# Merit in the Civil Service Notes on evolving debates around merit, meritocracy, diversity, and the criteria used to select and promote public servants. ## Entries **[[2025-04-24]]**: The _[[Paper Ceiling]]_ refers to the invisible barrier that prevents people without a college degree from accessing many good jobs, even when they have the skills and experience to succeed. These barriers include degree requirements in job postings, hiring software that filters out non-degreed candidates, and limited access to professional networks. The _[Tear the Paper Ceiling](https://www.tearthepaperceiling.org/)_ campaign, led by [Opportunity@Work](https://www.opportunityatwork.org/), raises awareness about this issue and promotes hiring practices based on skills, not credentials. By doing so, the campaign aims to expand access to better jobs for STARs—workers Skilled Through Alternative Routes—and supports broader goals of diversity and inclusion, especially in public sector hiring. **[[2025-04-18]]**: [A _Times_ article](https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/theres-one-war-labour-is-ready-to-fight-3pksgckpk) reported growing frustration within the UK Labour government over civil service inertia and resistance to reform. In parallel with plans to cut administrative structures and reduce the number of quangos, pressure has increased to expand the role of political appointees. In this context, a proposal emerged to replace the **Fast Stream** (the UK civil service’s main graduate entry programme) with a **social mobility scheme**, aiming to make the service less elitist and more socially diverse. In response, **Alex Thomas** and **Teodor Grama** from the _Institute for Government_ [published a commentary defending the Fast Stream](https://conservativehome.com/2025/04/16/alex-thomas-and-teodor-grama-the-civil-service-fast-streams-class-problem-is-real-but-scrapping-the-scheme-is-not-the-answer/), while acknowledging its shortcomings. Their ongoing research shows that the programme has a significant class gap: applicants from higher socio-economic backgrounds succeed at twice the rate of those from lower backgrounds. The authors propose reforms to the application process, including shorter timelines, more relevant skill assessments, and regional tracks to reduce the London bias, but argue that scrapping the programme would waste a strong brand associated with public service. **[[2025-04-10]]**: **A new startup is betting on tech to redefine merit in hiring assessments**. While [[Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)]] has become synonymous with dismantling federal programs, the administration must eventually build to fulfill its promises. On his first day back, Trump issued an [executive order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reforming-the-federal-hiring-process-and-restoring-merit-to-government-service/) demanding new agency “Federal Hiring Plans” by May 19. The aim is to pivot towards skills-based hiring, using digital assessments, data analytics and AI tools to streamline the process. This directive continues Trump’s first-term push for skills-based hiring and aligns with similar efforts seen under Biden. This means the current push for reformed hiring practices stands on the shoulders of years of attempts to make agencies rethink talent identification, assessment, and acquisition in the US (with [interesting initiatives](https://www.usds.gov/projects/smeqa) along the way.). It's no simple feat: multi-stage assessments, modern techniques, and SME involvement improve quality but often slow things down. The speed-versus-quality trade-off endures. So, what's DOGE's next move? Will they double down on time-to-hire above all else? Or will we see new metrics emphasizing the _right_ talent in the _right_ roles? This policy shift occurs against a specific backdrop. The Republican coalition, uniting Silicon Valley's disruption-focused tech figures and culture-war conservatives, is waging a campaign against traditional academic qualifications, diversity statements and anything resembling elite gatekeeping. In that light, the launch of [MeritFirst](https://www.meritfirst.us/) by one of Trumpism’s more business-savvy backers, Joe Lonsdale, caught my attention. Naturally, the proposed solution is technology. Lonsdale is positioning MeritFirst as the key to fixing America’s “meritocratic infrastructure.” The startup appears poised to build the tech backbone for new definitions of merit and alternative professional assessment methods. What they actually deliver remains to be seen. **25/03/2025**: France extended the experimental _[[Concours Talents]]_ program until 31 August 2028. Launched in 2021, this initiative aims to enhance social diversity in the senior civil service by offering a dedicated external entrance exam for students from _Prépas Talents_ (preparatory classes designed for scholarship recipients and job seekers selected based on merit and social criteria). The program facilitates access to top public service schools, including INSP, and has been expanded to include certain military training institutions. Participants receive financial support through _Bourses Talents_, amounting to €4,000 for those enrolled in _Prépas Talents_ and €2,000 for others. The program is administered by the Ministry of Public Transformation and Service. **01/03/2025**: **From fairness to fit — public sector ‘merit’ is evolving across borders.** In March 2025, the [[§ Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)]], in partnership with the Public Service Research Group at UNSW Canberra, released the second report of their research project on public sector merit frameworks: _"[Realities and challenges of implementing merit protection frameworks: Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and Aotearoa New Zealand](https://anzsog.edu.au/research-insights-and-resources/research-projects/current-research-projects/merit-2-0-factors-in-merit-based-recruitment-promotion-and-retention-in-the-public-sector/)."_ Based on interviews with 76 public servants, the report reveals how understandings of merit vary across jurisdictions and are shaped by legal, institutional, and cultural contexts. Queensland stands out for its formal shift toward a “suitability” framework, incorporating not just skills and experience but also team fit, diversity, and potential. New Zealand takes a broader approach, linking merit to representativeness, especially regarding Māori and minority inclusion. The report identifies key tensions (between merit and diversity, fairness and efficiency) and points to challenges such as generic job descriptions, information asymmetries, and limited workforce planning. **20/05/2021**: **Social Mobility Commission publishes study on socio-economic diversity in the UK Civil Service.** In 2021, the UK government [commissioned a study](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/action-plan-to-increase-socio-economic-diversity-in-the-civil-service) to understand the career trajectories and barriers faced by civil servants from low socio-economic backgrounds. The research, led by [[Sam Friedman]], combined over 300,000 survey responses from the 2019 Civil Service People Survey with more than 100 hours of interviews. The report found that only 18% of Senior Civil Servants (SCS) come from disadvantaged backgrounds, while 72% come from privileged backgrounds. About 25% of SCS members attended independent (private) schools. Key challenges include uneven representation across departments and regions. For example, only 12% of Treasury staff come from low SEBs, compared to 45% in the Department for Work and Pensions. In London, just 22% of civil servants are from working-class backgrounds, compared to 48% in the North East. The study also documents informal behavioral expectations for those seeking promotion. These include having the "right" accent (Received Pronunciation) and displaying a behavioral style described as “studied neutrality” — emotional detachment, understated self-presentation and an intellectual approach to politics and culture. Many respondents from working-class backgrounds described this as unfamiliar and alienating, though often seen as necessary for advancement. The report concludes that existing diversity and inclusion initiatives often fail to address these informal codes. It proposes a comprehensive action plan, including departmental reporting on socio-economic diversity, regional benchmarks, and five-year SCS representation targets.