In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

[Appointees] not only impact you, they impact everything that’s going on—your colleagues and through you, at least, the people under you. [A bad relationship with a political appointee] doesn’t just hurt you; it hurts the people who work for you. —Anonymous senior career executive To measure the impact of trust on intellectual capital capacity across a variety of organizational contexts, an intercept-and-slopes-as-outcomes model that conceptualizes the indirect influence of organizational embeddedness traits on individual perceptions and behaviors is used. An intercept -and-slopes-as-outcomes model enables us to see how the relationship between conceptions of trust and intellectual capital on an individual level is moderated by key contextual-level variables, while intellectual capital as an organizational-level construct is directly impacted by these attributes of the context in which the organization also operates. Trust is a highly context -specific construct, and thus to properly model its relative importance across organizational contexts, it is important to accommodate the differences in key embeddedness traits across a multiplicity of organizations in order to adequately enable replication of the individual-level measurement of the trust constructs (Gillespie, 2012, p. 180). Multilevel modeling accounts for the sensitivity of the measure across unique contexts by accounting for the nested nature of individuals within organizations by controlling for these agency-level differences (i.e., by isolating those traits to which the trust variables might be most sensitive). As the following figures help clarify , dashed lines indicate direct relationships between contextual-level vari4 Appointee-Careerist Relations and Trickle-Down Trust The Joist-Building Power of Stratified Trust on the Federal Workforce 100 Rethinking the Administrative Presidency ables and average perceptions of capacity across the respective organization (i.e., the varying intercept in a respective analytical model), while solid lines indicate direct or directly moderating effects at the individual level. For example, the figure 4.1 shows a reduced and isolated relationship from figure 2.1. This provides a simple explanation of a hypothesis that is explicitly tested in this chapter’s empirical analysis. This heuristic simply states that stratified trust (i.e., the dyadic trust established between career executives and political appointees) will (1) moderate the impact of dyadic trust at lower levels of the organization on individual perceptions of intellectual capital and (2) directly and positively impact intellectual capital at the organizational level. Likewise, figures 4.2–4.4, respectively, state that politicization, agency ideology (on a continuous descending scale from conservative to liberal), and appointee vacancies have a negative impact on intellectual capital at the organizational level while simultaneously increasing the premium that dyadic trust has on respondents’ perceptions of organizational capacity. I include these heuristics to help those readers unfamiliar with hierarchical modeling to better understand the how I test the theory presented in the previous chapter in simpler terms by isolating the larger argument to particular relationships. At the same time, it is critical for the reader to understand the utility of the multilevel approach to statistical modeling in testing the theory outlined in chapter 2. Importantly, I use multilevel regression to account for the fact that respondents are nested in larger agencies. As Heinrich and Hill (2010) argued, it is “challenging to think of a governmental context in which a multilevel conceptualization would not be appropriate, Figure 4.1. Direct and moderating impacts of stratified trust Dyadic trust Intellectual capital Individual level 1 Agency level 1    Stratified trust Figure 4.2. Direct and moderating impacts of politicization Dyadic trust Intellectual capital Individual level 1 Agency level 2    Politicization Figure 4.3. Direct and moderating impacts of agency ideology (scale = conservative > liberal) Intellectual capital Agency ideology Trust in leadership Individual level 1 Agency level 2    Figure 4.4. Direct and moderating impacts of appointee vacancies Intellectual capital Appointee vacancies Trust in leadership Individual level 1 Agency level 2 H2  H1  H3  102 Rethinking the Administrative Presidency even if the relevant data were not available to explore the multilevel relationships empirically” (p. 836). In this chapter’s analysis, for instance, I test perceptual survey data of respondents across 72 agency-level units of analysis . Thus, I have the advantage of variation among the different agencies’ embeddedness attributes that allow me to test the impact these various attributes have on individual perceptions and behaviors. Additionally, the construction of my model as individuals nested within various agency settings allows me to learn how the effects of different individual-level predictors of theoretical interest vary across these settings, based on...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.