Polarization and the Ties That Bind: Congressional Staff Turnover

Summary:

Congressional staff are more likely to leave their jobs, not because of low pay, but because of the impact of polarization on their job satisfaction.

Abstract:

Congressional staff serve as the “invisible force” in Congress by helping draft legislation and conduct oversight. Given this, excessive turnover among staff is a loss of institutional memory and inhibits legislators’ ability to effectively conduct their constitutional duties. Using a mixed methods research design of interviews and a new survey of staff in the 115th session of Congress, I capture staffer intent to leave their current position and track whether they actually left their position 12 months later. Similar to civil servants, staff who report dissatisfaction with coworkers report higher levels of turnover intention, while the type of office, age, and level of education impact actual turnover. However, the extent to which polarization impacts staffers’ job satisfaction impacts both intention and actual exit. My study makes a unique contributions to the growing body of literature devoted to understanding congressional staff by providing important insights into how to recruit and retain staff.

Research question:

What factors influence congressional staffers' desire to leave (exit intention) their positions and what factors influence staffers' actual exit from their roles?

What the research builds on:

Congressional staff are paid poorly compared to their counterparts working in lobbying, or the private sector. The low pay makes it difficult for most staff to live in Washington DC, leading to high turnover and a loss of talent and expertise in Congress.

What the research adds to the discussion:

My research takes a broader approach by not focusing solely on congressional staff who leave their positions to work in lobbying, but trying to understand the factors that influence why staff intend to leave and the factors that influence actual exit from Congress. Turnover intention is influenced by negative perceptions of coworkers’ abilities to effectively do their jobs, while actual exit is decreased through staff obtaining more knowledge and expertise while working on the Hill. However, the extent to which polarization impacts staffers’ job satisfaction impacts both intention and actual exit. Interestingly, salary was not a significant predictor of intention or actual exit. The lack of statistical significance should not be misconstrued to suggest that staff should not be paid more; however, this finding may be due in part to individuals self-selecting to work on the Hill knowing that the pay is poor compared to other opportunities, such as lobbying.

Novel methodology:

The study uses an original survey of congressional staff in the 115th session of Congress (2018) coupled with original interviews with staff.

Implications for society:

A portion of staffers who intend to exit ultimately do not. These individuals may be “quiet quitting” by remaining in their positions even though they have a desire for a career change and may not be committed to their work, which can have adverse impacts on the representational role of the members of Congress. If the staffers who are reporting they are leaving Congress because of the impact of polarization on their job satisfaction, are the staff who remain more comfortable with polarization and, in turn, likely to contribute to more polarization in Congress?

Implications for research:

Prior research has largely focused on the impact of polarization on members of Congress and the broader public, however, more attention should be paid to the impact of polarization on staff, the employees who work in the institution and serve a key role in representing the voices of the public. Future research should explore polarization among staff and the impact of polarization on the working environment of staff in greater detail.

Implications for policy:

Staff turnover and retention is of such importance to members that the House of Representatives created the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress at the start of the 116th session to address it. Concerns of the impact of polarization on staff are echoed by the final report issued by the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, and polarization should be an even bigger priority after the January 6th insurrection in 2021. The Select Committee issued several recommendations to encourage bipartisan collaboration and civility; for example, including training opportunities on skill building, collaboration, and civility for staff; New Member Orientation; updating Congress.gov to better acknowledge member contributions to legislation; and hosting bipartisan events to encourage socializing across the aisle, among other recommendations. Recently, Congress implemented one recommendation from the Select Committee by creating a coworking space in the Cannon House Office Building for staff to encourage staff interaction across the aisle. Time will tell how this “staff collaboration space” influences bipartisan interactions among staff; however, my findings suggest that there needs to be added emphasis on mitigating polarization in Congress.

Funding:

This project was supported by two Geneseo undergraduate research assistants, Hannah Rohrabacher and Bria Robinson, through grants from the SUNY Geneseo Foundation and Research Council.