ChapterPDF Available

Strategic Management in Public Administration

Authors:

Abstract

Strategic management is an approach to strategizing by public organizations or other entities which integrates strategy formulation and implementation, and typically includes strategic planning to formulate strategies, ways of implementing strategies, and continuous strategic learning. Strategic management can help public organizations or other entities achieve important goals and create public value.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 1 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Subject: Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy Online Publication Date: Mar 2020
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1396
Strategic Management in Public Administration
John Bryson and Bert George
Summary and Keywords
Strategic management is an approach to strategizing by public organizations or other en
tities that integrates strategy formulation and implementation, and typically includes
strategic planning to formulate strategies, ways of implementing strategies, and continu
ous strategic learning. Strategic management can help public organizations or other enti
ties achieve important goals and create public value.
Strategy is what links capabilities and aspirations. Four broad types of strategists (as in
dividuals, teams, organizations, and collaborations) in public administration exist: the re
actor (low aspirations, low capabilities), the dreamer (high aspirations, low capabilities),
the underachiever (low aspirations, high capabilities) and the savvy strategist (high aspi
rations, high capabilities).
There are eight approaches to strategic planning. More comprehensive process approach
es include those influenced by the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, and
stakeholder management. More partial process approaches include strategic negotia
tions, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innova
tion. Finally, two content approaches also exist, namely, portfolio and competitive forces
analyses.
Seven approaches to strategic management systems can be discerned. These include: the
integrated units of management approach (or layered or stacked units of management),
strategic issues management approach, contract approach, collaboration approach (in
cluding the lead organization, shared governance, and network administrative organiza
tion approaches), portfolio management approach, goal or benchmark approach, and hy
brid approaches.
Strategic planning and management are approaches to identifying and addressing chal
lenges. Neither is a single invariant thing but is instead a set of concepts, processes, pro
cedures, tools, techniques, and practices (and structures in the case of strategic manage
ment systems) that must be drawn on selectively and adapted thoughtfully and strategi
cally to specific contexts if they are to help produce desirable results. While there are a
variety of generic approaches to both, the boundaries among them are not necessarily
clear, and strategic planning and management in practice are typically hybridic. Research
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 2 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
is accumulating about which approaches to strategic planning and management work un
der which circumstances, how, and why, but much work remains to be done.
Keywords: strategy, strategizing, strategic planning, strategic management, public management, nonprofit man
agement, public administration and policy
“The coach still sees chances because he sees vision and structure.”
– Louis van Gaal, Head Coach of the Dutch Football Team, World Cup Brazil 2014.1
Introduction
Strategy is omnipresent in government, and many approaches tied to strategy—such as
strategic planning and management—are part of the standard toolbox of public managers
and policymakers (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015). The 21st-century policymaker or public man
ager is indeed confronted with myriad challenges—all of which require effective strate
gies: What is the public value he or she wants to generate? How will he or she do so? And
with whom?
Strategies link aspirations and the capabilities needed to achieve them (Gaddis, 2018).
Strategizing implies the deliberate as well as emergent (re)alignment of aspirations and
capabilities, thus making sure that aspirations can actually be achieved—or else need to
be changed—by taking into account current capabilities and the possible need to develop
new ones. Strategizing is not limited, of course, to single organizations but is relevant to
any entity where aspirations and capabilities need to be aligned (e.g., individuals, teams,
organizations, coalitions, communities).
Assuming the strategy is good, the theory holds that good performance will ensue. In the
example of the Dutch National Football Team (see the epigram), the alignment of vision
(the aspiration to be among the final four teams, despite little belief among Dutch media
that it was possible) and structure or capability (appointing world-class support staff and
carefully considering team composition and alignments under different scenarios) result
ed in a third place finish at the 2014 World Cup, in spite of what many consider a general
ly weak group of players.
Strategic planning and management are specific approaches that can enable effective
strategizing in and by public organizations or other entities (e.g., cross-boundary func
tions, collaborations, communities). Each approach consists of a set of concepts, process
es, procedures, tools, techniques, and practices to be drawn on selectively and tailored to
specific contexts, even as the context itself likely should be changed. Strategic manage
ment also adds characteristic structures to this mix (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015).
