Civil Service Laws Contribute to Performance Problems
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Howard Risher
December 5, 2025
Tennessee’s successful reform proves the transition to a performance culture is fully possible. The state’s success is attributed to leadership and a multiyear commitment to building broad employee support.
When Governor Bill Haslam took office in 2011, the state’s civil service system was almost 75 years old. The state was known to have workforce problems. Today state agencies are among the best places to work in the state.
Other states have initiated reform but the efforts were limited and failed to achieve Tennessee’s level of success. At the federal level there is a long list of “demonstration projects” and separate agencies (e.g. the Government Accountability Office) that have achieved similar success.
The difference is attributable to two core issues: Tennessee and the federal examples were not operating under outdated civil service laws, and Haslam and several of his department heads had experience managing in large, successful companies.
Unfortunately, the more typical government leaders have worked as lawyers or owner-executives in small businesses where they relied on top-down control.
The Problem Was Created a Century Ago
The initial civil service law, the Pendleton Act, created the Civil Service Commission in the 1880s, but the current management framework, the General Schedule salary system, dates to the Classification Act of 1923. The 1949 Classification Act was described as “modernizing” salary administration but did not change the paradigm for managing work and workers.
The 1923 Act provided that employees were “eligible” for a pay increase “upon the attainment and maintenance of the appropriate efficiency ratings.” The law was administered by a new Personnel Classification Board composed of the Director of the Budget, a member of the Civil Service Commission, and the Director of the Bureau of Efficiency. Personnel offices came later.
The prominence of “efficiency” in that era reflects the importance of scientific management, then a new theory to improve economic and labor productivity. Every worker movement was dictated by industrial engineers. Long, detailed job descriptions became the norm. Workers had to meet production standards or be fired. In manufacturing they were managed as extensions of machines.
State civil service laws were typically adopted in that era. That is also true for civil service laws in other developed countries. Civil service systems at all levels of government were adopted to address the same concerns and reflected the same workforce management philosophy: merit, fairness, and tight control.
Managing workers to control costs was the dominant philosophy in business until the 1990s. Tight labor control prompted support for unions. Top down control is still the norm in owner-managed businesses.
Looking back, outdated laws control current administrative requirements. They are the reason personnel offices continue to report through a director of administration. Civil Service Commission rulings support established practices. It explains why manager selection and training is not a priority.
The 1990s Saw Important Changes
The decade saw five important changes that supported empowering workers.
-
First, the 90/91 recession prompted companies to delayer, eliminating layers of management. That increased a manager’s span of control, giving workers more discretion to make job-related decisions.
-
Second, the decade saw the rapid growth of knowledge workers who are most productive when they are trusted and empowered. In many fields employees are fully productive with little if any direct supervision. Government has hundreds of job series where job knowledge and autonomy are important to performance.
-
Third, the decade also marked the beginning of three trends that contribute to better performance: high performance organizations, great places to work, and employee engagement linked to performance. Each emphasizes a work experience that supports higher employee productivity.
A sixth trend, the COVID switch to working remotely, is still unfolding. Workers are more productive working from home, but many leaders now want to regain control of the workforce.
Recent research has highlighted the importance of mutual trust and psychological safety. Employees naturally resist organizational changes that threaten their careers. Learning environments are also known to support employee initiatives.
Each trend is associated with supervisory practices that are very different from the typical government work environment.
The Tennessee Answer
One of Governor Haslam’s announced goals was building a “winning” workforce. As he commented, “Whether it’s in business, government or sports, the team with the best players wins. Unfortunately, in Tennessee state government . . . the rules don’t allow us to go out and recruit great players.” That is contrary to the DOGE management philosophy.
His Cabinet undertook two initiatives that reinforced the need for reform and led to passage in 2012 of the Tennessee Excellence, Accountability and Management (TEAM) Act.
First, each Cabinet member undertook a top to bottom review of his or her agency, asking first if there were services that could be provided more effectively and efficiently by the private sector and second, if government should be providing the service, whether it was being provided effectively and efficiently.
Second, the deputy governor and human resource commissioner went on an employee listening tour to hear how to recruit and retain the best employees. Many of the practices addressed in the civil service overhaul surfaced in these meetings.
That was reinforced by an unusual strategy, specifying in the TEAM Act a requirement that performance management be based on S.M.A.R.T. goals and outcomes. The Governor’s intent was to have a system that reinforced employee accountability.
At first the Tennessee State Employees Association opposed the law, but after weeks of negotiations the group was able to support it. Association leaders stood behind Haslam at the signing ceremony.
The state then invested three years in training managers and in securing feedback from managers and employees to secure broad support for the transition to pay for performance.
From a practical perspective, the state’s workforce changes made sense, were easy to understand, reflected employee career interests, and highlighted public service motivation. The changes have proven to be a win-win for the state and its employees and for the public.
Author: Howard Risher, MBA, PhD, holds a BA in psychology from Penn State and MBA and PhD degrees from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He has over 40 years of consulting experience, including leading practices at Mercer and the former Wyatt, and more recently operating his own firm, HRSolutions. His expertise includes compensation management and creating high-performance workplaces. His government clients include federal agencies, a major project establishing the locality pay system, state governments from Hawaii to New York, the Pennsylvania courts system, the governments of Washington, DC and Philadelphia, the UN International Civil Service Commission, and OECD reports.
