In a society that often equates merit with wealth, the true value of service is easily overlooked. Yet, the foundation of our democracy is built upon the dedication of public servants—individuals whose merit is measured not by financial success, but by their unwavering commitment to the common good. We see it in the salaries of CEOs, Wall Street bonuses, and the lifestyles of the wealthy. This view can distort our understanding of leadership, including the role of the President. Yet, government workers are far more than faceless bureaucrats. They are police officers who protect our streets, teachers who educate our children, technicians who maintain public infrastructure, and engineers who generate power for cities. They are the public servants who stop floods from destroying communities, warn us of dangerous weather, and help farmers grow the crops that feed the nation. They work on barges, fit pipes, and save lives in our parks. The stereotype of the paper-pushing bureaucrat represents only a small fraction of a vast legion of dedicated individuals committed to serving society. This truth is often overlooked, leading to unfair comparisons between public service and corporate success.
To dismiss government workers as mere waste, fraud, or abuse is to oversimplify the truth. It ignores the countless ways public servants contribute to our daily lives and the progress of our nation. However, the President is not the CEO of the nation but the chief servant dedicated to fulfilling the will of the people and fostering a better society than when they began. This vision of leadership is rooted in service, not in power or profit. In the private sector, compensation is the currency of merit, measured by productivity, performance, and profitability. Billionaires are often seen as the pinnacle of corporate success, symbolizing the highest financial rewards for business acumen and strategic risk-taking. This leads many to mistakenly believe that government employment lacks meritocracy because it does not reward ambition and achievement in the same way. Yet, this view overlooks the unique role of public service.
Government employment is not, and should not be, a meritocracy based on compensation. Instead, the pinnacle of success for politicians, military members, or civil servants—emphasizing the role of ‘servant’—is measured by their contribution to the nation. Just as the Medal of Honor recognizes extraordinary bravery or the Presidential Medal of Freedom acknowledges impactful service, the highest achievements in public service are defined by the positive influence on society and the preservation of democratic values. Instead, it is a meritocracy of service—one where dedication to the public good, ethical integrity, and civic responsibility define success.
Merit Through Service, Not Profit
The purpose of government is to serve society, not to generate profit. The President, as the chief servant, embodies this purpose by guiding the nation with humility and dedication to the public good. This role is about nurturing democracy, ensuring justice, and protecting the vulnerable—not about wielding power for personal gain. This service includes the delivery of essential services for the common services that individuals cannot provide for themselves, such as national defense, public safety, and infrastructure. It encompasses the protection of the most vulnerable among us, including widows, orphans, and the sick, and extends to honoring and respecting veterans, both living and deceased, who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the nation. In this context, efficiency is measured not by cutting services or maximizing profits but by the effective delivery of these vital services to all citizens. Governments exist to provide safety, security, justice, and welfare—values that cannot be measured through financial gain. Consequently, the meritocracy within government employment is built on the principle of service. Success is defined not by profit but by the positive impact on people’s lives. Government employees are thus evaluated based on their dedication to ethical standards, policy effectiveness, and contributions to the public good.
Reflect upon the educator who shapes the next generation, the scientist who advances public health, or the first responder who protects lives. Their merit lies not in profit margins but in their commitment to societal well-being. In this context, government employment becomes a meritocracy of a higher order, where success is measured by the positive changes made in communities, the justice upheld, and the rights protected.
Why Compensation Is Not the Measure
Compensation in public service is fundamentally different from that in the private sector. Government roles are designed not to compete with corporate salaries but to provide financial stability that enables public servants to perform their duties ethically and effectively. The value of public service is measured not by financial reward but by the societal impact made. Public employees embrace this trade-off, driven by duty rather than profit. A recent report from the Federal Salary Council highlighted a 22.47% pay disparity between federal employees and private-sector workers. This gap, however, underscores a key difference in motivation. People who choose public service are not primarily driven by financial gain. Their rewards come from a sense of duty, the stability of public employment, and the fulfillment that comes from serving a greater purpose.
