Do reputational threats influence the rigidity of US agencies? A dynamic panel data approach

• Published date: 01 November 2023
• Author: Jan Boon,Jan Wynen,Koen Verhoest
• Date: 01 November 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13732

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Do reputational threats influence the rigidity of US agencies?

A dynamic panel data approach

Jan Boon

1,2

| Jan Wynen

2,3

| Koen Verhoest

2

1

School of Social Sciences, University of Hasselt,

Hasselt, Belgium

2

Politics and Public Governance, University of

Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

3

Department of Management, University of

Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

Correspondence

Jan Boon, School of Social Sciences, University

of Hasselt, Prinsstraat 13, Antwerp 2000,

Belgium.

Email: jan.boon@uhasselt.be

Abstract

What happens to organizational rigidity when public organizations faced reputa-

tional threats over time? Do they take external criticism as incentives to become

less rigid and more innovative and flexible through employee involvement and

empowerment? Or do reputational threats paradoxically contribute to the very

rigidity that is often stereotyped as inherent parts of government? Building on

threat-rigidity theory, we test the temporal relation between reputational threats

(both in terms of the direction of reputation and its turbulence) and organizational

rigidity. We apply a dynamic panel data approach combining different data

sources on 34 US agencies over a period of 13 years. The results show that organi-

zational rigidity increased, both when reputations evolved negatively over time

and when reputations evolved more turbulently. No combined effect of negative

reputations and reputational turbulence was observed. Both sources of reputa-

tional threats independently precluded organizations from creating a climate of

employee empowerment, involvement, flexibility, and innovation.

Evidence for practice

•Public organizations demonstrate higher degrees of organizational rigidity when

their reputations were evolving negatively or more turbulently.

•Negatively evolving reputations generate more organizational rigidity, even

under conditions of rather stable (nonturbulent) evolution.

•Turbulently evolving reputations generate more organizational rigidity, even

when these reputations evolved in a neutral or positive direction.

•The climate of reputational negativity that many public organizations face leads

to an organizational climate that is more rigid. Managers have a clear role to play

in these tendencies, by avoiding the urge in situations of uncertainty to centralize

control, formalize procedures, and apply pressure on employees to conform to

their directions.

INTRODUCTION

Organizational rigidity in government refers to the inflexi-

bility of bureaucratic systems and processes, which can

hinder the ability of public organizations to adapt to

changing circumstances and effectively serve the needs

of citizens (Deverell, 2010; Staw et al., 1981). Over the past

decades, reforms have sought to address rigidity in

government, by decreasing hierarchical, formalized, and cen-

tralized decision-making, while promoting employee flexibil-

ity, experimentation, and innovation (Mergel et al., 2021).

In discussions on how governments can harness the capacity

of their workforce to flexibly adapt to environmental needs,

empowering and including employees in organizational pro-

cesses, has been a recurring recommendation (OECD, 2021;

Steen & Schott, 2019).

In sharp contrast to this idealized image stands the

reality in which many public sector employees are work-

ing. Studies consistently report the comparatively high

rate of unnecessary and burdensome rules and proce-

dures in public organizations (Pandey & Kingsley, 2000;

Wright & Davis, 2003). Rigidity continues to be a stereo-

type that is often attached to public organizations as

sources of general underperformance vis-à-vis private

The authors share first authorship.

Received: 13 January 2023 Revised: 4 September 2023 Accepted: 26 September 2023

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13732

1798 © 2023 American Society for Public Administration. Public Admin Rev. 2023;83:1798–1812.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar