... and often impeding fed-
employed by the agency might not have
eral managers and employees from
the equal employment opportunities that
achieving their missions and from giving
a merit system is supposed to guarantee.
the public a high quality of service&dquo; (OPM,
The research reported here demon-
1988: Forward).
strates how
public personnel practitioners
Today, the pendulum has swung
in a small state (Idaho) have responded
back to &dquo;efficiency and effectiveness&dquo; un-
to the pressures to meet merit rules and
der the call for responsiveness, and ac-
regulations while at the same time be re-
countability is being redefined. &dquo;To rein-
sponsive to the practical demands of both
vent HRM,
we
must redefine accountabil-
internal and external customers. As will
ity in terms of results-and we must do
be shown in the following discussion of
so within the context of decentralization,
the results of our research, personnel prac-
deregulation, simplicity, flexibility, and
titioners often conduct surreptitious ac-
substantially increased delegations of au-
tivities in order to balance the demands
thority.&dquo; (National Performance Review,
of compliance and responsiveness. This
1993: 4) A National Academy of Public
research contributes to the collection of
Administration report focuses on the ac-
studies examining the change in person-
complishment of mission (ends) through
nel administration in reaction to the &dquo;re-
bureaucratic discretion (means) in its de-
inventing government&dquo; movement and
sired definition of accountability.
particularly to the tenants of &dquo;customer-
driven&dquo; and &dquo;mission-driven&dquo;
The
govern-
means
for accountability focuses on
the
ment (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). Pub-
exercise of leadership and judgment
within broad guidelines, rather than on
lic personnel practitioners are faced with
detailed rules and procedures and prior
a change in the concept of accountability
controls
the new framework em-
as it relates to the performance of their
phasizes measuring accountability by:
responsibilities. The existing definition,
measuring accomplishment of mission,
which has been stable since 1883, defines
goals and objectives, assessing results,
e g., product and service quality and
accountability as &dquo;the product of limits
customer satisfaction, assessing public
on bureaucratic discretion-limits that
trust (customer satisfaction) and insti-
flow from clear rules (commands), and the
tutional health (e.g , employee morale,
formal procedures, monitoring and en-
attrition rates); and evaluating compli-
forcement that make them stick (controls)
ance with civil service laws, regulations
and policy (National Academy of Pub-
(Light, 1993:12).&dquo; This concept of limiting
hc Admimstratron, 1983. 18).
bureaucratic discretion through compli-
ance to rules and procedures was insti-
This change in the direction of ac-
tuted as part of the reform movement to
countability is a fundamental shift from
prevent abuses of power. As corruption
accountability to merit principles through
and abuse were discovered, new rules
compliance to the rules and procedures
were added to require managers in pub-
(a difficult and unpopular position) to
lic bureaucracies to adhere to merit prin-
accountability to the customers of person-
ciples. Eventually, &dquo;a maze of regulations
nel services, particularly public officials
and requirements was created hamstring-
responsible for completion of public mis-
6

---

sions. This shift is to be done &dquo;while ad-
appropriately to the complex needs of
hering to principles of merit, equity, and
agencies.
equal opportunity&dquo;; (National Perfor-
Ten years later, in 1947, the merit
mance
Review,1993: 4) a balance achieved
system was referred to as a &dquo;triumph of
informally (possibly clandestinely) by
technique over purpose&dquo; (Sayre, 1948)
personnel practitioners for many years.
where the rules and procedures of hiring
were more important than the purpose
PRINCIPLES OF
and desired results. A
system set up to
MERIT
SYSTEMS
protect the public had unintentionally
Hiring individuals for public service
become an overly rigid, seemingly imper-
based on their qualifications instead of
vious bureaucracy in which people had
political ties has a long history in the
to find ways to evade the rules in order to
United States, beginning in some local
meet their legitimate management and
governments even before the passage of
programmatic needs.
the Pendleton Act in 1883. Congress
It would appear that relatively little
passed the act to begin progress toward a
has changed since 1947 in many jurisdic-
system of merit selection and promotion
tions. The federal government, through
wherein: (1) positions would be filled
the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of
based on a candidate’s ability to do the
1978, attempted-through the public
job; (2) public employees could be fired
policy process-to repair some of the
only if their performance was inadequate;
problems noted by the critics of the inde-
and (3) promotions would be based on
pendent commission form of personnel
performance rather than political loyalties
management. Recent research has indi-
(Shick, Boyd and Bader, 1976: 1).
cated that even this attempt at reform has
A centralized personnel commis-
been by-and-large ineffective, and that a
sion for the federal government was
serious flaw was present in the policy
adopted a few years later to create a sys-
design-namely an inadequate linking of
tem that would regulate and implement
practical problems and theoretical solu-
merit policies. However, by 1937 critics
tions (Ingraham and White, 1988-89).
began emerging who questioned the ef-
Given the criticism of public personnel
fectiveness of this system for meeting the
systems and the many attempts to reform
complex needs of government managers
these systems at the state, local, and na-
(President’s Committee on Administrative
tional levels, one is left to question the
Management [PCAM], 1937). The
adequacy of the contemporary merit sys-
President’s Committee argued that the
tem in public personnel systems. Elliot
centralized independent personnel sys-
(1985) found that state employees are
tem was &dquo;cumbersome, slow, wasteful,
committed to the concept of a merit sys-
and ineffective&dquo; (PCAM,1937: 9) because
tem ; however, the practices that are cur-
the commissioners who
oversaw
the com-
rently being used to ensure merit inad-
mission worked part time only, had no
vertently might be creating a system that
time to become experts in personnel ad-
does not support merit concepts.
ministration, and were unable to respond
7

---

MERIT
PRACTICES
An
important principle of merit sys-
IN TROUBLE
tems is the assurance of open and com-
A
recent report on the federal personnel
petitive placement. For this to occur, ev-
system described the problems faced by
ery qualified person must have an equal
many public merit systems in the United
chance of attaining a position....