THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MERIT

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATION THEORY AND BEHAVIOR, 16 (4), 449-464

WINTER 2013

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MERIT: FROM VIRTUE TO RATIONALITY TO PRODUCTION Jonathan F. Anderson* ABSTRACT. The meaning of merit is complex and ambiguous. Originally defined as personal virtue, merit has evolved through scientific rationality into a measure of production, all the while retaining the nuance of moral virtue. The result of this “gospel of merit” is a framework where the value of a human being is derived from organizational performance rather than individual character. INTRODUCTION

“Merit - to deserve 1) Character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem; also: ACHIEVEMENT 2) To be worthy of or entitled or liable to: EARN, DESERVE” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). “…so great is the uncertainty of merit, both from its natural obscurity, and from the self-conceit of each individual, that no determinate rule of conduct would ever result from it; and the total dissolution of society must be the immediate consequence” David Hume (1748). An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (Section III: Of Justice Part I). “Merit” is central to the modern concept of Public Administration. It evokes images of fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. The U.S. Civil Service, beginning with the Pendleton Act of 1883, established merit-based hiring in the federal government. Through the intervening years and numerous reforms, the emphasis on merit has ---------------------------------------* Jonathan F. Anderson, Ph.D., is Professor of Public Administration at California State University San Bernardino. His teaching and research interests include democratic theory, epistemology and human resource management.

Copyright © 2013 by Pracademics Press

450

ANDERSON

prevailed (US Code 5 2301). The American Society for Public Administration (American Society for Public Administration, 2013) advocates public managers “support merit principles” to promote ethical organizations. While traditional views of the civil service see merit as an integral element (Mosher, 1968), contemporary critics have asserted the civil service system runs counter to merit (Rainey, 1979). This paper strives to deconstruct or “unpack” the concept of “merit” as it is used today. A variety of connotations of merit are presented, including merit as virtue, merit as deserving, merit as rationality and merit as skills. This is followed by an exploration of the evolution of the concept over time, beginning first with virtue, then as individual knowledge and skills, and more recently as organizational contributions. The argument is that the concept of merit as technical ability has become conflated with the older concept of merit as virtue, to the point where merit is now created and “owned” by organizations that calculate individual contributions to corporate success. Because of that conflation, those who contribute to organizational success are considered not simply more competent, but innately better human beings, more deserving of the good life than the less capable. This evolution is first explored in general, and then more specifically as applied to civil service employment where merit evaluation has primarily moved from human resource professionals to front line managers. The final section discusses social ramifications of this change in the meaning of merit. MEANINGS AND CONNOTATIONS OF MERIT

Like many abstract terms, merit is complex and ambiguous. Rather than a single clear definition, the meaning of merit is more an interlocking, overlapping and sometimes contradictory series of feelings involving virtue, deservingness, rationality and expertise. As a noun merit identifies “good” characteristics located within an individual. The Council of Trent in the 16th century defined merit as virtue, either individual or God given (Pohle, 2003). From this perspective merit consists of personal characteristics deserving praise, approval and/or spiritual credit for good works (Harper, 2001).

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MERIT: FROM VIRTUE TO RATIONALITY TO PRODUCTION

451

As a verb or adjective, merit is similar to “deserve.” The French word “merite” and Latin “meritum,” mean to deserve, earn; akin to Greek “meiresthai” to receive as one's portion. A meritorious person deserves esteem or honor because of good works, self sacrifice, integrity, courage or outstanding performance (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2012). To merit or deserve something derives from concepts of justice or fairness. American society tends to believe it is fair to be rewarded or punished for individual actions (see equity theory - Adams, 1963). Fairness or merit may result from concepts of equal treatment. Each person deserves their “fair share,” with fairness deriving simply from one’s humanity. Merit can also mean deserving of assistance because of an unequal situation. Because of poverty, suffering or tragic circumstances it may be believed a person merits or deserves help (Definitions.net, 2012). Others differentiate need and merit - as evidenced by educational financial aid which is categorized as need-based or meritbased. Some say the unequal condition itself deserves or merits assistance, while others believe that merit only derives if the unequal condition is beyond the individual’s control. For the latter, it is a violation of the merit principle to provide advantages for conditions individuals are assumed to be able to change. This category also includes debates about merit related to discrimination of a class of people and often hinges on whether discrimination still exists and whether past discrimination has a continuing institutional effect and should be compensated (Crosby and VanDeVeer, 2000; Lapenson, 2009). From these perspectives it is the situation or condition that is argued to merit compensation, rather than individual virtuous qualities, equal treatment or instrumental ends. Merit can also be an indicator of whether something “makes sense” or is logical or rational, as in the merits of a case or argument or proposal. From this perspective, the merit of an idea is based on internal logic or rationality within some system of values and linguistic rules (Sanderson, 2003; Sen, 2000). This perspective finds expression in scientific management where the “one best way” is “logically” the most efficient way to achieve managerial goals. A rational argument “has merit.” In human resource management merit tends to mean possession of technical skills. Hiring by merit means selection based on

