Merit 2.0: Factors in Merit-Based Recruitment, Promotion and Retention in the Public Sector
Jump to
The project
Merit is a principle that underpins public sector employment. In 2024, ANZSOG, the ACT Public Service, and the Public Service Research Group (PSRG) at University of New South Wales Canberra (UNSW) partnered in a 12-month research project analysing how merit is interpreted and applied in recruitment and retention in the public sector.
The research focused on three main areas:
1. How ‘merit’ is understood and operationalised in human resource (HR) systems and processes by selection panel members and employees,
2. How ‘merit’ can be reconceptualised to incorporate individual, group and team factors to ensure fairness and transparency, and
3. How HR recruitment processes can be reformed to address and mediate the inherent tension between competing demands, needs and priorities, while also being accepted as fair by staff.
Project links
Launch article: Merit 2.0: ANZSOG Research looks at how merit selection can meet the needs of today’s public service workforce
Stage 1 Report: Review of merit, merit protection frameworks and recruitment materials – Australian Capital Territory, Aotearoa New Zealand and Queensland (July 2024, forthcoming release)
Approach
The research was led by Associate Professor Sue Williamson and a research team which included Associate Professor James Connor, Dr Vanessa McDermott, Dr Catherine Deen, Dr Kelly Soderstrom, Dr Joe Ren at PSRG, UNSW Canberra, and Associate Professor Noelle Donnelly from Victoria University of Wellington.
Three case studies on ACT, Queensland and Aotearoa New Zealand were analysed in 2024, all of which recently reviewed their merit systems and/or guidance. Informed by peer reviewed literature, legislative analysis and 76 interviews, the research explores distinctive and innovative approaches to merit based on jurisdictions’ stated requirements.
Who is this research for?
This comparative cross-jurisdictional research has direct relevance to HR professionals, those tasked with workforce planning responsibilities and beyond.
Findings
Understandings of ‘merit’ are context dependent
Different legislative and regulatory frameworks influence how merit is understood and operationalised. There is a progressive evolution from individual to more collective understandings of merit. This is evidenced by a shift towards including ‘suitability’ and ‘fit’ in some legislative and administrative processes as well as emerging in practice. Defining and operationalising merit requires recognising inherent tensions at play (such as efficiency and diversity considerations). Normative concepts like merit, both as a principle and a process, are open to interpretation.
| QLD | ACT | Aotearoa NZ |
| Undergoing transformation including a suitability framework where suitability encompasses traditional Westminster merit traits but goes further by considering the candidate’s fit with the team and the organisation. | Adopts a more traditional Westminster approach influenced by historical practices, established routines, and tends to focus on skills, qualifications, and work experience, with potentially emerging evidence of a practitioner-led shift towards a more holistic approach. | Shifted from a focus on procedural justice to consideration of broader demographic ‘outcomes’ and workforce representativeness with an increased emphasis on meeting the needs of Māori and other ethnic and minority groups. |
Three thematic takeaways for practice
| 1. | Key features of a collective approach to merit | 1. ‘Suitability’: The merit principle is changing to also include notions of suitability, however this is sometimes misunderstood and applied inconsistently.
2. ‘Fit’: Fit’ is also an important consideration when assessing merit and/or suitability. ‘Fit can be used to make teams more diverse. However, assessing fit is subjective and can be vulnerable to biases and risks as it is based on an estimation of future work conduct based on assumptions about how people will ‘fit’. 3. ‘Potential’: is also considered regarding the ability to grow and potential for development in relation to the duties and responsibilities of a position. |
| 2. | Tensions to navigate | 1. Merit and diversity: Tensions exist between merit and diversity, stemming from different understandings and definitions of both. This can result in difficulties for selection panels in providing justifications for who they recruit.
2. Merit and efficiency: Tensions between merit and efficiency are evident, especially regarding time (i.e. recruitment processes can be very time-consuming). However, some of these are being addressed, such as the removal of selection criteria and using a two-page pitch. 3. Standardisation and flexibility: Tensions exist between the need for standardisation to ensure consistency and/or transparency, and the need for increased flexibility to enable effective implementation of diversity and inclusion objectives. This leads to a policy/implementation gap. |
| 3. | Change and innovation | 1. Integrating individual and collective understandings of merit entails a change process: Moving from the traditional Westminster ‘individual-focused’ and quantitative merit-based approach to a more collective and team-based approach that considers more than individual characteristics requires careful change management and planning.
2. ‘Innovative recruitment is emerging: Traditional Westminster merit processes like candidate shortlisting and panel interview are the norm, but new interview practices and alternative assessments, such as informal conversations (e.g., coffee chats) and culturally appropriate options (e.g. yarning circles), are being introduced. 3. ‘Continually improving merit processes: Efforts are needed to address information and knowledge asymmetry that exists (e.g. public sector jargon etc). Greater capacity and clarity about what can be used, when and why is needed to encourage innovation. Workplace planning has the potential to improve merit practices, with more resourcing and learning opportunities required for public services to do this well. |
Key actions to ensure recruitment and selection processes are meritorious, fair, efficient and promote diversity
What does this mean for practice?
The research provides a better understanding of respective merit-based approaches to inform practical guidance for government in the areas of workforce planning and development. More broadly, the research advances our understanding of how fundamental concepts like merit take on new meaning to reflect changing social circumstances.