Strategic planning can be defined as a deliberate approach to strategy formulation and
typically includes such elements as analyzing the mandate, defining a mission and values,
analyzing the internal and external environment, identifying strategic issues, formulating
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 3 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
strategies to address issues, and often articulating a vision for the future. Strategic man
agement includes strategic planning but also links it to strategy implementation through,
for instance, organizational design, resource management, performance measurement,
and change management. Elements of both approaches have even been engrained in leg
islative initiatives worldwide, forcing their adoption by public organizations (e.g., the
Government Performance, Results and Modernization Act in the United States, Best Value
in England and Wales, Policy and Management Cycle in Flanders, Belgium).
Despite the clear need for strategy in governments as well as the widespread (and often
coerced) adoption of strategic planning and management by public organizations, these
approaches have not gone without criticism. Many critics base their skepticism on the
sense that strategy as a focus, strategic planning, and strategic management emerged
from the new public management–type thinking in the 1980s and onwards. Hence, strate
gy, strategic planning, and strategic management have often been conflated with con
cepts and practices presumed to be imported from businesses, including efficiency and
effectiveness, market-oriented thinking, and competition—all of which actually have deep
roots in the public sector.
This view is clearly too narrow, given the public and military roots of strategy and its long
history of use in the service of public purposes (Freedman, 2013; Gaddis, 2018). What is
new is the adaptation of various aspects of private-sector experience to public purposes,
which has brought some improvements as well as challenges to public-sector strategizing
(Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015). This article draws on scholarship and practical experience to ex
plore how strategy, strategic planning, and strategic management have become valuable
concepts to help identify, pursue, and realize important purposes and public values gov
ernments need to uphold. To do so, definitions of strategy, strategizing, strategic plan
ning, and strategic management specifically applied to public administration are first pro
vided and the validity of key criticisms toward these concepts is discussed. Subsequent
sections discuss strategic planning and management in more detail. In the article’s final
section, a number of conclusions and an agenda for future research are offered.
Defining Strategy, Strategizing, Strategic Plan
ning, and Strategic Management
In this section the key terms are broadly defined so that each is portrayed as an approach
to comprehending and addressing challenges within public administration.
Defining Strategy
Strategy may be defined as a concrete approach to aligning the aspirations and the capa
bilities of public organizations or other entities in order to achieve goals and create pub
lic value.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 4 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Figure 1. The aspirations-capabilities matrix of strat
egy in public administration.
The definition highlights some important considerations. First, strategies are needed and
emerge in any context where aspirations and capabilities should be aligned. For example,
many authors have discussed successful strategies in the context of complex networks
(Kickert, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 1997) and collaborations (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015). Se
cond, strategy in public administration is not necessarily, or even often, about competitive
advantage. Rather, the main idea underlying strategy is that public organizations and re
lated entities—through their strategies—can actually achieve important goals and, subse
quently, create public value (Moore, 1995). Third, strategy elucidates how aspirations can
be achieved in a given context taking into account current or needed capabilities. The
quality of a strategy should thus be judged by the nature of the aspirations, the capabili
ties needed to meet the aspirations, and how well the aspirations and capabilities are
linked within the given context (Bryson, Ackermann, & Eden, 2007). In other words,
strategies can vary greatly in how well they align aspirations and capabilities.
Taking this argument further, one can identify four broad types of strategists (as individu
als, teams, organizations, collaborations) in public administration: The reactor (low aspi
rations, low capabilities), the dreamer (high aspirations, low capabilities), the under
achiever (low aspirations, high capabilities) and the savvy strategist (high aspirations,
high capabilities). Figure 1 presents this typology, which can be used to help to assess at
a broad-brush level the nature and quality of the strategy of a public-sector entity.
The reactor is a public organization or other entity that does not really have a strategy. It
has low aspirations and is not focused on developing high capabilities. A reactor is typi
cally a follower awaiting instructions from its institutional environment before acting. Re
search has shown that a reactor strategy is an unlikely pathway to effective public service
performance and can even result in decreased performance (R. Andrews, Boyne, Law, &
Walker, 2012).
