Job Security Rule Changes and Employee Organizational Commitment
| Author | James L. Perry,Hyunkang Hur |
| DOI | 10.1177/0734371X19842622 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2020, Vol. 40(4) 641 –668
Job Security Rule Changes
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
and Employee Organizational
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19842622
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19842622
journals.sagepub.com/home/rop
Commitment
Hyunkang Hur1 and James L. Perry2
Abstract
This study assesses the impact of different job security rules on federal employees’
organizational commitment by looking at the effects of changes in the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) precipitated by MaxHR, introduced to DHS in 2005. The
2005 job security rule changes, as part of the “reformed” personnel system of the
new DHS, reduced employee job security, which in turn weakened organizational
commitment. The study found subsequent repeal of the job security rules in 2007
boosted organizational commitment among DHS workers by as much as 10 percentage
points. Taken together, the results of difference-in-differences (DID) analysis for the
new job security rules in the period 2005-2006 and subsequent repeal of the job
security rules in the period 2007-2010 suggest that employees’ commitment to DHS
was more favorable after the repeal of the job security rules than prior to the 2005
reforms.
Keywords
job security, rule changes, organizational commitment, work motivation, U.S. federal
government, Department of Homeland Security
A new generation of job security policies has been introduced in governments since the
1990s. These reforms differ from traditional civil service in one crucial respect: They
eliminated or modified long-standing job security rules (Kellough & Nigro, 2006). One
manifestation is at-will employment systems, implemented in Georgia (Kellough &
1Indiana University Kokomo, USA
2Indiana University Bloomington, USA
Corresponding Author:
James L. Perry, Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University
Bloomington, 410E, 1315 E. Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-1701, USA.
Email: perry@indiana.edu
642
Review of Public Personnel Administration 40(4)
Nigro, 2006) during the mid-1990s and later in Florida (Bowman, 2002), Texas
(Coggburn, 2006), Mississippi (Goodman & Mann, 2010), Colorado, Kansas, Missouri,
and South Carolina (Kim & Kellough, 2014). These at-will policies seek to put civil
service employees on the same footing as those in private enterprises, where employees
can be dismissed at the employer’s discretion. A more limited rollback of job security
policies is reflected in the federal sector, where agencies have sought changes in proba-
tionary periods, performance management rules, and other security-related rules. Among
the federal agencies pursuing rule changes to reduce employee protections have been the
Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security (DHS).
Job security was part of the package of 19th-century civil service reforms that dif-
fused widely in the United States, within the federal government, over time, and across
levels of government (Hur & Perry, 2016; Ingraham, 2006; Tolbert & Zucker, 1983).
Recent developments, at least in the United States, indicate that we are beginning a
process that may reverse long-standing job security rules (Condrey & Battaglio, 2007;
Hur & Perry, 2016). If we are at the early stages of lessening job security protections
in government, then this gives us a unique opportunity to study the consequences of
different job security arrangements and their effects on employees and organizations
(Battaglio, 2010; Coggburn, 2000; Coggburn et al., 2010; Hur & Perry, 2016; Jordan
& Battaglio, 2014).
Most research on job security reforms has looked to at-will employment systems at
the state level. Few studies have examined the impact of more nuanced federal reforms
on employees’ job attitudes and work motivation. Furthermore, none of the research,
state or federal, has used longitudinal data and methods. This study begins to fill the
research gaps by using new analytical frameworks for analyzing the effect of job secu-
rity reforms on employee commitment under the DHS’s MaxHR system. Using a
large, multiyear data set, the present research estimates the impact of different job
security rule changes on federal civilian employees’ organizational commitment by
looking at the implementation and repeal of DHS’s MaxHR system change. The
MaxHR personnel system provided new flexibilities that favored management,
whereas its repeal returned to the general status quo of federal civil service. While
DHS’s MaxHR system was implemented more than a decade ago and was short-lived,
its implementation created an opportunity for a quasi-experiment that can advance our
understanding of the effects of job security reform.
