Posts Tagged ‘Kettl commentary’
Reply to Kettl: Scholarly interest in public service hasn’t wavered, but the vocabulary has changed
Kathryn Newcomer responds to Don Kettl’s commentary The Merit Principle In Crisis: Framing questions to address in any area of research or evaluation is the first, and most critical step. We live in an era of evidence-based policy, and the evidence that is offered to inform decision makers will only be deemed useful if the questions raised are on target. For those of us who are committed to improving the quality of democratic governance, we must carefully consider which questions to address and determine what evidence will convince the targeted audiences.
Don Kettl has raised a number of important questions, and I agree with many of his points, but I suggest we focus our scholarly attention on one fundamental question: How should government agencies plan for, recruit and develop the workforce they need to accomplish the mission-driven objectives that are democratically established for them? Read the rest of this entry »
Reply to Kettl: Yes, the system has failed
Neil Bradley responds to Don Kettl’s commentary The Merit Principle in Crisis: Don Kettl raises a series of five interesting questions. Yet, only two of them are relevant to issue of preserving (or creating) a merit-based civil service system.
Kettl’s second question, “whether cutting the number of government employees would really help cut the size of government,” is irrelevant. Whatever the size of government we need a well-functioning civil service. Any answer to Kettl’s third question, “Have government employees simply become the easiest target for government bashers?” would tell us very little about whether the current civil service system works properly. His fifth and final question – “How does the role of people in government bureaucracy shape the role of government in society?” – is an important philosophical discussion, but again it tells us little about how to effectuate merit-based civil service.
This leave us with two pertinent questions. Read the rest of this entry »
Reply to Kettl: Today’s merit system is obsolete
Ron Sanders replies to Don Kettl’s commentary, The merit principle in crisis: With all due respect to my good friend and colleague, Don Kettl, I take exception to his initial premise. I do not believe that the merit principle(s) which ground the American civil service are under attack. Those principles—which include such axioms as appointment based on qualifications and competence, non-discrimination in all aspects of employment, and due process for termination—are enduring and hard to dispute. Indeed, I doubt that even the most vocal bureaucrat basher would argue that government employment should be based on political patronage or family ties, or that those that hire civil servants should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or sex or age.
Thus, I would contend that it is not the lofty merit principles that are under attack. Rather, I believe that it is the way those principles have been operationalized—that is, today’s merit system—that is under attack…and in my humble opinion, deservedly so. That system, with its roots planted firmly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has become far too rule-bound and rigid, ossified and obsolete, with layer upon layer of procedure and process supplanting good judgment. Read the rest of this entry »
Reply to Kettl: It’s the merit system that is in crisis, not the principle
Patricia Ingraham responds to Don Kettl’s commentary, The merit principle in crisis: Don Kettl has raised critical and timely points about the state of merit in the federal bureaucracy. I agree with much of his argument, but additional discussion is warranted.
First, Professor Kettl argues that the merit principle is under attack. Although attacks on merit are frequently of the blunt instrument variety, I would argue that it is the merit system that attracts the venom and not the merit principle. The principle is quite straightforward: fair and equitable hiring of federal civil servants, who will be experts in the requisite field, and who will deliver government services in a fair and impartial way. It is value based in that it reflects values inherent in a democratic system and prizes public service. Read the rest of this entry »
Reply to Kettl: It isn’t just conservatives who are frustrated with the status quo
Jeffrey Straussman replies to Don Kettl’s commentary, The Merit Principle in Crisis: I agree with Don Kettl that academics have been, for the most part, silent about the civil service for quite some time. I also agree that Don brings up a sore point when he notes that human resources management—what used to be called public personnel administration decades ago—is simply not very present in policy schools for the reasons he cites. I recall very vividly when the public policy schools were created and the academic entrepreneurs who created these schools were very explicit about their disdain for old style public administration. So, as Don implies, they were quite successful in pushing public personnel administration to the margins of public policy—at least when it comes to the study of this subject. But, why let retired senior civil servants off the hook? Shouldn’t there be more commentary and defense of the civil service and the merit principle, in particular, from them?
Reply to Kettl: Congress could make it worse
Max Stier responds to Don Kettl’s commentary, The Merit Principle in Crisis: Professor Kettl offers a thoughtful and thought-provoking assessment of the state of the public service. I agree with his fundamental propositions that our federal civil service system is in crisis and the academic community has largely been missing in action during this existential moment. We need to confront these issues now and answer his and other vital questions.
Professor Kettl’s fourth question — what kind of civil service system do we need given our current challenges as a nation — is a good and timely starting place. Congress is on track to make some very bad changes in this area and to leave other, already existing, bad rules to fester, so that they continue to undermine our government’s capabilities and the public’s trust in government’s ability to address critical problems. The Partnership for Public Service has worked for two years to develop a vision for change, which is set out in our report, Building the Enterprise: A New Civil Service Framework. (Link to the report) We are neither complete nor likely right in all respects, making this is a subject worthy of substantial further exploration. I hope your readers will enter the fray and help steer the conversation in a more constructive and productive direction.
Max Stier is President and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service.
Video of Don Kettl lecture on “The Merit Principle in Crisis”
Written by Governance
October 6, 2015 at 1:56 pm
Posted in commentary
Tagged with Kettl commentary