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 5 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
The dreamer is a public organization or other entity that has high aspirations but does not
have or is not developing the capabilities needed to meet these aspirations. Such a strate
gy is unrealistic, and it is unlikely the goals will be achieved. The Europe 2020 strategy,
for instance, has very ambitious targets concerning employment, research and develop
ment, climate change and energy, education, and poverty and social exclusion. While
some progress has been made toward these targets, many are still seemingly unachiev
able by 2020. Moreover, many European member states have not adopted these targets in
their own national policy goals, thus further raising questions concerning the presence of
the needed governance capabilities to achieve Europe 2020 (Drumaux & Joyce, 2018).
The underachiever is a public organization or other entity that has low aspirations despite
having (or being able to develop) high capabilities. Such a strategy is not ambitious and is
unlikely to result in the creation of substantial public value. A potential example may be
found in the policy goals of many Flemish municipalities (Flanders is the northern, Dutch-
speaking part of Belgium). These municipalities were required to formulate policy plans
for the 2014–2019 policy cycle, including a series of priority policy goals (George, 2017).
Many of these goals focused on the bare minimum that needed to be done in specific poli
cy domains to receive funding from the Flemish regional government. An underlying rea
son was blame avoidance: If goals are not too ambitious, surely they can be met, and thus
no one will be held accountable for failing to meet the goals (George, Desmidt, Nielsen, &
Baekgaard, 2017).
The final category is the savvy strategist, a public organization or other entity with both
high aspirations and existing or developing high capabilities. This is likely the preferred
strategy many entities should strive for—meaning an effective alignment of high aspira
tions for goal achievement and the creation of public value and the capabilities potent
enough to actually realize the aspirations.
The Marshal Plan after World War II might be a good example of a savvy strategy. Its am
bitions could not have been higher—the economic recovery and reconstruction of Euro
pean countries torn apart by war—but it ensured the necessary capabilities to back this
up, with a total amount of funds surpassing US$12 billion. The Marshal Plan also resulted
in the foundation of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), still one of the leading international public institutions in public administration,
management, and governance topics. Another example of a savvy strategy is the Dutch
Delta Works, which are praised worldwide as an approach to effective flood prevention.
Again, aspirations were particularly high, namely to protect the Netherlands from floods
due to rising sea levels, and the Dutch government ensured the necessary capabilities, in
cluding major infrastructure investments, to actually achieve this ambitious aspiration.
While the savvy strategy may well be preferred, the three other strategy types are likely
to be more common in public administration. Indeed, a lack of ambition or realism in pub
lic organizations’ strategies is the crux of much popular and academic criticism. For pub
lic administration to fulfill its potential, more savvy strategists are needed.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 6 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Defining Strategizing
Strategies can be deliberately formulated and implemented. They can also emerge in an
unplanned way as desirable patterns form and are recognized after the fact as good
strategies. Finally, they can be realized, which is what happens when what is intended
merges with what is emergent (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2009). In all three situa
tions, policymakers and other decision-makers are called upon to be good at strategizing.
Strategizing consists of the activities undertaken by public organizations or other
entities to deliberately and emergently (re)align their aspirations and capabilities,
thus exploring how aspirations can actually be achieved within a given context—or
else need to be changed—taking into account current capabilities and the possible
need to develop new capabilities or to change the context.
The definition of strategizing responds to two main confusions regarding strategy in pub
lic administration. First, using the gerund form, strategizing, indicates that strategy is not
something public-sector entities “have”—a reification of strategy—but rather something
they “do”—meaning a practice (Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl, & Vaara, 2015).
What is missing, however, is adequate research on how good strategizing happens
(Höglund, Caicedo, Mårtensson, & Svärdsten, 2018): Which strategy tools were used,
why and how? Who was involved, why and how? What did the actual process look like and
why? That said, research indicates there is no such thing as one best strategy process;
rather, in practice, much variation exists in how public organizations and other entities
strategize. Assessing which variations have the best outcomes in which contexts can help
elucidate why strategy might or might not have worked. Such an approach has also been
labeled as the “configuration school” of strategy (Mintzberg et al., 2009). In short, cri
tiques centered on one specific kind of approach to strategizing in one specific kind of
context are thus not necessarily valid for other approaches in other contexts.