This article is organized into four sections. The first reviews DHS’s personnel
reforms, called MaxHR. The literature review then identifies relevant theories and
develops hypotheses. The next sections explain the research methodology and present
the results. We conclude with discussion of the results and recommendations for future
research.
Design of U.S. DHS’s MaxHR System
The events of September 11, 2001, changed the context and priorities for public sector
management reform (Brook & King, 2008). Brook, King, Anderson, and Bahr (2006)
explained,
Hur and Perry
643
. . . prior to 9/11, the debate over civil service reform was stalemated, as both sides argued
over issues such as strategic human capital management, modernization, flexibility,
accountability, broadbanding and paybanding, performance-based pay, recruitment and
retention, union busting and partisan differences. . . . But after 9/11, the proponents of
reform cloaked the management argument in the larger context of national security.
(pp. 12-13)
Other scholars described the 9/11 attacks as creating disequilibrium in the political
system or opening the door to another kind of initiative, which gave President Bush
the opportunity for change (Moynihan, 2005; Riccucci & Thompson, 2008). The Bush
administration subsequently deregulated human resource management via its legisla-
tion for the DHS in 2002 (Riccucci & Thompson, 2008).
President Bush proposed creation of DHS in June 2002. This led to Public Law No.
107-296, the Homeland Security Act that merged 22 federal components into DHS,
which was signed by President George W. Bush on November 25, 2002 (Brook &
King, 2007; U.S. Federal Register, 2004). MaxHR was created in 2004 after the DHS
and Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) were jointly given author-
ity to establish a new human resource management system (U.S. Federal Register,
2004). DHS announced its plan for a new personnel system that covered all civilian
employees who worked in the department in the Federal Register in February 2005
(U.S. Federal Register, 2005; see the timeline presented in Table 1).
The provisions of the proposed regulations gave DHS control of employee pro-
cesses such as basic remuneration, classification, labor relations, performance man-
agement, adverse actions (e.g., disciplinary actions), and appeals (U.S. Federal
Register, 2004). DHS’s flexibility and accountability in regard to payment, develop-
ment, evaluation, and due process were expanded by the MaxHR personnel system
(Brook & King, 2008; Kellough, Nigro, & Brewer, 2010; U.S. Federal Register, 2005).
The “management rights” in the MaxHR personnel system enhanced DHS’s manage-
ment flexibility regarding employees’ adverse actions and labor relations issues (U.S.
Federal Register, 2004, p. 8034, 2005, p. 5274). In the new system, human resource
specialists were stripped of some responsibilities that were transferred to higher level
department managers (Coggburn et al., 2010; U.S. Federal Register, 2004).
Coggburn et al. (2010) explain that although the attribute of the new system given
the most attention was pay-for-performance, the system also comprised other attri-
butes such as restraining employees’ procedural due process rights by limiting their
access to mechanisms for presenting grievances and appeals. The revisions and addi-
tions included the right to dismiss, suspend, demote, and reduce payments to employ-
ees (Kellough et al., 2010; U.S. Federal Register, 2004). In the new regulations, every
employee was given an “initial service period” of 1 to 2 years after being hired. This
probationary period was up to twice as long as the standard 1-year period required
elsewhere in federal service by the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 5, part 315,
Subpart H, Section 315.801; Probation and Initial Appointment to a Competitive
Position, U.S. Government Publishing Office, n.d.). If employees had previously
worked in federal service, the period they worked was accounted for in this
644
Review of Public Personnel Administration 40(4)
Table 1. Timeline of DHS’s MaxHR Reforms and Repeal.
Date
Action
November 2002
President Bush signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 on
November 25, 2002, and it became Pub. L. No. 107-296
November 2002 to
Attempts to design a new human resource system
February 2004
February 2004
DHS and OPM jointly published a proposed rule to implement a
new HRM system for DHS in the Federal Register
In the proposed regulations, every employee was given an “initial
service period” of 1 to 2 years after being hired to DHS. This
probationary period was up to twice...
To continue reading
Request your trial