452

ANDERSON

possession of specific individual knowledge skills and abilities identified as needed for a particular job classification. This concept of the merit system is framed in U.S. law (Legal Information Institute, US Code). In conclusion, merit can mean virtuous, deserving or skilled. While a person can “merit” either reward or punishment for good or bad actions, meritorious actions are understood to be virtuous. These overlapping constructs of “deserving,” “virtuous” and “skilled” sometimes merge in contemporary understanding and usage. This paper does not address the concept of merit based on unequal condition, but rather focuses on merit applied to public employment. THE SOCIAL VALUE OF MERIT

Society values merit because of its contributions to the economy (e.g. merit-as-technical-skill) or because of a perceived social benefit. Classical economic theory asserts society benefits the most when resources are allocated to those who make the most efficient use of them. The free market system is understood to allocate resources to individuals who use them to produce goods more efficiently and therefore more successfully. From this perspective society is understood to benefit from individuals’ increasing productivity. Individual talent and productivity should lead to that individual’s financial success, while at the same time efficiently allocating society’s resources, thus benefiting society as a whole (American Economic Association, 1968). If a person contributes to the economic well being of society, they deserve or merit their reward. Consequently, by this logic, to hire someone on the basis of their “merit” (technical skill resulting in economic productivity) benefits both the organization and society and is, therefore, meritorious. Society also receives benefits from individuals’ “virtuous” behavior. Societies value the qualities of integrity, generosity and self sacrifice (sometimes called honor). These virtuous (or meritorious) characteristics provide society with inspiration, sustainability and sometimes political or economic benefits. Rewards commonly come in the form of ceremonial recognitions like medals of honor, citizenship prizes or honorary doctorates. Virtuous personal qualities are deemed to deserve the esteem and respect of society (Pojman, 1999).


453

Thus, society values two different constructions of merit; technical skill and virtuous character. In current usage, however, these two meanings have merged to the point where technical expertise is understood by many as virtue. TECHNICAL SKILL AS VIRTUE

Following this logic, technical skill is associated with personal virtue because 1) technical skill results in economic success, 2) economic success is an outward sign of virtue and 3) transitively technical skill is a sign of virtue or personal goodness. Therefore, society should reward such skill both because it is beneficial and also because it is a sign of goodness. The concept of technical skill as virtue evolved from the protestant reformation and Calvinist doctrine which viewed secular success as God’s mark of blessing on predestined individuals. In 1905 Max Weber articulated this doctrine in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber (1976) described how the concept of a work “ethic” arose, whereby work, itself, became virtuous. A good person is one who works hard, and hard work is expected to result in success. Wealth is understood to be God’s blessing for the hard worker, and poverty God’s curse for the undeserving. Wealth and personal virtue are consequently linked to merit. The successful person is meritorious by definition. Their success is the result of their merit. Anyone with enough will or drive can succeed. “Drive” or “will” is virtuous and voluntary. An individual chooses effort or sloth. It is a choice between good and evil, reflecting inner character. This is an oversimplification of Weber’s work, (for more substantive discussion see Green, 1959; Gordon, 1982; Luttwak, 1999; Swatos, 2005) but the essence, for our purpose, is the connection between spiritual virtue and worldly success. Technical skill under the free enterprise formula is understood to lead to economic success, and individual economic success is assumed to benefit everyone because it derives from the efficient allocation of resources. The Civil Service system in the United States was founded on this understanding of technical merit.

