The staffing system, as a fundamental subsystem of human resource management, has developed within a context of diverse theoretical discourses and ideologically distinct approaches, each linked to specific models of governance and public administration. Despite its central role in achieving organizational efficiency, justice, and legitimacy in the public sector, the dominance and implications of these theoretical discourses have been underexamined critically.

This study aims to elucidate and critique the prevailing discourses shaping the staffing system, emphasizing the ethical and human gaps they produce.Using Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis, adapted to Scott’s institutional model, the study identifies and analyzes four dominant discourses: the “hard/closed” discourse, grounded in bureaucratic principles and classical public administration, emphasizing discipline and control; the “hard/open” discourse, influenced by market logic and new public management, focusing on efficiency, competitiveness, and contractual arrangements; the “soft/closed” discourse, associated with modern public administration within internal organizational frameworks, emphasizing commitment and motivation; and the “soft/open” discourse, aligned with contemporary public service values, stressing participation, meritocracy, organizational justice, and value alignment.

Findings indicate that dominant, particularly “hard,” discourses prioritize efficiency, productivity, and cost control, often at the expense of human dimensions, social justice, and the voice of marginalized groups. This prevalence reinforces structural inequalities, undermines organizational justice, and limits genuine stakeholder participation and transparency in governance processes. Accordingly, the study highlights the critical need to reconsider the theoretical foundations of the staffing system, emphasizing good governance principles, modern public service values, and human-centered approaches.