Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Why do employees find it harder to say 'no' when their job or term continually depends on a new government decision?
Employees tend to say “no” when their contract, position or mandate soon expires and the extension is decided by the person whose decision they should control. He does not have to get a direct order; it is enough to know how the predecessors who objected have passed. Then he begins to adjust reports in advance, postpone sensitive items and choose a safer interpretation of the rules.
Temporary status thus turns personal existential risk into a mechanism of institutional control. Not every contract on a certain political pressure and temporary work can have a justified reason. A sign of the problem is when the temporary lasts for a long time in managerial and supervisory positions, when the renewal of the mandate does not have clear professional criteria and when it coincides with obedience in cases important to the government.
Recent research often measures what employees say they would do, not their actual decisions. The finding is therefore an important indication, but not definitive evidence of behaviour.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
surveys in multiple countries
Schuster, C. i dr. (2022), „Exit, Voice, and Sabotage: Public Service Motivation and Guerrilla Bureaucracy in Times of Unprincipled Political Principals“, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 32(2): 416–435.
- Contribution to this answer
- Schuster and co-authors show that officials are not automatically obedient when they consider that a political order harms the public interest: many are trying to persuade the leadership to give up, and some would rather leave or oppose. The paper, however, does not investigate whether an uncertain mandate or the possibility of an easy shift reduces the willingness to say “no”.
cross-country or cross-case comparison
Alon-Barkat, S., Gilad, S., Kosti, N. i Shpaizman, I. (2025), „Career Civil Servants’ Socially Embedded Responses to Democratic Backsliding“, Perspectives on Politics.
Alon-Barkat, S., Gilad, S., Kosti, N. i Shpaizman, I. (2025), “Career Civil Servants’ Socially Embedded Responses to Democratic Backsliding,” Perspectives on Politics.
- Contribution to this answer
- It shows that the expected politicization and the feeling that officials will have less influence increase the desire to leave and reduce the willingness to speak out and make additional efforts. This is close to our question, but the authors do not test specifically the effect of the temporary contract, acting status or mandate that the government can constantly renew or terminate.
research on public-servant behaviour
Gilad, S., Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. i Levi-Faur, D. (2025), „A Taste for Government Employment Also Rests on Its Political Flavor“, Public Administration Review 85(5): 1412–1425.
- Contribution to this answer
- This paper is very indirect for the question: it studies who wants to get a job in the state administration at a politically polarized moment. It does not study existing employees, their mandates or the decision whether to oppose the leadership.
cross-country or cross-case comparison
Staroňová, K., Rybář, M. i Spáč, P. (2026), „Anticipating Illiberalism: Drivers of Bureaucratic Turnover Intention“, Public Money & Management 46(4).
Staroňová, K., Rybář, M. i Spáč, P. (2026), “Anticipating Illiberalism: Drivers of Bureaucratic Turnover Intention”, Public Money & Management 46(4).
- Contribution to this answer
- Staroová, Ryb and Spáč show that officials who expect the arrival of illiberal authorities can start thinking about leaving even before the change occurs especially those with a strong motivation for public service and when they expect a conflict over integrity and values. But this work does not study uncertain mandates or temporary appointments either.
review of multiple studies
Dahlström, C. i Lapuente, V. (2022), „Comparative Bureaucratic Politics“, Annual Review of Political Science 25: 43–63.
- Contribution to this answer
- Dahlstrm and Lapuente explain why the professional autonomy of bureaucracy can be important versus immediate political control. This gives a theoretical logic to the question but the review does not test specifically whether the person whose re-appointment depends on the authorities therefore says “no” less often.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →