Abstract
According to its designers, the U.S. merit system centered on a “pivotal idea”: The civil service would use “open, fair, honest, impartial, competitive examination” to find the people “best fitted to discharge the duties of the position.” Officials would announce job openings to the widest-possible applicant pool and assess that pool on uniformly applied, job-relevant criteria. Over time, however, alternative hiring mechanisms have increased in popularity as means to improve the speed or flexibility the hiring process, with limited research on their impact on the federal service. To understand their effects, we examine all federal, nondefense employees hired between 1983 and 2013 to assess whether four alternative hiring procedures affect the educational attainment (a proxy for qualifications) and career advancement (a proxy for quality) of new hires. We find that employees hired through competitive examinations possess more education upon entry than employees selected through two of those alternative procedures; however, employees hired through all four alternative procedures advance in their careers at least as rapidly as those selected via competitive examinations.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
