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.
AmabileT. M.ContiR. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 630–640.
2.
BachT.HammerschmidG.LöfflerL. (2020). More delegation, more political control? Politicization of senior-level appointments in 18 European countries. Public Policy and Administration, 35(1), 3–23.
3.
BernsK. V.KlarnerP. (2017). A review of the CEO succession literature and a future research program. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(2), 83–108.
4.
BlanchardK. H.HerseyP. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training & Development, 50(1), 42–48.
5.
BommerM.JalajasD. (1999). The threat of organizational downsizing on the innovative propensity of R&D professionals. R&D Management, 29(1), 27–34.
6.
BoyneG.DahyaJ. (2002). Executive succession and the performance of public organizations. Public Administration, 80(1), 179–200.
7.
BrunssonN. (2006). Administrative reforms as routines. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22(3), 243–252.
8.
BurkeJ. P. (2001). Lessons from past presidential transitions: Organization, management, and decision making. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 31(1), 5–24.
9.
ByR. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380.
10.
ClintonJ. D.LewisD. E. (2008). Expert opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Political Analysis, 16(1), 3–20.
11.
CorleyK. G. (2004). Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptions of organizational identity and change. Human Relations, 57(9), 1145–1177.
12.
DalyA. J.Der-MartirosianC.Ong-DeanC.ParkV.Wishard-GuerraA. (2011). Leading under sanction: Principals’ perceptions of threat rigidity, efficacy, and leadership in underperforming schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(2), 171–206.
13.
DaviesJ.ThomasH. (2009). What do business school deans do? Insights from a UK study. Management Decision, 47(9), 1396–1419.
14.
De GraafG. (2011). The loyalties of top public administrators. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 285–306.
15.
DenisJ. L.LangleyA.PineaultM. (2000). Becoming a leader in a complex organization. Journal of Management Studies, 37(8), 1063–1100.
16.
GeysB.ConnollyS.KassimH.MurdochZ. (2020). Follow the leader? Leader succession and staff attitudes in public sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 80, 555–564.
17.
GiambatistaR. C.RoweW. G.RiazS. (2005). Nothing succeeds like succession: A critical review of leader succession literature since 1994. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 963–991.
18.
GreinerL.CummingsT.BhambriA. (2003). When new CEOs succeed and fail: 4-D theory of strategic transformation. Organizational Dynamics, 32(1), 1–16.
19.
HambrickD. C.FukutomiG. D. (1991). The seasons of a CEO’s tenure. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 719–742.
20.
HammonsJ. O.MurphreeJ. (1999). The acclimation process of new CEOs in community colleges: Important lessons learned. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 23(4), 387–400.
21.
HargreavesA. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24(3), 287–309.
22.
HillG. C. (2005). The effects of managerial succession on organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 585–597.
23.
HillR.C.GriffithsW.E.LimG.C. (2011), Principles of Econometrics, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
24.
KetokiviM.CastañerX. (2004). Strategic planning as an integrative device. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 337–365.
25.
KorsgaardM. A.SchweigerD. M.SapienzaH. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.
26.
LinesR. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193–215.
27.
MaS.SeidlD.GuérardS. (2015). The new CEO and the post-succession process: An integration of past research and future directions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), 460–482.
28.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2002). Public management and organizational performance: The effect of managerial quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 21(4), 629–643.
29.
MillerD. (1993). Some organizational consequences of CEO succession. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 644–659.
30.
MillerD.ShamsieJ. (2001). Learning across the life cycle: Experimentation and performance among the Hollywood studio heads. Strategic Management Journal, 22(8), 725–745.
31.
MuurlinkO.WilkinsonA.PeetzD.TownsendK. (2012). Managerial autism: Threat–rigidity and rigidity’s threat. British Journal of Management, 23, S74–S87.
32.
OlsenB.SextonD. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current education policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 9–44.
33.
O’ReillyC. A.CaldwellD. F.ChatmanJ. A.LapizM.SelfW. (2010). How leadership matters: The effects of leaders’ alignment on strategy implementation. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 104–113.
34.
O’TooleL. J.Jr.MeierK. J. (1999). Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(4), 505–526.
35.
PatersonJ. M.CaryJ. (2002). Organizational justice, change anxiety, and acceptance of downsizing: Preliminary tests of an AET-based model. Motivation and Emotion, 26(1), 83–103.
36.
PetrovskyN.JamesO.BoyneG. A. (2015). New leaders’ managerial background and the performance of public organizations: The theory of publicness fit. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 217–236.
37.
SarrosA. M.SarrosJ. C. (2007). The first 100 days: Leadership challenges of a new CEO. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(3), 349–371.
38.
SimonsR. (1994). How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 15(3), 169–189.
39.
StawB. M.SandelandsL. E.DuttonJ. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.
40.
SteenbergenM. R.JonesB. S. (2002). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 218–237.
Van HootegemA.NiesenW.De WitteH. (2019). Does job insecurity hinder innovative work behaviour? A threat rigidity perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(1), 19–29.
43.
Van WartM. (2013). Administrative leadership theory: A reassessment after 10 years. Public Administration, 91(3), 521–543.
44.
WestphalJ. D.FredricksonJ. W. (2001). Who directs strategic change? Director experience, the selection of new CEOs, and change in corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12), 1113–1137.
45.
WooldridgeB.SchmidT.FloydS. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1190–1221.
46.
WynenJ.KleizenB.VerhoestK.LægreidP.RollandV. (2019). Just keep silent. . . Defensive silence as a reaction to successive structural reforms. Public Management Review, 22(4), 498-526.
47.
WynenJ.VerhoestK.KleizenB. (2017). More reforms, less innovation? The impact of structural reform histories on innovation-oriented cultures in public organizations. Public Management Review, 19(8), 1142–1164.