454

ANDERSON

CIVIL SERVICE

In this section the evolution of the concept of merit in government employment is reviewed and contemporary portrayals are presented. Nineteenth century government in the United States was staffed by party loyalists in what was often called the “spoils” system (Powers, 1888). Despite continual criticism, Congress, which benefited from patronage, resisted reform until the assassination of President Garfield in 1881. The 1883 Civil Service Act institutionalized the desire for a government based on technical merit rather than political identity and marked the beginning of the evolution of merit from personal virtue to rationality. The Pendleton Act, Section 2 lays out the basic elements of the merit system: “And, among other things, said rules shall provide and declare, as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant, as follows: First, for open, competitive examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service now classified or to be classified here- under. Such examinations shall be practical in their character, and so far as may be shall relate to those matters which will fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the persons examined to discharge the duties of the service into which they seek to be appointed. Second, that all the offices, places, and employments so arranged or to be arranged in classes shall be filled by selections according to grade from among those graded highest as the results of such competitive examinations” (Ourdocuments.gov, 2012). Under the civil service system job applicants took examinations to determine their “merit” to perform a job. These examinations initially focused on general knowledge, but subsequently became more occupation focused. Human resource professionals analyzed jobs and created tests to evaluate the ability to perform job tasks. The “scientific method” was used to identify abilities required for a task and to measure the existence of those abilities in applicants (Herrnstein, 1971). The applicant who tested highest possessed the most merit and received the job. In the ideal civil service system there is a consistent connection between hiring, compensation and evaluation. The job analysis identifies the skill set (or merit) requirements of the job. Those requirements are specified in the position description which is used


455

for hiring. Applicants are tested for their ability to perform the skill set, and the employee is compensated and evaluated on their ability to carry out those specified requirements. Their performance is their merit. Public Administration texts reify this construction of merit. “Civil Service is founded on the merit system, whereby positions are assigned on the basis of open, competitive examinations …and candidates are evaluated and ranked in relationship to particular task requirements of a specific job” (Stillman, 1996, p. 197). “The merit principle, though widely varied in its application, generally means that selection and treatment of government employees should be based on merit or competence rather than on personal or political favoritism” (Denhardt & Grubbs, 2003, p. 210). “At the heart of the (merit) system was the requirement that those who wanted government jobs would have to participate in an impartial and open examination process. In addition the civil service was to be politically neutral and able to serve any party in power” Cooper, 1998, p. 264). The employee is evaluated based on the merit characteristics for which they were hired. Fairness requires compensating individuals equally for equal work and awarding higher compensation for greater abilities (or merit). This involves creation of a matrix identifying the skill sets required for each job and arranging them in increasing levels of skill/knowledge requirements (pay grades). Higher abilities merit higher wages. Job classification systems are created to identify job skills required for a position to ensure equity in compensation across organizations (OPM, 2009) MEASURING MERIT

The construct of merit as “virtue” is inherently located in an individual and their actions. Likewise, the civil service merit system presumes that performance is an individual phenomenon. Productivity is the result of individual effort. If a person works hard enough to produce X units per day, they contribute X units to the organization each day, and when they are absent, the organization produces X fewer units. Productivity is assumed to be individual, mechanistic and discrete. Individual production, therefore, is an indicator of individual merit. Under these assumptions, hiring the “best” person is a function of measuring their individual ability to

456

ANDERSON

produce, and the employer’s challenge is to develop tests to accurately measure an applicants’ production potential and subsequently their production value added. Beginning in the 1890s the federal civil service administered written examinations were based on general knowledge (Ban & Ingraham, 1988). The assumption was that examinations measured intelligence, and more intelligent people could do any job better than less intelligent people (Herrnstein, 1971). Intelligence and merit were synonymous. A variety of examinations such as the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE) were the tools for measuring merit. General intelligence examinations were challenged, however, for their potentially discriminatory nature. The federal government mostly eliminated them in 1978 after Griggs v Duke Power mandated that all examinations must have a direct connection to job tasks (Ban & Ingraham, 1988, p. 715). The PACE exam embodied a clear staffing philosophy: entrylevel hiring for a wide range of positions should be based on broad, general skills. Individuals were being selected not just for a specific position but based on their long-term potential for careers in the civil service. Indeed, those hired through PACE were frequently promoted, within a few years, up into the ranks of middle management. The methods with which PACE has been replaced are characterized by the opposite approach: selection methods should be narrowly focused on the requirements of the specific position. With this transition, “merit” in the federal civil service changed. Rather than merit on the basis of general intelligence, it was now based on possession of specific job skills. Human resource specialists began creating “valid,” “scientific” measures of the skills (merit) required for each job category within the classification scheme. There was still testing, but it was for job skills rather than for general education or potential (OPM, 2012). More recent trends to value “soft skills” or emotional intelligence resulted in creation of “valid” tests to measure those abilities (e.g. Organizational CourageKilmann, O’Hara, & Strauss, 2010). Although “merit” evolved from general intelligence to job specific tests, even job specific testing began to be criticized when it was


