Merit-Based Decision-Making in the Federal Personnel System
Graduate Discussion Rubric
Overview
Your active participation in the discussions is essential to your overall success this term. Discussion questions will help you make meaningful connections between the course content and the larger concepts of the course. These discussions give you a chance to express your own thoughts, ask questions, and gain insight from your peers and instructor.
Directions
For each discussion, you must create one initial post and follow up with at least two response posts.
For your initial post, do the following:
Write a post of 1 to 2 paragraphs.
Consider content from other parts of the course where appropriate. Use proper citation methods for your discipline when referencing scholarly or popular sources.
Merit-Based Decision-Making in the Federal Personnel System
Name of the Student
Institution Affiliation
Course Name
Professor’s Name
Date
Merit-Based Decision-Making in the Federal Personnel System
Introduction
Merit-based decision-making prioritizes skills over politics in the U.S. federal personnel system. This civil service structure ensures equitable appointments, promotions, and other employment choices. Current disputes challenge whether excessive merit-based model adherence has caused bureaucratic inefficiencies. Change advocates offer private-sector approaches in the public sector. This discussion examines the advantages and disadvantages of merit-based decision-making in the federal personnel system to understand the balance between meritocracy and bureaucratic response in the U.S. government by studying these interactions.
The merit-based concept underpins the civil service system, promoting fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness in the government workforce. It aims to create a dedicated and skilled public service by selecting and promoting personnel based on their qualifications, skills, and talents. The merit-based federal personnel system has evolved. Its administrative role has evolved into a strategic one (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013). This evolution reflects