Does Political Turbulence Encourage Fight or Flight for Federal Employees? Examining Political Environments and Turnover Intent

• Published date: 01 June 2020
• Date: 01 June 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0091026019863460
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019863460

Public Personnel Management

2020, Vol. 49(2) 262 –289

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0091026019863460

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

Does Political Turbulence

Encourage Fight or Flight

for Federal Employees?

Examining Political

Environments and

Turnover Intent

Susannah Bruns Ali1

Abstract

In a volatile political climate where agencies often become the stage for partisan

battles, career employees pay the price for increased political attention to agencies.

This study seeks to understand how contentious political environments contribute

to employee turnover intent. It draws on strategic management and systems theories

that link resource turbulence to management changes and employee turnover.

The question is important to address because career bureaucrats are critical to

government performance as both policy makers and implementers. Individual-level

data are paired with organizational-level data to assess how political environments

influence turnover preferences. Other aspects of an agency’s political environment

(age, design, ideology, and political appointees) are also tested. The analysis shows

that budget volatility increases the intent to leave, but staffing volatility increases

intent to move within government. All political environment variables except ideology

affected intent to change jobs.

Keywords

turnover intent, political environment, U.S. Federal Government

1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Susannah Bruns Ali, Department of Public Policy and Administration, School of International and Public

Affairs, Florida International University, PCA 260B, Modesto Maidique Campus, 11200 SW 8th St.,

Miami, FL 33199, USA.

Email: sali@fiu.edu

863460PPMXXX10.1177/0091026019863460Public Personnel ManagementAli

research-article2019

Ali 263

As political discourse dissolves into partisan rancor and holds administrative agencies

hostage with shutdowns and threats, we must look at the fundamental risk to democ-

racy and effective government posed by battering agencies and their employees.

Although most of the public’s attention focuses on legislative activities and the news

of the day, the battleground for policies and programs is often inside government agen-

cies. Presidents actively seek to mobilize agencies to support their policies. Congress

gives agencies the responsibility of implementing programs and policies consistent

with congressional intent. Courts step in to serve as the final arbitrators to resolve the

differences between the executive and legislative branches.

The central theme of this article is to examine what happens to federal govern-

ment employees in politically contentious times. Specifically, the question is as

follows:

Research Question 1: Do career employees intend to stay or turnover when an

agency is in the center of a political storm?

The question is important to address because the career bureaucrats are critical to gov-

ernment performance as both policy makers and implementers. When organizations

experience high turnover, they risk losing institutional knowledge and expertise neces-

sary for seamless service to the public. Turnover can be expensive in terms of replace-

ment and training costs, institutional knowledge, and staff morale (Abbassi & Hollman,

2000; Cascio, 2006; Partnership for Public Service & Booz Allen Hamilton, 2010).

Expressions of turnover intent require attention because they are symptoms of under-

lying problems within an organization. Employees’ frustration due to high turnover

intent could damage organizational productivity, even if people do not choose to leave

(Krueger & Killham, 2006).

Federal agencies can be politically contentious when the preferences of the presi-

dent are at odds with the preferences of the Congress. Federal agencies can be caught

amid the political maelstrom as a result. The U.S. Constitutional separation of powers

divides the power between the executive and the legislative for a system of checks and

balances. The system divides control of resources, so that Congress has the power to

authorize funding and the executive has control over authorizing staffing levels.

Although there are instances when the two branches seek to influence the resources

provided by the other, the roles of Congress and the executive are well delineated. The

mismatched and volatile resource streams provided by the Congress and the executive

could affect federal agencies negatively, particularly when the resources are con-

strained to very low levels by either body.

At the same time, political contentions do not affect all federal agencies in similar

ways. Agencies such as the Department of Education are in political maelstrom due to

differing ideological beliefs about how to improve education and the appropriate role

of government. Some agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission operate in

relative isolation due to their highly technical role, largely outside of public attention.

Other agencies have come into scrutiny when their missions are politically salient. For

instance, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol drew little political attention until the