457

conducted by HR Departments. Merit, it was argued, cannot be identified by centralized personnel specialists who are removed from the actual worksite. Evaluation of job-fit by direct supervisors was argued to be more effective than “scientific” testing carried out by human resource managers, which was criticized as abstract, out of touch and not realistic (Walters, 2002; Olson, 1997). The call to “run government like a business” began to grow in the 1970s and 80s with the concept of the New Public Management (Gruening, 2001) and later with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. An increased focus on measurement of results within an organization moved naturally to evaluation of individuals and their contributions to those results. A 1981 GAO report (Godwin & Needham, p. 236) noted “…rigid civil service laws and regulations deny managers the flexibility they need to use their staffs effectively. Constraints on their ability to pay, promote, remove and assign their employees prevent optimum use of human resources to achieve program goals.” Consequently, merit no longer existed in individuals apart from the context of their position. It was a function of an individual’s capacity to contribute to organizational ends. The concept of a merit system had initially been a way to remove political influence from government employment. A central human resource management function was to evaluate skills scientifically and to hire on that basis. Yet the neutral focus of a central HR system was seen as an impediment to production based efficiency. Where HR managers address a variety of public interest priorities, front line managers focus on the efficiency of production. Under such an onslaught from multiple philosophical perspectives, civil service testing has rapidly receded. Currently few government jobs require written examinations. At the state level, Georgia, Florida, New York, Texas and Louisiana are among the states involved in limiting or totally scrapping their civil service systems (Battaglio and Condrey, 2006; Kellogh & Nigro, 2006). In 2003 the newly created Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and the National Security Personnel System were given exemption from large parts of civil service system requirements including broad license to hire and fire employees and to set employee compensation virtually without legislated restrictions or constraints (Brook & King, 2008). As HR based performance tests are required less and less, more power is concentrated in the hands

458

ANDERSON

of front line managers. Gossett (2002, p. 95) comments that the traditional civil service system “now seems to many a quaint but definitely outdated approach to staffing government.” The concept of merit was also buffeted by the concept of “merit pay” or merit bonuses connected to specific job performance measures. Through this evolution, merit evolved from an individual characteristic to a measure of contribution to particular organizational ends, and direct supervisors, rather than HR professionals are the ones able to measure this contribution. SOCIAL RAMIFICTIONS OF THE INSTRUMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY MODEL

The concept of merit as deserving reward, esteem and respect for context-specific production has significant social consequences. While the construct of merit evolved from individual talent to economic success, it has often retained the nuance of merit as virtue. A language game in the Wittgensteinian sense is a context where certain rules of language meaning are accepted by participants (Biletzki & Matar, 2011). In an earlier time merit was understood as personal virtue. Within a certain religious language game, merit was a sign of God’s approval. An intersection of these language games, or meaning rules, has preserved the sacred meaning of God’s blessing while the practical measure has evolved into instrumental rationality. This is a step beyond Weber’s Protestant Ethic model. God’s blessing is not simply defined by economic success, but by corporate success. It simply cannot be measured outside the organization. The production value of an individual merges with the religious. Because of the moral connotations, the individual is not just rewarded, but honored, for their contributions to the effectiveness of the organization. Woodard (2005, p. 109) concludes that while merit “traditionally served as the foundation of public human resources management…Today the concept is more closely associated with compensation than with values that drive behavior.” The “merit of virtue” has been transformed into the “virtue of merit.” Rand (1957, 1968) and Nietzsche (Nietzsche & Kaufmann, 1966) argued that high performers are more worthy of reward, more worthy of success and more worthy of the “good life.” Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, in part, because he saw religious values as counter to worldly performance. However, the Calvinistic model of merit merges performance and virtue, allowing advocacy of religion