A second confusion arises as a result of strategy’s typically longer-term nature, which can
alter the order of, and blur the distinction between, planning and implementation. Over
time planning can lead implementation, follow it, or blend with it. As noted, strategizing
is both deliberate and emergent. For example, many public organizations’ strategic plans
have a three- to five-year time frame. It is thus easy to argue that strategy is not respon
sive enough to emergent circumstances, yet strategy is not just about what is in strategic
plans. On a regular basis public entities need to ensure their strategies suit current con
ditions. Strategizing is not a “one-off” activity, and it is typically needed whether or not it
results in a long-term strategic plan.
What Makes Strategizing “Strategic”?
What exactly makes public-sector strategizing strategic? All or most of the following fea
tures are typically used to characterize public-sector activities—and planning in particu
lar—as strategic (e.g., Albrechts & Balducci, 2013; Bryson, Edwards, & Van Slyke, 2018;
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 7 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Christensen, 1999; Conroy & Berke, 2004; Chakraborty, Kaza, Knaap, & Deal, 2011; Kauf
man & Jacobs, 1987):
Attention to context and to thinking about how to tailor the strategic approach to the
context, even as a purpose of the effort typically is to change the context in some im
portant way.
Thinking about purposes and goals, including attention to situational requirements
(e.g., political, legal, administrative, ethical, and environmental requirements).
An initial focus on a broad agenda and later moving to a more selective action focus.
An emphasis on systems thinking; that is, working to understand the dynamics of the
overall system being planned for and managed as it functions—or ideally should func
tion—across space and time, including the interrelationships among constituent sub
systems.
Attention to stakeholders, in effect making strategizing an approach to practical poli
tics; typically multiple levels of government and multiple sectors are explicitly or im
plicitly involved in strategizing.
A focus on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, and a focus on compet
itive and collaborative advantages.
A focus on thinking about potential futures and then making decisions in light of
their future consequences—in other words, joining temporal with spatial systemic
thinking.
Careful attention to implementation; strategy that cannot be operationalized effec
tively is hardly strategic.
A clear realization that strategies are both deliberately set in advance and emergent
in practice.
In short, a desire to stabilize what should be stabilized while maintaining appropriate
flexibility in terms of goals, policies, strategies, and processes to manage complexity;
taking advantage of important opportunities; and advancing resilience and sustainabil
ity in the face of an uncertain future.
These characteristics should not be interpreted as some type of formula; instead, they
represent elements of, or principles to guide, good strategizing. They also imply that good
strategizing requires good strategists to carefully consider how these specific character
istics can be operationalized in specific contexts.
Defining Strategic Planning
Strategic planning is a reasonably deliberate and deliberative approach to strategizing by
public organizations or other entities that focuses on strategy formulation and typically
includes (a) analyzing existing mandates, mission, values, and vision; (b) formulating up
dated mission, values, and vision statements; (c) analyzing the internal and external envi
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 8 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
ronment to identify strategic issues; and (d) formulating concrete and implementable
strategies to address the identified issues.
This definition identifies strategic planning as an approach to strategizing. The approach
is deliberate in the sense that practitioners set out to deliberately, and typically delibera
tively, formulate strategies—which can include embracing emergent strategies—using
strategic planning concepts, processes, procedures, tools, techniques, and practices. The
results are usually—but not necessarily—presented in a strategic plan. This implies that
while there is some formality to the strategic planning process, creativity and innovation
may be emphasized as part of that process (George, Desmidt, Cools, & Prinzie, 2018).
Three main criticisms are often presented as arguments opposing strategic planning’s ef
fectiveness in public administration. First, due to its deliberate nature, strategic planning
inhibits attention to emerging strategies. Second, strategic planning is criticized for be
ing an intraorganizational process that might inhibit interorganizational collaboration.
Third, strategic planning is often linked to the performance management toolbox (and
subsequent goals, indicators, targets, etc.), which can lull practitioners into believing that
strategy is a fixed, quantifiable routine and thereby deaden its potential for fostering ef
fective strategizing.
