The Myth of Bureaucratic Neutrality: Institutionalized Inequity in Local Government Hiring

• Author: Nicole Humphrey,Shannon Portillo,Domonic Bearfield
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19828431
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19828431

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2020, Vol. 40(3) 516 –531

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19828431

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

The Myth of Bureaucratic

Neutrality: Institutionalized

Inequity in Local Government

Hiring

Shannon Portillo1, Domonic Bearfield2,

and Nicole Humphrey1

Abstract

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.

Keywords

merit, politics and merit, diversity, discrimination, affirmative action and equal

employment opportunity

“The ability of any structure and its component members to gain control over a definition

of its boundaries and purposes can be regarded as a benchmark of social power.”

—Krislov (1974, pp. 72-73).

1The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

2Rutgers University–Newark, NJ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Shannon Portillo, Associate Professor, School of Public Affairs & Administration, The University of

Kansas, 1445 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.

Email: sportillo@ku.edu

828431ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X19828431Review of Public Personnel AdministrationPortillo et al.

research-article2019

Portillo et al. 517

Defining Merit

In American public administration, the belief that hiring decisions are to be made

solely on the qualifications of the individual is a bedrock principle for scholars and

practitioners alike. This practice, often referred to as the merit system or merit-based

hiring, allows us to believe that at the end of the process, the most qualified candidate

will receive the job (Light, 2006). Many would agree that the pursuit of merit-based

hiring is a noble goal. However, historically, there have been problems with regard to

implementation because it is not clear what is meant when we say that we should hire

the best candidate. As a result, it can be incredibly difficult for public organizations to

implement this important principle. The definition of merit is complex and at times

interlocking (Anderson, 2013). It is used to convey virtue, deservingness, rationality,

and expertise. In terms of virtue, merit means that the individual is worthy of praise.

However, merit can also mean that one is deserving of help, or a proverbial leg up.

Finally, and most relevant to the neutrality school of human resources, is merit as abil-

ity or technical skill. In this article, we address these different conceptions of merit and

examine how the implementation of merit has allowed merit-based hiring to become a

rationalized myth in local government hiring. The field must examine merit to ensure

its efficacy and understand the potential harm the rationalized myth of merit may play

in public employment.

In principle, we would like to believe that the human resource application of merit

is exclusively, or at best largely, focused on ability. However, an argument can be

made that the other definitions remain in play, even when decisions are being made

based on ability. For instance, the idea men have to support a family, and women do

not, frames the decision to hire or promote as “who is more deserving” as opposed to

“who is more qualified.” Similarly, hiring someone from the same geographic region

or neighborhood, because they “fit” into the culture of an organization emphasizes

goals of harmony in culture rather than “who is most qualified” for a particular posi-

tion within the organization. Because the human resource application of merit often

expands beyond ability, it is essential the field recognizes these various applications

and seeks to understand their implications on the public sector.

This continues to be a vexing problem for modern local governments. In particular,

organizations that rely on testing, such as written tests for promotion from patrol offi-

cer to sergeant in police departments, to determine the acceptability and ranking of

candidates for positions and promotions must confront this problem to be an equitable

modern employer. This is a problem that has resulted in significant attention and litiga-

tion for local governments (Riccucci & Saldivar, 2012). For example, in January of

2010, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey Civil

Service Commission and the State of New Jersey. The suit alleged that the written

examination used for promotion to the rank of police sergeant in a number of local

jurisdictions discriminated against African Americans and Hispanics.

According to the press release,

The United States’ complaint alleges that African-American and Hispanic candidates for

promotion to sergeant pass the examination at significantly lower rates than white