(2 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)
Loading...
Civil Service Laws Contribute to Performance Problems
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Howard Risher
December 5, 2025
Tennessee’s successful reform proves the transition to a performance culture is fully possible. The state’s success is attributed to leadership and a multiyear commitment to building broad employee support.
When Governor Bill Haslam took office in 2011, the state’s civil service system was almost 75 years old. The state was known to have workforce problems. Today state agencies are among the best places to work in the state.
Other states have initiated reform but the efforts were limited and failed to achieve Tennessee’s level of success. At the federal level there is a long list of “demonstration projects” and separate agencies (e.g. the Government Accountability Office) that have achieved similar success.
The difference is attributable to two core issues: Tennessee and the federal examples were not operating under outdated civil service laws, and Haslam and several of his department heads had experience managing in large, successful companies.
Unfortunately, the more typical government leaders have worked as lawyers or owner-executives in small businesses where they relied on top-down control.
The Problem Was Created a Century Ago
The initial civil service law, the Pendleton Act, created the Civil Service Commission in the 1880s, but the current management framework, the General Schedule salary system, dates to the Classification Act of 1923. The 1949 Classification Act was described as “modernizing” salary administration but did not change the paradigm for managing work and workers.
The 1923 Act provided that employees were “eligible” for a pay increase “upon the attainment and maintenance of the appropriate efficiency ratings.” The law was administered by a new Personnel Classification Board composed of the Director of the Budget, a member of the Civil Service Commission, and the Director of the Bureau of Efficiency. Personnel offices came later.
The prominence of “efficiency” in that era reflects the importance of scientific management, then a new theory to improve economic and labor productivity. Every worker movement was dictated by industrial engineers. Long, detailed job descriptions became the norm. Workers had to meet production standards or be fired. In manufacturing they were managed as extensions of machines.
State civil service laws were typically adopted in that era. That is also true for civil service laws in other developed countries. Civil service systems at all levels of government were adopted to address the same concerns and reflected the same workforce management philosophy: merit, fairness, and tight control.
Managing workers to control costs was the dominant philosophy in business until the 1990s. Tight labor control prompted support for unions. Top down control is still the norm in owner-managed businesses.
Looking back, outdated laws control current administrative requirements. They are the reason personnel offices continue to report through a director of administration. Civil Service Commission rulings support established practices. It explains why manager selection and training is not a priority.
The 1990s Saw Important Changes
The decade saw five important changes that supported empowering workers.
First, the 90/91 recession prompted companies to delayer, eliminating layers of management. That increased a manager’s span of control, giving workers more discretion to make job-related decisions.
Second, the decade saw the rapid growth of knowledge workers who are most productive when they are trusted and empowered. In many fields employees are fully productive with little if any direct supervision. Government has hundreds of job series where job knowledge and autonomy are important to performance.
Third, the decade also marked the beginning of three trends that contribute to better performance: high performance organizations, great places to work, and employee engagement linked to performance. Each emphasizes a work experience that supports higher employee productivity.
A sixth trend, the COVID switch to working remotely, is still unfolding. Workers are more productive working from home, but many leaders now want to regain control of the workforce.
Recent research has highlighted the importance of mutual trust and psychological safety. Employees naturally resist organizational changes that threaten their careers. Learning environments are also known to support employee initiatives.
Each trend is associated with supervisory practices that are very different from the typical government work environment.
The Tennessee Answer
One of Governor Haslam’s announced goals was building a “winning” workforce. As he commented, “Whether it’s in business, government or sports, the team with the best players wins. Unfortunately, in Tennessee state government . . . the rules don’t allow us to go out and recruit great players.” That is contrary to the DOGE management philosophy.
His Cabinet undertook two initiatives that reinforced the need for reform and led to passage in 2012 of the Tennessee Excellence, Accountability and Management (TEAM) Act.
First, each Cabinet member undertook a top to bottom review of his or her agency, asking first if there were services that could be provided more effectively and efficiently by the private sector and second, if government should be providing the service, whether it was being provided effectively and efficiently.
Second, the deputy governor and human resource commissioner went on an employee listening tour to hear how to recruit and retain the best employees. Many of the practices addressed in the civil service overhaul surfaced in these meetings.
That was reinforced by an unusual strategy, specifying in the TEAM Act a requirement that performance management be based on S.M.A.R.T. goals and outcomes. The Governor’s intent was to have a system that reinforced employee accountability.
At first the Tennessee State Employees Association opposed the law, but after weeks of negotiations the group was able to support it. Association leaders stood behind Haslam at the signing ceremony.
The state then invested three years in training managers and in securing feedback from managers and employees to secure broad support for the transition to pay for performance.
From a practical perspective, the state’s workforce changes made sense, were easy to understand, reflected employee career interests, and highlighted public service motivation. The changes have proven to be a win-win for the state and its employees and for the public.
Follow Us!