CEO Turnover and Openness of Decision-making Processes in the Post-succession Phase: Exploring a Threat-rigidity Perspective

• Published date: 01 November 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241267851
• Author: Danika Pieters,Jan Wynen,Bjorn Kleizen
• Date: 01 November 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997241267851

Administration & Society

2024, Vol. 56(9-10) 1059 –1082

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997241267851

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

CEO Turnover and

Openness of Decision-

making Processes in the

Post-succession Phase:

Exploring a Threat-

rigidity Perspective

Danika Pieters1, Jan Wynen1,2 ,

and Bjorn Kleizen1

Abstract

This study examines how top leader turnover in the public sector affects

organizational strategic decision-making processes in the post-succession

phase. Survey responses of managers were combined with a novel database

on CEO turnover in the U.S. Federal Government. Drawing on threat-

rigidity theory, we hypothesize that as CEO turnover is perceived as a

threatening event for both managers and CEOs themselves, organizations

as a whole respond by becoming more rigid, centralizing strategic decision-

making and restricting the flow of information. This has knock-on effects on

the quality of strategic decisions and their implementation, with detrimental

effects on the delivery of public services.

Keywords

CEO turnover, decision-making process, threat-rigidity theory, organizational

alignment, post-succession

1Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science, research group Politics & Public

Governance, University of Antwerp, Belgium

2Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of Antwerp,

Belgium

All authors contributed equally to the paper and share first authorship.

Corresponding Author:

Danika Pieters, University of Antwerp, Sint-Jacobstraat 2, Antwerpen 2000, Belgium.

Email: danika.pieters@uantwerpen.be

1267851AAS0010.1177/00953997241267851Administration & SocietyPieters et al.

research-article2024

1060 Administration & Society 56(9-10)

Introduction

A public organization’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is responsible for

translating governmental policies and public demands into public services.

They balance institutional and political influences and engage a multitude of

authorities in decision-making processes (De Graaf, 2011). Although the

nature of leadership of administrators is complicated by demands for account-

ability to politicians, citizens, and the public (Van Wart, 2013), executives in

the public sector possess some autonomy from environmental and political

constraints and can subsequently use this autonomy to alter organizational

strategy (Boyne & Dahya, 2002). However, it is essential to note that this is an

endeavor not solely undertaken by the senior leader. A fundamental condition

for adjusting organizational strategy is the alignment of the different hierarchi-

cal leadership levels, since performance enhancements resulting from a strate-

gic change require that senior and subordinate leaders effectively communicate

the strategy and take actions to ensure its implementation. Therefore, an

important task of the CEO is ensuring the alignment of all internal stakehold-

ers and building support bases throughout the organization (O’Reilly et al.,

2010). Such “alignment” means they share the CEO’s organizational vision

and strategy, which is a fundamental precondition for effectively implement-

ing strategic changes that motivate leadership succession. Since public organi-

zations face regular turnover in top leadership positions (Geys et al., 2020),

this begs an important question: How do changes in leadership affect the

alignment between an organization’s leader and other managerial levels?

Research on the influence of leader succession in public sector organiza-

tions remains quite scarce (Van Wart, 2013). Previous studies have looked

mainly into the potential of altering strategic routes and enhancing organiza-

tional performance in the post-succession phase (Petrovsky et al., 2015),

remaining largely silent on the alignment dynamics between leaders and

organizations (Berns & Klarner, 2017). This focus on succession outcomes is

unsurprising, as succession scholars have often argued that a change in lead-

ership is a necessary precondition to significant organizational change, giv-

ing underperforming organizations the possibility to make fundamental

modifications (Giambatista et al., 2005; Simons, 1994). In the last decades,

the public sector succession literature has made important nuances to this

perspective, as studies have indicated that CEO succession often leads to a

temporary drop in performance (Hill, 2005; Petrovsky et al., 2015; Davies &

Thomas, 2009). Such performance declines can be attributed to the process

through which the organization and the new leader adjust to one another. This

is explained by the O’Toole and Meier (1999) model of public management,

which states that managerial resources can be allocated to three main tasks:

contributing to the internal structure and stability of the organization,