Recent Academic Research Confirms Detrimental Effects of Leadership Vacancies on Federal Agency Performance 

One of the outcomes of an increasingly lengthy and challenging Senate confirmation process is that many Senate-confirmed federal leadership positions remain vacant for long periods of time. Our research has shown that many of these agency positions are persistently vacant and that 30% or more of the leadership jobs at Cabinet departments are without a confirmed appointee at any given time.  

While many practitioners and scholars have argued that persistent vacancies hurt federal agency performance, to date there has been little systematic evidence to support this claim. Vanderbilt Professor David Lewis, Georgetown Professor Mark Richardson and I sought to address this important question through two academic research articles, Do Vacancies Hurt Federal Agency Performance? and Measuring the Impact of Appointee Vacancies on U.S. Federal Agency Performance. 

We used a survey of federal executives¹ to evaluate whether vacancies in top agency leadership positions led to lower evaluations of the agency’s performance of its mission. In the two articles, we examined both self-evaluations of executives about their own agency performance and external evaluations of executives in other agencies who work closely with the agency that was examined. In both cases, we found consistent evidence that long agency leadership vacancies lead to lower evaluations of agency performance.  

To understand what underpins this relationship, we examined mechanisms that may explain how vacancies in Senate confirmed leadership positions result in an agency’s diminished ability to accomplish its mission. We found that vacancies affect agencies, their workforce and external stakeholders in the following ways: 

Less Long-term Planning 

Agencies headed by Senate-confirmed appointees report less long-term planning when vacancies persist. While a president can install temporary or acting leaders to fill vacant positions, these officials cannot fully replace Senate confirmed officials. Acting officials may be skilled professionals—often they are drawn from the most experienced ranks of career officials—but our surveys suggest that they are not perceived by those around them as having the full authority of the confirmed appointee, and they do not view themselves as having the right to make decisions with a long-term impact. 

Lower Workforce Morale 

Longer vacancies are associated with lower reported workforce morale. Respondents expressed that a sense of impermanent leadership, especially if no nomination is forthcoming, can make employees wonder whether their agency is a priority.  

Reduced Support from Key Stakeholders 

Vacancies lead to less effort by other appointees, the White House and Congress to make sure agencies have what they need to accomplish their core mission. Analysis of survey results found that agencies with persistent vacancies go from mostly observing “a good bit of effort” from appointees to ensure their agency has what it needs to mostly observing “some effort.” Key stakeholders may delay or withhold support for agencies as they wait for confirmed leadership to spearhead agency action and engage in long-term planning.  

Conclusion 

The broken Senate confirmation process is making it more difficult for agencies to fulfill their core missions, adapt to emerging challenges and plan for the future. This is a disservice to the public that relies on government services and other fundamental roles of government, from national security to public health and safety. 

Urgent reform is needed to ensure that agencies have competent, capable and permanent leadership in place. Consistent leadership will best allow an administration to carry out its agenda and for an agency’s workforce to have the guidance and strategic direction it needs.  

Chris Piper is a manager at the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition.

FOOTNOTES

1.  The online survey targeted all federal executives working in agencies headed by a Senate-confirmed appointee whose functions were not exclusively advisory. The survey included all political appointees as well as career members of the Senior Executive Service and senior Foreign Service officers serving domestically. Our academic articles use statistical regression models to observe the effects of vacancies on each outcome of interest.  ↩︎