Merit in the provision of health services

The state must elect managers who have an important place in the production of public goods and services on the basis of the principle of equality, without discrimination for political, ideological, religious or any other reasons. It is suggested in the literature that the most effective way to do this is to take the principle of merit into consideration. Because the principle of merit is defined as the ability to perform the task successfully, deserving in return for being successful, giving the job to the competent person, the one who deserves to take office, and the one who has the right to obtain a position. In accordance with this principle, these people are expected to meet certain merit criteria. However, without any change in the characteristics of the same person, he can be seen as qualified by some and unqualified by others. The reason for this is that the concept of merit is a very vague and abstract concept. Therefore, there is a need to reduce the ambiguity of the concept of merit and to concretize it where everyone understands the same thing as much as possible. The concept of merit is generally discussed in the literature within the scope of its subheadings and elements. This study aims to reveal what should be understood from the concept of merit and the elements of merit that are effective in the selection of health services managers that may cause public harm. In this context, semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with healthcare stakeholders. According to the evaluations, it has been seen that there are differences in understanding of merit, which are generally fed by utilitarian and idealist philosophies. It has been observed that the understanding of merit, nourished by utilitarian philosophy, consists of objective elements, while the understanding of merit, nourished by idealist philosophy, consists of mostly subjective elements. Key Words: Merit, Management, Health Services Management