Thanks for writing this, I couldn't agree more that it needs reform. The system is so antiquated that it blocks, rather than advances, its original goal of meritocratic hiring. Unqualified people with existing civil service titles are selected for ill-fitting jobs, since the titles rarely reflect the actual needs of the job and are so hard to change. It reduces competition, not the other way around. And because hiring is so difficult, it is often easier to contract out to consultants, costing the city more and depriving it of internal capacity. (Can't believe I said government procurement is "easier" than anything, but compared to hiring I think it is!) One thing you didn't mention is that the civil service exams themselves are not truly exams, at least not the ones I've seen. They are basically HR screening/eligibility forms, e.g. how many years of experience do you have in XYZ? For the ones I saw, I didn't understand why the exam couldn't be 1) permanently open and 2) automatically (and instantly) assessed. This would turn the civil service exam process into something closer to a more modern, standard HR pre-screening.
Question! In the shorter-term would it be possible to reclassify some of these lines (especially those that have Education & Experience tests) into titles *without* active lists, so that hiring could be open and provisional? If I remember correctly from my own initial hire, they ask you the E&E questions during processing if you’re being hired provisionally. We would be able to confirm that hires would be eligible for the title once the test became available, but would also be able to hire competitively and from this incredible pool of applicants, regardless of whether or not they’re on an existing list.
They may be able to supersede an existing list with a new list established by exam if the list has been out for one year, though has not typically been done, partially because there are over 3,300 civil service titles. Exam and list management is a massive amount of administrative overhead and burden for both the city and applicants. They would not be able to just throw a list out entirely, nor can they just get rid of an unused title without union agreement.
It used to be very common to hire provisionally and into titles without lists because many titles just hadn't had lists in quite awhile, but that is no longer the case. NYC is now only able to hire 5% of its workforce provisionally after over a decade of reaching "compliance" with state law after the Long Beach decision from 2007.
Thank you! I really appreciate the insight and thoughtfulness in all of this. As someone who entered city government when there was still an abundance of titles for which no lists existed, I experienced a bit of flexibility that now sounds impossible. And as someone who hires but has no insight beyond the quirks of her own agency’s classification process, it’s been difficult to understand what is a quirk of my agency, what was a quirk of the years I was brought on, and what we really won’t have flexibility with until the system is overhauled (which feels like a political nightmare). This - your post, the comments and your responses - were phenomenally helpful.
Is this not too timid to make a dent? It seems like the entire system of titles and exams is holding us back. Saying "this time we'll set up the titles and exams to actually match the job requirements" seems hubristic. Why not just empower hiring managers to make decisions on their own. I think we can deter self-dealing with punishment rather than some complicated system that removes hiring manager agency.
It’s a good question and a complicated answer. The idea of merit-based hiring is a good one at its core. The question becomes how to you ensure it stays that way through different administrations. NYC is a union city, and it will take immense collaboration to make significant change and overhaul the system. In addition, we are subject to state civil service law and would need significant buy-in at the state level. Not impossible, but also not an overnight fix, and unlikely to truly take place during Mamdani’s first term. The city has a lot of leeway in what it can do immediately to provide transparency, take advantage of flexibility that exists in the system but is not always used and help people navigate the system we have. Employees deserve that and New Yorkers deserve that. But we cannot forget working in the background to create a better hiring system.
The UK government’s civil service reform plan, a process started in 2012 and continuing through today, is a good example of what can be possible within a merit based system that allows for more flexibility and modernity. There are a lot of similarities between the structure of the NY system and the UK system. It was really only possible because it was championed by the UK Cabinet Secretary (highest ranking civil service position in the UK). (Note: the cabinet secretary was Jeremy Heywood, no relation).
We need civil service reform to staff Mamdani's affordability agenda. This is a really comprehensive call to action on how to make that happen.
Thanks for writing this, I couldn't agree more that it needs reform. The system is so antiquated that it blocks, rather than advances, its original goal of meritocratic hiring. Unqualified people with existing civil service titles are selected for ill-fitting jobs, since the titles rarely reflect the actual needs of the job and are so hard to change. It reduces competition, not the other way around. And because hiring is so difficult, it is often easier to contract out to consultants, costing the city more and depriving it of internal capacity. (Can't believe I said government procurement is "easier" than anything, but compared to hiring I think it is!) One thing you didn't mention is that the civil service exams themselves are not truly exams, at least not the ones I've seen. They are basically HR screening/eligibility forms, e.g. how many years of experience do you have in XYZ? For the ones I saw, I didn't understand why the exam couldn't be 1) permanently open and 2) automatically (and instantly) assessed. This would turn the civil service exam process into something closer to a more modern, standard HR pre-screening.
Question! In the shorter-term would it be possible to reclassify some of these lines (especially those that have Education & Experience tests) into titles *without* active lists, so that hiring could be open and provisional? If I remember correctly from my own initial hire, they ask you the E&E questions during processing if you’re being hired provisionally. We would be able to confirm that hires would be eligible for the title once the test became available, but would also be able to hire competitively and from this incredible pool of applicants, regardless of whether or not they’re on an existing list.
They may be able to supersede an existing list with a new list established by exam if the list has been out for one year, though has not typically been done, partially because there are over 3,300 civil service titles. Exam and list management is a massive amount of administrative overhead and burden for both the city and applicants. They would not be able to just throw a list out entirely, nor can they just get rid of an unused title without union agreement.
It used to be very common to hire provisionally and into titles without lists because many titles just hadn't had lists in quite awhile, but that is no longer the case. NYC is now only able to hire 5% of its workforce provisionally after over a decade of reaching "compliance" with state law after the Long Beach decision from 2007.
Thank you! I really appreciate the insight and thoughtfulness in all of this. As someone who entered city government when there was still an abundance of titles for which no lists existed, I experienced a bit of flexibility that now sounds impossible. And as someone who hires but has no insight beyond the quirks of her own agency’s classification process, it’s been difficult to understand what is a quirk of my agency, what was a quirk of the years I was brought on, and what we really won’t have flexibility with until the system is overhauled (which feels like a political nightmare). This - your post, the comments and your responses - were phenomenally helpful.
Is this not too timid to make a dent? It seems like the entire system of titles and exams is holding us back. Saying "this time we'll set up the titles and exams to actually match the job requirements" seems hubristic. Why not just empower hiring managers to make decisions on their own. I think we can deter self-dealing with punishment rather than some complicated system that removes hiring manager agency.
It’s a good question and a complicated answer. The idea of merit-based hiring is a good one at its core. The question becomes how to you ensure it stays that way through different administrations. NYC is a union city, and it will take immense collaboration to make significant change and overhaul the system. In addition, we are subject to state civil service law and would need significant buy-in at the state level. Not impossible, but also not an overnight fix, and unlikely to truly take place during Mamdani’s first term. The city has a lot of leeway in what it can do immediately to provide transparency, take advantage of flexibility that exists in the system but is not always used and help people navigate the system we have. Employees deserve that and New Yorkers deserve that. But we cannot forget working in the background to create a better hiring system.
The UK government’s civil service reform plan, a process started in 2012 and continuing through today, is a good example of what can be possible within a merit based system that allows for more flexibility and modernity. There are a lot of similarities between the structure of the NY system and the UK system. It was really only possible because it was championed by the UK Cabinet Secretary (highest ranking civil service position in the UK). (Note: the cabinet secretary was Jeremy Heywood, no relation).
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Do you have some insight as to what aspects of reform could be sticking points for unions?
So many great points made here. I’m consistently surprised by the large salary disparity for similar roles in SF, Boston and LA