Perhaps the most repeated message at the recent ASPA national conference, in the face of attacks on the civil service by the Trump administration, was the importance of merit-based employment.

On the final day of this five-day event, I moderated a panel of US experts on “Keeping Public Servants and Protecting Merit in Public Service”. The panellists were a former ASPA president and author of a widely read manual on public sector human resources management (Mary Ellen Guy), a former editor of top journal Public Administration Review, current editor of the Asia Pacific Journal on Public Administration and pioneer of research on public service motivation (Jim Perry), and the current editor of the Review of Public Personnel Administration (Meghna Sabharwal).

All highlighted the central role of merit to deliver competent government administration. It took 50 years for the US to rid itself of President Andrew Jackson’s spoils system and to establish the 1883 Pendleton Act (drawing on the 1854 Northcote Trevelyan report that formed the basis for “Westminster” civil services). This established the merit principle for public service employment.

Three components of the merit principle were highlighted: merit-based appointment processes, merit-based promotion processes and job security. Political neutrality complemented merit in line with (later president) Woodrow Wilson’s influential 1887 essay on the separation of politics and administration.

The panel acknowledged that the concept of merit has evolved and, to some extent, reflects the context in which it is applied. It is now widely accepted, Trump notwithstanding, that diversity and merit are not mutually exclusive, and that measures to improve equal employment opportunities enhance the talent pool and organisational capability. Emotional intelligence and other leadership-related competencies are also now included in the criteria for merit-based appointments and promotions, especially to senior positions, and cultural competencies are often highly relevant.

Of concern, despite these trends, is the winding back even before Trump of some HRM training in the US, including in some Master of Public Administration curricula. (One of the strengths of the US system is the widespread expectation that senior civil servants at all levels of government hold MPAs, these being subject to a national accreditation system. Another is the amount of research conducted into public administration.)

Along with the continuing importance of merit, the need to be responsive to the elected government was acknowledged. An article in the most recent issue of ROPPA, however, describes how the first Trump administration tried to wind back the Pendleton Act protections of the civil service that had been consolidated over the subsequent century and more, leading to a “fragility of merit” that is now so clear. The article also emphasises the “measure of independence” that must be maintained. (The author, Ed Kellough, was to be on the panel but sickness prevented his participation.)

I have often referred similarly to the “degree of independence” — not total independence — implied by the APS Values and Employment Principles, including merit. In the US, this is reflected in the oath civil servants must take to “uphold the Constitution”, incorporating obligations not only to the president but also to Congress, the rule of law and service to the American people. The APS is similarly required to “serve the government, the Parliament and the Australian people” (s3 of the Public Service Act).

Getting the balance right requires clarification of the boundaries between the merit-based civil service and political appointees, and ensuring the mutual respect and trust that is critical to productive partnerships. Of particular concern to my US panellists was the failure of Congress to properly scrutinise Trump’s nominations for political office, which did not augur well for proper accountability of those appointees or for building partnerships with competent administrators.

I also drew attention to the absence of any clear civil service leadership in the US. There is no equivalent of the APS commissioner (or career departmental secretaries): the Office of Personnel Management director is a political appointee (rather like the minister assisting the prime minister for the public service) but there is no deputy or other leader of the senior executive service in the US civil service.

Also, much of the authority of the OPM shifted to the Office of Management and the Budget under Trump’s first presidency; in his second presidency, Trump has already not only reversed Biden’s restrengthening of OPM but decimated its role in protecting merit and given OMB (and Elon Musk’s DOGE) primary control of the civil service.

Failure to properly manage and protect the merit principle is not just threatening competent administration and a return to the spoils system, but could facilitate “administrative evil”. We have, of course, seen that in Australia with Robodebt, a case about which the US panellists are fully aware.

The ignorance of some business executives working in government about the importance of the merit principle in the absence of market forces was also discussed. Applying a chainsaw to X [formerly Twitter] may not cause lasting damage, and may indeed lead to efficiencies and new innovations, with market forces eventually shaping final outcomes. That is simply not the situation where the public sector is not subject to market disciplines: there, it is the merit principle that drives competence and, properly managed, supports efficiency and innovation. (Proper management should include speeding up the appointment process and acting firmly to address poor performance – two issues critics legitimately raise in the US, and Australia.)

Two scenarios for the future were presented by the panel. The pessimistic one is of a continuing downward spiral that will take decades to repair, similar to the 50 years between president Jackson and the Pendleton Act. The optimistic one is of the resilience of American institutions and an eventual bounce back, supported by academic institutions and the continuing efforts of street-level bureaucrats (including at state and local government levels).

Consistent with the latter scenario is the continuing role of public service motivation in attracting talent, particularly in specialist agencies and at state and local levels. At best, it will take time, but eventually people will surely recognise that no one gets increased productivity by just firing people.

Lessons for Australia

Beyond the possible lessons about protecting the institution that is the public service which I mentioned in my earlier article, there are a number of specific lessons for Australia from the ASPA conference discussions about merit.

First and foremost is the central importance of merit. It is the original focus of Northcote Trevelyan and of the Pendleton Act in the US and it remains the key distinctive factor defining the public service. We made a bad mistake in 2013 in dropping it from the APS Values and mentioning it only in the APS Employment Principles (and even then not as the central principle). We have also, in recent years, downgraded the role of the Merit Protection Commissioner within the APSC. And, despite some recent and welcome developments, we have, since the mid-1980s, allowed the Finance Department rather than the APSC to play the dominant role in public service management (akin to the US shifting authority from OPM to OMB).

Second, is recognition that the merit principle is about tenure as well as the processes for appointment and promotion. Trump’s desire to shift to “at will” employment arrangements is a fundamental attack on the merit principle. We need to revisit the employment arrangements for departmental secretaries, not just strengthening the processes for appointments and terminations to ensure merit considerations dominate, but also reinstating tenure. Not a right to stay in a particular job, but a requirement that where a secretary is displaced, every reasonable step will be taken to find an alternative position unless the secretary’s performance is in question.

Third, is confirmation of the important role of the APS commissioner as the professional head of the public service. The US does not have such a position. We need to keep it and strengthen it, including by making the appointment subject to consultation with the Opposition leader to ensure its neutrality.