Why Meritocracy Matters: Lessons from Sierra Leone’s Public Health Sector

Promoting the best people seems like common sense. Yet in many public sector systems around the world, promotions are still based more on seniority or connections than performance. A new study provides some of the clearest evidence to date that merit-based promotion systems can significantly boost productivity—especially when paired with clear and fair pay incentives.

The study (“Promotions and Productivity: The Role of Meritocracy and Pay Progression in the Public Sector”), published in American Economic Review: Insights and authored by Erika Deserranno of Bocconi’s Department of Economics, together with Philipp Kastrau (Open Philanthropy) and Gianmarco León-Ciliotta (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona), takes us inside Sierra Leone’s public health system to understand how frontline workers respond to different promotion rules—and how their perceptions of fairness and reward affect motivation.

“We found that even small changes in how promotions are perceived can lead to big changes in performance.”

Testing meritocracy in the real world

The research is based on a randomized controlled trial involving over 2,000 community health workers (CHWs) and 372 health units across Sierra Leone. CHWs deliver basic health services—such as prenatal checkups and child vaccinations—under the supervision of a local peer.

The study was designed as follows:

• Half the units were switched to a merit-based promotion system, where CHWs knew that their chances of becoming a supervisor would depend on measurable performance indicators—like the number and length of visits to households.
• The other half remained under the existing system, where promotion decisions were discretionary and often perceived as biased or political.
• A second intervention gave workers more accurate information about how much more supervisors earned, creating variation in how attractive promotions seemed.

Ten months later, the results were striking.

Meritocracy increases performance—if the reward is worth it

In units with the new meritocratic system, CHWs made 22% more home visits on average, without sacrificing quality. The effect was even stronger—up to 45% more visits—for those who were high-performing or expected a promotion opportunity soon.

But incentives only worked when the system was perceived as fair.

Workers who were told that supervisor roles came with much higher pay became more productive—only if they believed the promotion process was based on merit. If they thought promotions were still driven by favoritism, the same information demotivated them, causing performance to drop.

“If you tell people the prize is big, but they don’t believe they can win it fairly, they disengage.”

Morale, motivation, and the cost of inequality

The researchers suggest that steep pay gaps can backfire when they’re not associated with credible, performance-based promotion systems. In such cases, workers may see the organization as unfair, and their motivation suffers.

But the study also offers hope: fair rules, well communicated, can inspire people to go the extra mile—even in low-resource settings. And because promotions in the public sector are inevitable (someone will be promoted eventually), ensuring they’re based on performance rather than patronage can have system-wide benefits.

“Our findings show that improving productivity doesn’t always require more money—sometimes it’s about better rules.”

A roadmap for better public services

In settings where promotions come with steep pay increases, tying advancement to performance can unleash significant productivity gains—particularly among the most motivated workers. But systems only work when they are trusted: clear, credible communication about how promotions happen is just as important as the rules themselves. And to support that trust, performance must be measured accurately, ideally through independent methods rather than relying solely on internal records or self-reports. As governments seek to improve public service delivery without dramatically increasing spending, this study shows that rethinking how promotions work—not just who gets promoted—can make a real difference. Meritocracy, when matched with transparency and trust, proves to be a powerful lever for change.