459

without the flaws criticized by Nietzsche. In the current evolution, religious and production values have merged into a gospel of merit. Contributions to the organization become morally virtuous and instrumental rationality more acceptable when combined with divine blessing. The strong and successful are deserving. There is virtue in selfishness (Rand & Branden, 1964). Might does make right. John Galt (Rand) and Superman (Nietzsche) have merged with Bunyan’s Christian (Bunyan, 1909). Michael Young (1959) coined the term “meritocracy,” or rule by those with merit, in a satirical novel criticizing the concept. In a 2001 retrospective, that strongly resonates in current political discourse, Young (2001, p. 17) commented on how this impacted society. - The business meritocracy is in vogue. If meritocrats believe, as more and more of them are encouraged to, that their advancement comes from their own merits, they can feel they deserve whatever they can get. - They can be insufferably smug, much more so than the people who knew they had achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as somebody's son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers can actually believe they have morality on their side. - So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited. - Salaries and fees have shot up. Generous share option schemes have proliferated. Top bonuses and golden handshakes have multiplied. - As a result, general inequality has been becoming more grievous with every year that passes. Those who are successful deserve their success and the poor deserve their failure. And this merit is not just economic, it is virtue itself. The merit system was originally created to promote equitable and unbiased employment. Under the current paradigm the power to define what is good is located in the organizational context, and it shifts the construction of virtue from social to organizational ends.

460

ANDERSON

Power to identify what is meritorious, virtuous and valued becomes the property of the organization. The transfer of power from the individual to the organization was portrayed by Hummel (1977) as dehumanization resulting from repression of individual id, ego and super-ego. Individuals must suppress personal feelings, follow organizational policy rather than personal expertise, and adopt organizational values. The resulting “dehumanization” is buttressed by being a function of merit. The “Organization Man” (Whyte, 1956) has returned, triumphant. Recent legal debates about organizations as persons parallel and complement this transition of human value (merit) from the individual to the corporation. CONCLUSION

The concept of merit originated with the virtue of the individual. The Enlightenment rationalized merit into something scientifically measured to accomplish worldly ends. The U.S. Civil Service system – often referred to as the Merit System – initially measured merit by general examinations of knowledge, with attention to equity and public service values, but gradually has transferred to frontline managers the power to judge “merit.” Production has become the measure of the public interest. While abandoning the public service construction of merit in favor of an instrumental definition, the construct preserves the underpinnings of moral virtue. The result of this gospel of merit is a civil service framework where society has given up ownership of the concept of merit. Virtue, value and worth are derived not from social contributions to the common good, but from organizational performance. Organizational success is the definition of virtue. To argue otherwise is unjust, unfair, un-American and perhaps… even sinful. REFERENCES

Adams, J.S., (1963). “Toward an Understanding of Inequity.” Journal of Social Psychology, 67: 422–436. American Economics Association, (1968). Surveys of Economic Theory: Volume 3: Resource Allocation. London: MacMillan.


461

American Society for Public Administration. (2013). “ASPA Code of Ethics.” [Online]. Available at www.aspanet.org/public/ ASPADocs/ASPA%20Code%20of%20Ethics2013%20with%20Practices.pdf. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. Ban, C. (2005). “The Changing Role of the Human Resource Office.” In S.E. Condrey and J.L. Perry (Eds.), Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government (pp. 17-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ban, C., & Ingraham, P. W. (1988). “Retaining Quality Federal Employees: Life After PACE.” Public Administration Review, 48(3): 708-718. Battaglio, R. P., & Condrey, S. E. (2006). “Civil Service Reform Examining State and Local Government Cases.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26(2): 118-138. Biletzki, A., & Matar, (2009). A., "Ludwig Wittgenstein." In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [Online]. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. Brook, D. A., & King, C. L. (2008). “Federal Personnel ManagementReform: From Civil Service Reform Act to National Security Reforms.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(3): 205-221. Bunyan, J., & Walton, I. (1909). Pilgrim's progress. New York: P.F. Collier & son. Cooper, P. J. (1998). Public administration for the twenty-first century. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Crosby, F. J., & VanDeVeer, C. (2000). Sex, Race and Merit: Debating Affirmative Action in Education and Employment. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Definitions.net (2012). [Online]. Available at www.definitions.net/ definition/merit. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. Denhardt, R. B., & Grubbs, J. W. (2003). Public Administration : An Action Orientation (4th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning. [Online]. Available at www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy032/ 2002107773.html. [Retrieved January 2, 2014].