Government salaries are designed to ensure that employees can perform their duties without financial stress, but they are not meant to incentivize profit-driven success. This structure preserves the integrity of public service, preventing conflicts of interest linked to personal gain. By keeping compensation secondary, the system reinforces that public service is about stewardship, not self-enrichment.
Civic Responsibility as Merit
In government employment, merit is closely tied to civic responsibility. Unlike the private sector, where accountability is to shareholders, public employees are accountable to citizens. This unique responsibility shapes a culture of integrity, transparency, and ethical governance. Public servants must navigate complex social challenges, balancing competing interests and ensuring justice and fairness. Their success is measured not by quarterly profits but by public trust and societal progress.
For example, public health officials navigating a crisis are evaluated not on financial outcomes but on the effectiveness of their response and the lives they protect. Similarly, policy analysts working on social programs are evaluated on the societal impact of their recommendations, not on profitability. This form of meritocracy, anchored in civic duty, ensures a balance of power, safeguarding that the government serves all citizens, not merely those with financial influence.
Governing Is Not Business Leadership
There is a growing tendency to compare government leadership to corporate management, often pointing to successful business leaders as ideal political candidates. However, the experience of building a business centered on markets, transactions, and profit—does not directly translate to governing. Government is not about markets or transactions; it is about service and wielding the power of the state responsibly. In business, power is exercised to maximize shareholder value, while in government, power is responsible for safeguarding citizens’ rights and promoting societal welfare. Governing requires balancing competing interests, ensuring justice, and maintaining public trust. Viewing government as a service-oriented institution safeguards democracy by preventing power from becoming the ultimate motive. This comparison is flawed. While businesses are driven by profit and efficiency, governments are driven by public service and justice. If governance were purely about efficiency and profit, the risk of corruption and authoritarianism would rise, as power and wealth would dominate as motivators.
In democratic governance, leadership is about stewardship, protecting rights, and ensuring justice for all citizens. The President’s role as the chief servant reinforces this by emphasizing duty over dominance, accountability over authority, and service over self-interest. It requires a vision beyond the bottom line, one that prioritizes social equity, public safety, and human dignity. Public sector leaders must make decisions that balance competing societal needs, often with long-term impacts that extend beyond election cycles or fiscal years. By defining success through public welfare, government leadership remains a service-oriented meritocracy.
Reframing the Narrative
Understanding government employment as a meritocracy requires a shift in how we perceive merit. In public service, merit is not about financial success or career advancement. It is about contributing to the public good, upholding democratic values, and maintaining public trust. It is about ethical leadership, civic responsibility, and dedication to societal progress.
This perspective challenges the misconception that government work holds less value because it lacks the high salaries found in the private sector. It affirms that merit can be found in service and sacrifice, and that those who dedicate their lives to public good deserve our respect, not our skepticism.
By recognizing government employment as a meritocracy of service, we celebrate the silent achievements of public servants whose work ensures our safety, our rights, and our future. At the highest level, the President exemplifies this meritocracy, serving not as a ruler, but as the chief servant whose success is measured by the nation’s well-being and progress. Their merit lies in their commitment to the common good—a commitment that, while not always financially rewarding, is invaluable to society.
Given the themes of public service, civic responsibility, and ethical leadership highlighted in this article, I recommend “The Road to Character” by David Brooks. This book explores the importance of cultivating a strong moral character, which aligns with the notion that true merit comes from service and dedication to the public good rather than financial gain or personal ambition. Brooks contrasts “resume virtues” (skills that bring success) with “eulogy virtues” (qualities that bring meaning to life), offering a thoughtful reflection on the values that should guide leadership and public service. It complements the perspective presented in the article, focusing on the moral and ethical dimensions of leadership in both public and private spheres.
Some of the statistics were gathered from A Profile of the 2023 Federal Workforce https://ourpublicservice.org/fed-figures/a-profile-of-the-2023-federal-workforce/
