Executive Vacancies in Federal Agencies: Symbolic or Substantive Crises?

• In Event: Finding the Right Person: Political Appointees and Agency Effectiveness

Abstract

Attention to vacancies in appointee positions subject to Senate confirmation has grown dramatically in the last decade. Scholars have sought to understand how common such vacancies are over time as well as what factors might exacerbate or alleviate the occurrence and length of vacancies. This body of research generally assumes that vacancies in appointee positions will have negative consequences—loss of political control, promotion of second rate subordinates, undermined teamwork—for public agencies though little empirical work exists to confirm such associations. The purpose of the proposed study is to test whether the occurrence and length of vacancies at the top of federal agencies, including cabinet-level departments, cabinet-rank agencies, White House agencies, independent agencies, and cabinet-dependent agencies, influence average rates of overall employee job satisfaction as well as satisfaction with agency leaders and managerial practices. Vacancy data have been collected over a twenty-one year time period and will be linked with multiple versions of the federal human capital survey/federal employee viewpoint survey. We hypothesize that more regular and longer vacancy will lead to lower levels of satisfaction as a measure of organizational performance, holding factors such as divided government, election timing, and average age of agency employees constant.

Authors

• Amanda N. Rutherford, Indiana University, Bloomington

• Taha Hameduddin, National University of Singapore