Merit

01/05/2023

When we talk about merit principle in the public service, it is usually treated as if it were a universal standard: a fixed measure of who is the best candidate.

It often doubles as code for unelected officials get to make merit-based appointments because ministers are unable to.

But merit has never worked like that.

It is, and always has been, contextual.

What counts as merit depends entirely on the role, the organisation, and the objectives at hand.

Appointments serve a purpose; merit must be shaped to serve that purpose too.

The problem is not the principle of merit itself, but how narrowly it is often applied.

Too often, merit is reduced to a checklist of qualifications, leadership credentials, or technical expertise so that a preferred candidate gets the job.

These may be necessary, but they are rarely sufficient.

A leader driving long-term reform will need different qualities from one stabilising a service under pressure. A regulator rebuilding trust needs different attributes from one focused on enforcement. Merit is not about being the best in the abstract: it is about being the best skills sets for this role, at this time, for this institution.

This is why the debate about diversity and merit is often misframed.

They are not competing ideas. Both recognise that traditional appointments have too often been shaped by habit and convenience.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) correctly challenges the assumptions behind “who looks like a leader.”

Contextual merit asks the same question but gets there differently.

It achieves many of the aims of DEI: broader representation, fresher perspectives, and better legitimacy — without compulsion, and without the window-dressing.

It simply does the hard thinking up front: what does the job actually require, and who is best placed to deliver it?

This is just as important, if not more so, when we consider appointments beyond the core public service.

Statutory boards, commissions, advisory bodies, and Crown entity boards are not the private business of ministers.

They are shared institutions.

They hold powers and exercise functions on behalf of the community, not on behalf of the minister of the day or their political network.

Yet too often, appointments to these roles follow familiar patterns, shaped by loyalty, convenience, or insider status, rather than by a deliberate definition of what is required.

If we take the purpose of these institutions seriously, it follows that they must reflect the communities they serve.

That does not mean box-ticking. It means recognising that credibility, legitimacy, and sound governance require institutions to be able to see, hear, and work with the full range of people and perspectives in the community: rural and urban, Māori and non-Māori, different generations, professions, and lived experiences.

When merit is defined thoughtfully and with the context in mind, diversity, inclusion and equity is not an add-on.

It is integral to the appointment itself.

The supposed tension between merit and diversity usually turns out to be the product of lazy merit — the recycling of inherited templates, the unconscious bias towards familiar types, the search for the safe option.

But when merit is properly anchored to purpose, representation follows naturally.

The question shifts from who do I know is safe and qualified enough on paper? to who will best enable this institution to serve its purpose now and into the future?

This is how we can achieve both merit and diversity without resorting to quotas, targets, or compliance frameworks.

By taking merit seriously, by understanding it as contextual and dynamic, we can make appointments that are fair, representative, and effective.

The result is public institutions that belong to the public, reflect the public, and serve the public: not just the interests of ministers, parties, or comfortable networks.