Passage of the 1883 Pendleton Act started the U.S. federal civil service system on a path toward a merit-based civil service. I say it started the path because the initial career civil service comprised only about 10 percent of the workforce and the Act did not provide a guarantee of due process for removal. Over time, the percentage increased to today’s civil service where most federal employees are career. With passage of the Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912, the principle was established that federal employees in the career civil service could be removed only for such cause as would “promote the efficiency of the service” but it did nothing to provide an avenue of appeal. The Veterans Preference Act of 1944 offered some veterans the right to a Civil Service Commission review of some adverse actions. President Kennedy extended those rights to a Commission review to most other career employees, including non-veterans. The current framework was the result of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
So – what we often assume are century-old protections for civil servants are in reality much more recent developments. Like many things in government, they were the product of an evolutionary process over many years and were not, in the end, a well thought out and carefully designed process.
Today’s career civil service attempts to balance merit-based hiring and job protections with the need for managerial accountability and workforce agility. That balance is under stress and has been for many years. The 2024 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey showed that only 47 percent of respondents believe “In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way.” 40 percent said poor performers in their work units remain in the work unit and continue to underperform. Only 20 percent said there are no poor performers in their work units. The presence of what I believe is a relatively small percentage of poor performers taints the reputation of the federal workforce. It doesn’t matter that most federal employees are dedicated and capable professionals. That reputational damage harms the entire workforce, not just those poor performers.
The public expects faster, more responsive government. Managers face growing frustration with the complexity and inefficiency of personnel actions. Meanwhile, critics from across the ideological spectrum debate the value and cost of long-standing job protections that serve to protect underperforming as much or more than they protect good performers. Some argue that the solution is to just make all federal workers “at-will” employees. Proposed legislation that would allow termination of employees for ” good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all” surfaces every year.
When I started looking at how to reform the civil service, my immediate reaction was that any form of at-will employment was a very bad idea that would quickly lead to a return to the spoils system. Numerous states have moved to an at-will or modified at-will civil service model. I researched the outcomes of those reforms, focusing on scholarly research, to see how things actually turned out. I expected to find widespread employee dissatisfaction, politicized hiring and firing, and analyses that showed just how bad such changes really were.
To my surprise, that is not what I found. One state in particular – Tennessee – implemented a hybrid at-will/merit-based civil service. The research shows that it did not turn out the way I expected and it could, in fact, serve as a model for the federal government. After much back and forth with the legislature and the governor, the Tennessee reform was a bipartisan act that was supported by the Tennessee State Employees Association.
I believe it’s time for a new path forward — one that neither dismantles the merit system in favor of at-will employment, nor clings to outdated rules that hinder effective management. The solution is a hybrid model of civil service reform: one that retains core merit principles while modernizing due process and appeals systems to provide both fairness and efficiency. Some aspect of due process must be maintained due to provide that “checks and balances” benefit that safeguards against politicizing the workforce. Having to articulate a valid, legal reason to remove an employee seems like a small and justifiable burden in this context. The Tennessee approach recognized that.
The Current System: Strengths and Stagnation
The modern federal civil service system was born with the Pendleton Act of 1883, replacing the spoils system with competitive hiring. Over time, additional layers of due process and appeals mechanisms were added — many with good intentions — to prevent arbitrary removals and ensure political neutrality. Today, the system is governed by a complex web of laws, executive orders, regulations, and labor agreements. It is safe to say that the system is perversely complex, with compliance with the rules sometimes being more important than actual merit outcomes.
Strengths of the current system include:
- Merit-based hiring that ensures qualified candidates are selected fairly.
- Job protections that shield employees from politically motivated firings.
- Appeals processes that give employees due process and safeguard against management abuse.
Yet these strengths are now undermined by significant challenges:
- Cumbersome procedures for disciplinary actions and removals.
- Multiple avenues of appeals through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), union grievance/arbitration processes, and the courts.
- Delays that stretch into years, particularly in the EEO processes, leaving managers powerless and employees in limbo.
- Public and political skepticism about the inability to remove poor performers or discipline misconduct efficiently.
The “At-Will” Temptation — and Why It’s Inadequate Alone
Some reformers have proposed scrapping the current system in favor of an at-will employment model, mirroring the private sector. At-will proponents argue it would:
- Increase accountability by making it easier to remove underperforming employees.
- Enhance responsiveness by allowing agencies to restructure and adapt more quickly.
- Improve managerial control and flexibility.
But the at-will model brings significant risks:
- Loss of political neutrality: At-will systems can open the door to partisan purges.
- Erosion of fairness: Without due process, employees may be removed arbitrarily or unfairly.
- Morale damage: A climate of fear or instability can undermine recruitment, retention, and productivity.
- Legal liability: Unchecked discretion could lead to costly litigation.
Even states that have implemented at-will reforms, like Georgia and Florida, have encountered criticism over transparency, employee protections, and political influence. In the federal context, such risks are magnified.
A Middle Path: The Hybrid Model
What’s needed is a reform model that draws on the best aspects of both systems: the fairness and neutrality of traditional civil service with the efficiency and agility of modern management. This hybrid approach would:
- Streamline the appeals process:
- Create a unified, time-limited appeals path (e.g., 90-120 days).
- End duplicative filings across multiple forums.
- Ensure one bite at the apple.
- Preserve due process, but modernize it:
- Retain the right to notice, representation, and evidence-based decisions.
- Set clearer thresholds for misconduct or poor performance.
- Use technology to speed up reviews.
- Reinforce merit principles:
- Ensure that hiring, promotion, and removal are tied to performance and conduct, not political loyalty.
- Strengthen the role of OPM or a merit review body to ensure consistency.
- Increase manager accountability:
- Provide tools to address misconduct and non-performance promptly.
- Require agencies to train supervisors on the updated system.
- Provide well qualified employees whose job it is to provide hands on assistance to managers dealing with a poor performance and misconduct. Those employees could be in the Office of General Counsel or better trained Employee Relations specialists.
- Use metrics to track outcomes and hold leadership accountable for misusing the system.
- Introduce flexible contracts or appointment terms:
- Allow limited use of term-limited, performance-based appointments in appropriate roles.
- Blend tenure and flexibility in mission-critical areas.
Benefits of the Hybrid Model
A hybrid model, properly implemented, delivers meaningful reform without sacrificing integrity:
- Fairness for employees is preserved through clear, fast, and meaningful due process.
- Empowerment for managers who can address problems without getting stuck in bureaucratic paralysis.
- Confidence for the public that the civil service is both accountable and impartial.
- Protection for agencies from politicization and instability.
Moreover, a streamlined system reduces the chilling effect on disciplinary actions. Currently, the cost and time of the process often discourages any action. When managers know they can act fairly, consistently, and efficiently — they are more likely to step up and deal with poor performance and misconduct and lawyers who are loath to litigate any case where they might lose may grow more of a backbone. Poor performers who know they are likely to be fired would be more likely to self-select out of the federal workforce to avoid being fired.
Political Viability and Precedent
Some may argue this reform approach is too cautious, while others will argue that it will destroy the merit-based civil service and won’t satisfy either side. But recent experience shows that hybrid models are possible. Tennessee, for example, enacted a performance-based system in 2012 that retained many merit principles while modernizing appeals and expanding managerial discretion. While not perfect, Tennessee’s system is an example of how careful reform can work — and it’s gaining attention as a model for others.
Additionally, the pandemic-era experience of hybrid work, emergency hiring, and performance flexibility offers a glimpse of how reform can succeed. Agencies and employees both adapted. Reform isn’t just theoretical — it’s operationally feasible.
The Time is Now
Federal civil service reform has lingered in policy white papers and congressional hearings for decades. Yet every year the system becomes more fragile. Political polarization, shifting workforce expectations, and emerging technology demand a system that is fair, flexible, and fast.
Civil servants are not the enemy. They’re often the last line of defense in crises — from public health to cybersecurity to national security. But their effectiveness depends on a system that respects their rights and equips their managers to lead.
A hybrid reform model provides a real path forward. It’s time we stop choosing between two extremes — and start building the system we actually need.
Coming Next:
In the second part of this series, we’ll take a close look at Tennessee’s civil service reform model: what worked, what didn’t, and how it might guide reform at the federal level.
ChiefHRO.com 