Search

For careers in public service, meritocracy is espoused and idealized with formal structures for advancement. However, career development is also relational. Scholars have long discussed the benefits of mentoring both for psychosocial support and career advancement in organizations. While mentoring is recognized as important for career advancement, less is known about the nature of mentoring in male-dominated public sector organizations. In this paper we explore how mentoring functions in the U.S. Army—a male-dominated public service organization. Using data from a mixed method study, including survey data from approximately 1,200 Army personnel and analysis of 27 focus groups with 198 participants, we find that mentoring quality matters for all employees, but it matters more for women. We also find that mentoring is gendered, shaping the career trajectories of women and men in different ways.

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.