In today’s politically contentious times where the role of the federal government and career federal workers is continually challenged, it is critical that we understand how the political world affects career choices among federal employees. This study proposes a theoretical framework that integrates the political environment into concepts of turnover intent among public sector employees based on research examining open systems and the administrative presidency. The framework is then explored through interviews with federal employees, former appointees, and lobbyists to understand the impacts of the broad political environment on individuals.
AbbasiS. M.HollmanK. W. (2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public Personnel Management, 29, 333-342.
2.
AberbachJ. D.RockmanB. A. (1976). Clashing beliefs within the executive branch: The Nixon Administration bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 70, 456-468.
3.
AberbachJ. D.RockmanB. A. (2001). In the web of politics: Three decades of the U.S. federal executive. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
4.
AberbachJ. D.RockmanB. A. (2009). The appointment process and the administrative presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39, 38-59.
5.
AuerM. R. (2008). Presidential environmental appointees in comparative perspective. Public Administrative Review, 68, 68-80.
6.
BorjasG. J. (1982). Labor turnover in the U.S. federal bureaucracy. Journal of Public Economics, 19, 187-202.
7.
BoyneG. A.JamesO.JohnP.PetrovskyN. (2010). Does political change affect senior management turnover? An empirical analysis of top-tier local authorities in England. Public Administration, 88, 136-153.
8.
BurnsT.StalkerG. M. (1994). The management innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1961)
9.
Canes-WroneB. (2009). Administrative politics and the public presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39, 25-37.
10.
ChristensenJ. G.KlemmensenR.OpstrupN. (2014). Politicization and the replacement of top civil servants in Denmark. Governance, 27, 215-241.
11.
ClintonJ. D.LewisD. E. (2007). Expert opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Political Analysis, 16(1), 3-20.
12.
DerthickM. (1990). Agency under stress. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
13.
DullM.RobertsP. S. (2009). Continuity, competence, and the succession of Senate-Confirmed Agency Appointees, 1989-2009. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39, 432-453.
14.
DurantR. F. (1992). The administrative presidency revisited: Public lands, the BLM, and the Reagan revolution. Albany: State University of New York Press.
15.
DurantR. F. (1998). The administrative presidency: Retrospect and prospect. PRG Report: Newsletter of the Presidency Research Group of the American Political Science Association, 21(2), 1-7.
16.
DurantR. F. (2009). Back to the future? Toward revitalizing the study of the administrative presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39, 89-110.
17.
DurantR. F.ReshW. G. (2011). “Presidentializing” the bureaucracy. In DurantR. F. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 545-568). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
EdwardsG. C.III. (2001). Why not the best? The loyalty-competence trade-off in presidential appointments. The Brookings Review, 19(2), 12-16.
19.
Ennser-JedenastikL. (2014). Political control and managerial survival in state-owned enterprises. Governance, 27, 135-161.
20.
GarrettS.ThurberJ. A.FritschlerA. L.RosenbloomD. H. (2006). Assessing the impact of bureaucracy bashing by electoral campaigns. Public Administration Review, 66, 228-240.
21.
GillJ.WatermanR. W. (2004). Solidarity and functional costs: Explaining the presidential appointment contradiction. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 547-569.
22.
GoldenM. M. (1992). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Bureaucratic responses to presidential control during the Reagan administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 29-62.
23.
GuyM. E.NewmanM. A.MastracciS. H. (2008). Emotional labor: Putting the service back in public service. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
24.
HannanM. T.FreemanJ. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. The American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
25.
HecloH. A. (1977). A government of strangers: Executive politics in Washington. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
26.
HultK.MarantoR. (2010). Does where you stand depend on where you sit? Careerists’ attitudes toward political appointees under Reagan. American Review of Politics, 3, 191-112.
27.
LewisD. E. (2003). Presidents and the politics of agency design. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
28.
LewisD. E. (2008). The politics of presidential appointments: Political control and bureaucratic performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
LewisD. E. (2009). Revisiting the administrative presidency: Policy, patronage, and agency competence. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39, 60-73.
30.
LichtblauE.ScottS. (2012, July15). Vast FDA effort tracked e-mails of it’s scientists. The New York Times, p. A1.
31.
LightP. C. (2008). A government ill executed: The depletion of the federal service. Public Administration Review, 68, 413-419.
32.
MarantoR. (1993). Still clashing after all these years: Ideological conflict in the Reagan executive. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 681-698.
33.
MarantoR. (2005). Beyond a government of strangers: How career executives and political appointees can turn conflict to cooperation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
34.
MarantoR.HultK. M. (2004). Right turn? Political ideology in the higher civil service, 1987-1994. The American Review of Public Administration, 34, 199-222.
35.
MichaelsJ. E. (1995). A view from the top: Reflections of the bush presidential appointees. Public Administration Review, 55, 273-283.
36.
MintzbergH. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
37.
MoeT. M., Chubb, J. E. & Peterson, P. E. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. The new direction in American politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
38.
National Commission on the Public Service (Volcker Commission). (1989). Leadership for America: Rebuilding the public service. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
PfiffnerJ. (1996). The strategic presidency: Hitting the ground running. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
42.
ReshW. G. (2014). Appointee–Careerist relations in the presidential transition of 2008-2009. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 44, 697-723.
43.
RudalevigeA. (2009). The administrative presidency and bureaucratic control: Implementing a research agenda. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39, 10-24.
44.
SeidmanH. (1998). Politics, position, and power: The dynamics of federal organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45.
SlotkinJ. (2016, December13). Department of energy defies Trump, won’t name climate change workers. Available from https://www.npr.org/
46.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Human capital: Federal workforce challenges in the 21st century (GAO-07-556T). Washington, DC: Author.
47.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Older workers: Enhanced communication among federal agencies could improve strategies for hiring and retaining experienced workers (GAO-09-206). Washington, DC: Author.
48.
WatermanR. W. (2009). The administrative presidency, unilateral power, and the unitary executive theory. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39, 5-9.
49.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
50.
WilsonP. A. (1994). Power, politics, and other reasons why senior executives leave the federal government. Public Administration Review, 54, 12-19.
51.
WoodB. D.WatermanR. W. (1994). Bureaucratic dynamics: The role of bureaucracy in a democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
52.
YangK.KassekertA. (2010). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction: Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 413-436.
