*Names in bold indicate Presenter
In an attempt to meet or exceed performance, executives are in charge of structuring the work environment to be more efficient, providing feedback to employees, and fostering positive group dynamics in order to meet resultant performance goals. The question remains, however, if executives who fail to meet performance standards are more likely to be replaced. I hypothesize that public executives, like their private counterparts, are being held accountable for not meeting performance-based benchmarks. In public organizations, we might expect that boards would also replace a failing executive to send a signal of revitalization, though in that case, the expected payoff of such an action would likely be electoral.
To test this question, I examine the No Child Left Behind Act, one of the nation’s largest accountability programs, which requires public school districts to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). I use a restricted-use administrative dataset and surveys collected by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The state of Missouri collects personnel information for every superintendent, principal, and teacher in the state public school system. I examine the effect of not meeting Federal and State Accountability benchmarks on superintendent turnover across a longitudinal time panel from 1998 to 2011. Based on my preliminary analysis, I find that, unlike their private sector counterparts, failing to meet accountability standards are not associated with executive attrition. Future iterations will include a full sample of superintendents and include important interaction terms to begin to tease out the effect of not meeting performance benchmarks on executive attrition.