462

ANDERSON

Godwin, P., & Needham, J (1981). “Reforming Reform-- Challenging the Assumptions for Improving Public Employees Performance. Public Personnel Management Journal, 10(2): 233-243. Gordon, M. (1982). In Search of the Spirit of Capitalism: An Essay on Max Weber’s Protestant Ethic thesis. London, UK: Hutchinson. Gossett, C. W. (2002). “Civil Service Reform.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22(2): 94. Green, R. W. (1959). Protestantism and Capitalism: the Weber Thesis and its Critics. Boston, MA: Heath. Gruening, G. (2001). “Origin and Theoretical Basis of New Public Management.” International Public Management Journal, 4 (1): 1–25. Harper, D. (2001). Merit, Online Etymology Dictionary. [Online]. Available at www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=merit& searchmode=none. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. Herrnstein, R. (1971, September). “I.Q.” The Atlantic Monthly: 43-64. Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. [Online]. Available at www.gutenberg.org/files/4320/4320h/4320-h.htm. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. Hummel, R. P. (1977). The Bureaucratic Experience. New York: St. Martin's Press. Kellogh, J. E., & Nigro, L. G. (2006). Civil Service Reform in the States: Personnel Policy and Politics at the Subnational Level. New York: State University of New York Press. Kilmann, R. H., O’Hara, L. A., & Strauss, J. P. (2010). “Developing and Validating a Quantitative Measure of Organizational Courage.” Journal of Business Psychology, 25(3): 15–23. Lapenson, B.P. (2009). Affirmative Action and the Meanings of Merit. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Legal Information Institute US Code, Title 5, 2301. Merit System Principles. [Online]. Available at www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ text/5/2301. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. Luttwak, E. (1999). Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy. New York: Harper-Collins.


463

Merriam-Webster (2012). [Online]. Available at http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/merit. [January 2, 2014]. Mosher, F. C. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press. Nietzsche, F. W. (1966). Beyond Good and Evil; Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. New York: Vintage Books. Olson, W. (1997). “Fixing the Civil Service Mess.” City Journal, 7:4. [Online]. Available at http://www.city-journal.org/html/ 7_4_fixing.html. [January 2, 2014]. OPM – Office of Personnel Management (2012). Attracting the Best Talent Assessment. [Online] Available at www.opm.gov/hr/ employ/products/assessments/validation.asp. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. OPM – Office of Personnel Management (2009). Introduction to the Position Classification Standards. [Online]. Available at http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/gsintro.pdf. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. Our documents.gov. (2012). Transcript of Pendleton Act (1883). [Online]. Available at http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php? doc=48. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. Pohle, J. (2003). Merit, Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X. [Online]. Available at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm. [Retrieved January 2, 2014]. Pojman, L. (1999). “Merit: Why Do We Value It?” Journal of Social Philosophy, 30(1): 83-102. Powers, F. P. (1888). “The Reform of the Federal Service.” Political Science Quarterly, 3(2): 247-281. Rainey, H. G. (1979). “Perceptions of Incentives in Business and Government: Implications for Civil Service Reform.” Public Administration Review, 39 (5): 440-448. Rand, A. (1957). Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House. Rand, A. (1968). The Fountainhead (25th Anniversary ed.). Indianapolis, MD: Bobbs-Merrill.

464

ANDERSON

Rand, A., & Branden, N. (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness, A New Concept Of Egoism. New York: New American Library. Sanderson, I. (2003). “Is It ‘What Works’ That Matters? Evaluation and Evidence-Based Policy-Making.” Research Papers in Education, 18(4): 331-345. Sen, A. (2000). “Merit and Justice.” In K. Arrow, S. Bowles, and S. Durlauf (Eds.), Meritocracy and Economic Inequality (1st ed.) (pp. 5-16). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stillman, R. J. (1996). Public Administration: Concepts and Cases (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Swatos, W. H., & Kaelber, L. (2005). The Protestant Ethic Turns 100: Essays on the Centenary of the Weber Thesis. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Walters, J. (2002). Life after Civil Service Reform: The Texas, Georgia and Florida Experiences. Arlington, VA: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government. Weber, M. (1976). The protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner. Whyte, W. H. (1956). The Organization Man. New York: Simon and Schuster. Woodard, C. A. (2005). “Merit by Any Other Name—Reframing the Civil Service First Principle.” Public Administration Review, 65(1): 109116. Young, M. (2001, Jun 29). “Comment & Analysis: Down with Meritocracy: The Man Who Coined the Word Four Decades Ago Wishes Tony Blair Would Stop Using It.” The Guardian, 17. Young, M. D. (1959). The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870-2033; The New Elite of our Social Revolution. New York: Random House.