Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
As a field, we often relate merit and neutrality to the technical skills needed to be the “best” candidate for a job, but that was not necessarily what civil service reformers had in mind. The civil service system was meant to replace widespread political patronage, but the myth around the origins of the civil service system masked inequalities built into early testing requirements and institutionalized racial inequities in hiring practices. In this article, we argue the founding myth of bureaucratic neutrality was so powerful that it continues to reverberate in our field. We trace the current reverberations of the myth of neutrality through modern hiring practices and the contemporary legal landscape. By doing this, we present a systematic review of this rationalized myth in public employment, using an institutionalism framework. As the myth of bureaucratic neutrality continues to permeate decision-making, policy creation, and implementation, it will continue to institutionalize inequity within the field.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Shannon Portillo
Arizona State University
Domonic A. Bearfield
George Washington University
Nicole Humphrey
University of Miami
View
Review of Public Personnel Administration
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
University of Kansas
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Portillo et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1774da7c70e6dd431273a5 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x19828431
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: