Author: Dr. Terry Acie
Keywords: Government Reorganization, Public Administration, Agency Restructuring, Government Reform, Public Sector Reform
Introduction
When government reorganizations go wrong, they have a detrimental impact on the agency, its workforce, and the customers who use its services. Government workers are a critical asset to the functionality and management within public administration (Kruyen & Sowa, 2023). Government agencies periodically undergo restructuring in response to federal leadership turnover, such as when newly elected presidents are sworn into office. These changes impact policy priorities or perceived inefficiencies within bureaucratic institutions. However, restructuring efforts in the past ten years have failed to live up to expectations.
Reorganization is intended to improve performance, streamline decision-making, or modernize public service delivery (Henderson & Pasha, 2021). Changing a business model, management framework, leadership, or employee structure is essential for an organization to maintain long-term success (Payne et al., 2023).
It is in the best interests of the federal government to consider whether changing its business model is warranted based on fiscal and product or service constraints.
Unlike private sector businesses that make changes from a pure profit/losses perspective, many public sector transformations are triggered by a presidential administration change and are often tied to campaign promises (Ganslmeier, 2026).
There is often an execution gap between campaign promises and bureaucratic reality.
When agency reorganizations are poorly planned or implemented without administrative input, the changes can generate unintended consequences (Yackee, 2025). The consequences often present as operational gaps, talent deficits, and unplanned funding constraints. These negatively impact government employees and the citizens who rely on public services.
Cabinet-level reorganization initiatives must be carefully designed to ensure that institutional change does not disrupt essential public functions (Li et al., 2026). When change management edicts are rushed or implemented without clear leadership input, they undermine administrative capacity and weaken public trust in government institutions (Li et al., 2026; Yackee, 2025).
The Purpose of Reorganization
Federal and state reorganization is a common feature of modern public administration (Peters, 2018). Administrations frequently conduct reorganization activities to address emerging policy challenges, consolidate functions, or improve coordination between departments (Peters, 2018). These reforms are unconsciously influenced by management frameworks such as New Public Management (NPM), which present as Key Performance Indicator goals. NPM’s core principles emphasize efficiency, performance measurement, and results-oriented governance (Franklin & Raadschelders, 2023).
The goal of restructuring initiatives is to allow agencies to realign resources and improve service delivery (Franklin & Raadschelders, 2023; Shafritz & Hyde, 2017). Strategic organizational reforms are intended to reduce bureaucratic redundancy, improve interagency coordination, and create clearer lines of authority within complex administrative systems (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2017). What is the institutional cost of the restructure when human capital is driven away from a federal or state organization? Pitts et al. (2011) found that the cost of federal employee turnover is over 150 percent of the employee’s annual compensation package.
Successful restructuring requires careful planning, clear communication, and strong administrative leadership to mitigate service disruption and reduce taxpayer costs.
Risks of Unplanned Reorganization
When reorganizations are implemented without sufficient planning, they can disrupt agency operations and weaken institutional performance. Research identifies a common problem that involves defining roles and responsibilities following structural changes (Shafritz & Hyde, 2017). Employees may struggle to understand new reporting relationships, program authorities, or operational procedures. Employees may duplicate efforts in job duties while other key tasks go unattended.
Rapid destabilization of government organizations may also disrupt and reduce institutional knowledge (Sabharwal et al., 2025), which is a second-order effect of poorly planned reorganizations. Employees with this knowledge often possess deep familiarity with agency processes, key institutional positions, and program implementation strategies. When restructuring initiatives displace personnel or alter organizational units without clear transition plans, agencies risk losing valuable expertise that supports effective governance (Ali et al., 2018).
These disruptions can slow policy implementation and create confusion among both employees and external stakeholders.
Impacts on Service Delivery
Poorly managed reorganizations directly affect the quality and reliability of public services because they impact engagement, burnout, and job satisfaction (Fenizia & Makridis, 2026). When agencies experience internal instability, administrative attention may shift away from program delivery toward managing internal transitions.
For example, changes to organizational structures can delay program approvals, disrupt regulatory oversight, or complicate communication between agencies responsible for implementing federal policies. Public programs that rely on coordinated administrative processes through cross-functional stakeholders can be impacted in several areas.
These impacts include healthcare benefits, workforce development programs, or regulatory enforcement, which may experience temporary interruptions during periods of organizational restructuring. These interruptions can have a negative impact on services that organizations such as the Department of Veterans Affairs provide for veterans.
In extreme cases, service delays or program disruptions can affect vulnerable populations that depend on government assistance.
Organizational Culture and Workforce Morale
Agency restructuring can negatively impact workforce morale and organizational culture (Park et al., 2018). Employees who experience frequent organizational fluctuations may perceive instability within their institutions, which can reduce engagement and productivity (Clinger, 2016; McCarthy et al., 2020).
Public administration research consistently emphasizes the importance of organizational stability and leadership communication during periods of institutional change (Clinger, 2016). When change management activities are not clearly articulated to employees, the goals and benefits of restructuring initiatives are negatively impacted. This can lead to employees having feelings of uncertainty about their roles and career trajectories.
Over time, declining morale can contribute to increased turnover and reduced administrative capacity within government institutions (Kim & Fernandez, 2017).
Administrative Lessons for Policymakers
For policymakers and federal executives, especially in the Senior Executive Service grades, reorganization challenges highlight the importance of strategic planning when implementing institutional reforms. Effective reorganizations typically include clear objectives, stakeholder engagement, and well-defined transition strategies.
Public administration leaders must also ensure that agency-wide reorganizations maintain continuity in service delivery while preserving institutional knowledge and workforce expertise. Successful organizational reforms often involve phased implementation strategies, transparent communication, and careful monitoring of program outcomes. Success is best achieved when proven change management strategies are utilized (Siddiqui, 2017). Strategies include but are not limited to Kurt Lewin’s Three Step Model, Kotter’s 8 Step Change Process, and Prosci’s ADKAR Model. These models are proven frameworks that will allow a public administration to develop a robust plan to enact enterprise-wide change.
By prioritizing these elements, agencies can reduce the risks associated with structural reforms and ensure that administrative changes ultimately strengthen government performance.
Public Administration Take-Away
For veterans receiving care at a VA Hospital, the consequences of poorly managed government reorganizations can be significant. Administrative disruptions may lead to delays in health services, reduced veteran benefits delivery, and uncertainty regarding agency policies or assistance programs that provide vital care at vital moments.
When agencies experience instability during restructuring efforts, the public may encounter longer wait times for services, inconsistent policy implementation, or confusion regarding which institutions are responsible for addressing specific issues.
Effective public administration, therefore, requires that institutional reforms be carefully designed and implemented with the public interest in mind. Thoughtful restructuring can improve government performance, but poorly managed reforms risk undermining the very services that citizens rely upon.
Ultimately, the success or failure of administrative reforms is measured not only by internal organizational outcomes but also by the real-world impact those changes have on the communities government institutions are meant to serve.
References
Ali, S. B., Bishu, S., & Alkadry, M. (2018). Why men and women want to leave? Turnover intent among public procurement officers. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(7), 668–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018771744
Clinger, J. C. (2016). Turnover at the top: Causes and consequences of leadership change in public agencies. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, 1–6. https://doi.org/DOI%2010.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1863-
Fenizia, A., & Makridis, C. (2026). Personnel Reform and the Federal Workforce. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6319458
Franklin, A. L., & Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2023). Governance Through Government and Public Administration: Is Governance A Nuisance, a Necessity, or a Blessing? In A. L. Franklin & J. C. N. Raadschelders (Eds.), Introduction to Governance, Government and Public Administration (pp. 11–33). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32689-9_2
Ganslmeier, M. (2026). From Pledge to Poll: Investigating the Impact of Campaign Promises on Party Alignment. Comparative Political Studies, 59(4), 870–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140251342928
Henderson, M. F., & Pasha, O. (2021). Change Management: Reactions, Tools, and Strategies. Public Management Bulletin, (22). https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/reports/20210124_PMB_22_Change_Management_Pasha_Henderson_4%202021-06-30.pdf
Kim, S., & Fernandez, S. (2017). Employee empowerment and turnover intention in the U.S. federal bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015583712
Kruyen, P. M., & Sowa, J. E. (2023). Essential but Ignored: Including Blue-Collar Government Workers Into Human Resource Management Research. Public Personnel Management, 52(4), 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260231187540
Li, J., Tang, S.-Y., & Wen, B. (2026). Unpacking Resilience in Public Administration: Insights From a Meta-Narrative Review. Public Administration Review, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.70083
McCarthy, I. O., Moonesinghe, R., & Dean, H. D. (2020). Association of employee engagement factors and turnover intention among the 2015 U.S. federal government workforce. SAGE Open, 10(2), 2158244020931847. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020931847
Park, S. M., Joaquin, M. E., Min, K. R., & Ugaddan, R. G. (2018). Do reform values matter? Federal worker satisfaction and turnover intention at the dawn of the Trump presidency. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(6), 506–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017706674
Payne, D., Trumbach, C., & Soharu, R. (2023). The Values Change Management Cycle: Ethical Change Management. Journal of Business Ethics: JBE, 188(3), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05306-8
Peters, B. G. (2018). The Politics of Bureaucracy: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration (7th ed.). Routledge.
Pitts, D., Marvel, J., & Fernandez, S. (2011). So hard to say goodbye? Turnover intention among U.S. federal employees. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02414.x
Sabharwal, M., Hijal-Moghrabi, I., & McCandless, S. (2025). A Case for Public Service: Why Cutting the Federal Workforce is Not Efficient? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 45(2), 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X251344822
Shafritz, J., & Hyde, A. (2017). Classics of Public Administration (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. https://www.cengage.com/c/classics-of-public-administration-8e-shafritz-hyde/9781305639034/
Siddiqui, S. (2017). Critical Review of Change Management Strategies and Models. International Journal of Advanced Research, 5(4), 670–676. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/3862
Yackee, S. W. (2025). Executive policymaking influence via the administrative apparatus. Public Administration Review, 85(5), 1445–1459. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13899
