Talk:Merit system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

It came as a result of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act which helped to remove power from political machines after World War II. is a U.S.-centric statement --Melaen 18:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography[edit]

Aufrecht, Steven E., and Li Siu Bun. "Reform with Chinese characteristics: The context of Chinese civil service reform." Public Administration Review(1995): 175-182.

Bibliography[edit]

Bowman James, West Johnathan. American Public Service: Radical Reform and the Merit System. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2006. Print.

Van Riper, Paul P. The Merit System: Foundation For Responsible Public Management. n.p.: Chicago, Public Personnel Association 1963], 1963. Texas State - Alkek Library's Catalog. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

Park, S. "Motivation Of Public Managers As Raters In Performance Appraisal: Developing A Model Of Rater Motivation." Public Personnel Management 43.4 (n.d.): 387-414. Social Sciences Citation Index. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

Nieves, YC. "A Merit System For The 21St Century." Revista Del Clad Reforma Y Democracia 48 (n.d.): 89-+. Social Sciences Citation Index. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

LJUNGHOLM, DOINA POPESCU. "Pay-For-Performance In The Public Sector." Geopolitics, History & International Relations 7.1 (2015): 90-95. Political Science Complete. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

DavidNowicki (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography[edit]

Kettl, Donald F. "The Merit Principle in Crisis." Governance 28.4 (2015): 421-24. Business Source Complete. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

Marsh, John J. "Personnel Employees' Perceptions of a State Merit System." Business Source Complete. Public Personnel Management, Mar. 1977. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

Ruhil, A. V. S. and Pedro J. Camoes "What Lies Beneath: The Political Roots of State Merit Systems." Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory 13.1 (2003): 27-42. Business Source Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

Daley, Dennis M., and Nicholas P. Lovrich. "Assessing the Performance of Supervisors: Lessons for Practice and Insight into Middle Management Resistance to Chage." Public Administration Quarterly 31.3 (2007): 313-41. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

Sproule, Charles F. "Should Personnel Selection Tests Be Used on a Pass-Fail, Grouping, or Ranking Basis?" Public Personnel Management 13.4 (1984): 375-94. Business Source Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 9 Mar. 2016. Jamilethortega (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Jamileth Ortega

Biblography[edit]

Caldwell, D. (1978). Employee Motivation Under Merit Systems. Public Personnel Management, 7(1), 65.

Digges, B., & Fredlund, R. (1997). From spoils system to merit system -- 60 years of progress in Jefferson County, AL. Public Personnel Management, 26(4), 559-563 5p.

Frasher, C. B.. (1947). Merit System Problems. The American Journal of Nursing, 47(10), 679–680.

Palombo, R. N. (1975). The Agency Shop in a Public Service Merit System. Labor Law Journal, 26(7), 409-416.

Schay, B. W., & Fisher, S. F. (2013). The Challenge of Making Performance-Based Pay Systems Work in the Public Sector. Public Personnel Management, 42(3), 359-384 26p.


Bobcatj15 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

The lead section of the article includes a clear overview of what a merit system is. I think it could be explained in more detail in a few more sentences, rather than just having a one sentence definition. Perhaps, adding some scholarly support to the introduction would help to bulk it up. Each section of the article is very detailed in discussing many aspects of merit systems. Each of your claims are supported with references, and provide a neutral viewpoint. However, the introduction and section regarding cons of merit systems do not have any sourced information. As far as I can tell the sources used are legitimate for the type of work wished to be achieved. I have some concerns regarding the number of sources used, but as long as the information is not biased everything is fine. Also, the readability of the “United States” section. It is not very easy on the eyes, and could probably be broken up into more than one paragraph. In general, it was written well, but I can see some areas that could be improved. Consider simplifying some of the longer sentences so that ideas are clearly expressed. Overall, the article is well-organized and full of useful information. I really like that you include general history of the topic, as well as history pertaining to the United States. Braelyn01 (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Comprehensiveness- The lead paragraph is lacking as being an overview for the article itself, but the definition that is posted there does a good job at defining what the merit system is. The article does an excellent job of defining the history of the merit system and how it came to exist in our current system today. The section on performance assessments does a good job explaining the forced ranking system as well as real life consequences related to performance assessments. The pro and con sections do a good job at explaining how the merit system can be a positive and negative aspect in a public workforce.


Sourcing- The article focuses on the topic of the merit system well with focus on history and real world applications towards the merit system. The article does a good job relying on sources to back up their information and to be informative on the topic. The only section lacking in significant sources is the cons section; the articles con section is also lacking in sourced information and could be considered opinionated. The language of the article has a very neutral tone to it, does a good job sourcing the information on the topic without overstating its importance. Again the sourcing of this article is good and relates to the importance of the merit system throughout history as well as in our society; however the cons section is lacking any meaningful sourcing.


Neutrality/Readability- The language in this article is easy to understand and will be a valuable asset to a first time reader on the topic. The article lacks grammatical errors and typos but could be cleaned up a little bit in the way the paragraphs are set up. At this time some sections just seem like blocks of text that might make it overwhelming for an average reader. This article is well written and informative, but could benefit from adding a section on the private sector and sourcing more information for the cons section.


Q1-The history of the topic of this article is very informative and gives good sourced information regarding how the merit system came to be. The Section on the forced ranking system as well as the consequences involved in it was also very informative and sourced well.


Q2- This article could use a section about how the merit system pertains to the private sector as well as some sourced examples in the cons section, otherwise the article is well written and informative. Karlbarl13 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review POSI 3318[edit]

  1. 1. Overall it’s a good article but I suggest of expanding the introduction and pro/con section. A little bit more. You can clear see the key points of the article. I believe it is supported well with the resources they used. The article does focus clearly on the topic and has appropriate scholarly support.It does contribute a variety of resources and I don’t think its bias.
  2. 2. I believe all the claims are supported with reliable and appropriate resources/references. It is cited correctly with the sources it used.
  3. 3. Yes the article has a neutral point of view that is represented accurately. I believe it's pretty well balanced with the coverage but some sections are longer than others and could expand the information on the shorted sections.
  4. 4. It's well written overall and has a clear understanding of the information in the article. Everyone should be able to understand what it means and grasp a good understanding. It has a clear structure and organization. It has the correct links to other webpages. There's no image and not really needed.

Q1- What I like the most is that the group expanded detail information in the history section and that their is a pro and con section. It made it seem neutral. Q2- The two improvements I would suggest is adding an introduction and expanding a little more in the pro and con section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel29g (talkcontribs) 06:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)