A meta-analysis of 31 empirical studies (with a total sample of 8,618 organizations) on the
strategic planning–organizational performance relationship demonstrates that most of
these criticisms are not particularly valid (George, Walker, & Monster, 2019). The meta-
analysis shows that strategic planning—in general—has a statistically significant, posi
tive, and moderate impact on organizational performance. This impact becomes particu
larly strong when organizational performance is measured as effectiveness—a finding
which holds across public and private sectors and countries.
Literature reviews also show mostly positive outcomes linked to the adoption of strategic
planning in public organizations (e.g., Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010; George & Desmidt,
2014; Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010). So the argument that strategic planning—when
done well—inhibits an organization’s capacity to detect emerging strategies or offers the
illusion of effectiveness is not particularly grounded in evidence. However, most evidence
so far has focused on strategic planning as a tool for organizations. Whether or not strate
gic planning might also be useful for other entities remains unclear.
Defining Strategic Management
Strategic management is an approach to strategizing by public organizations or other en
tities which integrates strategy formulation and implementation and typically includes
strategic planning to formulate strategies, ways of implementing strategies, and continu
ous strategic learning.
Strategic planning is the basis for strategic management, but the latter is far more en
compassing. Poister (2010) argues that strategic management comprises (a) strategic
planning; (b) budgeting, performance measurement, and management and evaluation
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 9 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
(ways of implementing); and (c) feedback among these elements to enhance fulfillment of
the mission, the meeting of mandates, and sustained creation of public value via strategic
learning. Strategic management approaches are meant to aid the strategizing efforts of
public leaders and managers to coordinate important decisions across levels and func
tions within an organization and across organizations (Talbot, 2010; Van Dooren, Bouck
aert, & Halligan, 2015). The approaches vary in terms of their comprehensiveness, for
mality, and tightness of control over planning and implementation processes.
This definition also includes an important part of strategic management that often does
not receive enough attention (thus sparking further criticism), namely, continuous strate
gic learning. By including strategic learning, strategic management can ensure that an
organization or other entity periodically and continuously assesses the relevance of its
strategies to determine whether they are working or whether new strategies are emerg
ing or needed (OECD, 2018).
Strategic Planning in More Detail
Differing generic approaches to strategic planning vary in their emphases on process,
content, or both. Regardless of approach, however, applications in practice are likely to
be highly contingent because of the need to take context into account in order to be ap
propriately strategic (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015). For example, approaches are likely to vary
depending on whether it is being applied at the organizational or subunit level, to a
boundary-crossing function or collaboration, or to a community or place. Prominent
generic approaches are discussed, drawing especially from Bryson (2015), Bryson and
Edwards (2017), Bryson et al. (2018), and Ferlie and Ongaro (2015).
More comprehensive process approaches are treated first. These include those influ
enced by the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, and stakeholder management
approaches. Next, more partial process approaches are considered, including strategic
negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for in
novation. Finally, two content approaches are discussed, namely, portfolio and competi
tive forces analyses.
More Comprehensive Process Approaches
The Harvard Policy Model
The Harvard Policy Model has been a major influence on the most widely used generic
strategic planning processes in the public sector. The purpose of the model is to find the
best fit between a firm or strategic business unit and its environment (K. Andrews, 1980;
Bower, Bartlett, Christensen, & Pearson, 1991). The fit is to be found via analyzing the fo
cal unit’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; the values of senior manage
ment; and the social obligations of the firm. Planning and implementation are clearly sep
arated conceptually and practically. A senior management team is assumed to be in
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 10 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
charge of strategy formulation and implementation. No specific advice on how to imple
ment strategies is offered.
Typically a number of adaptation are necessary before the model can be applied to public
organizations or other entities. First, a broader range of stakeholders must be consid
ered. Second, when applied at a broader government-wide level, a portfolio approach of
some kind is also needed. A strategic issues management approach also needs to be
added because articulating and addressing issues are at the heart of much public deci
sion-making. When applied to a collaboration or place, the model needs to be paired with
portfolio, issues management, and stakeholder management approaches because of the
shared-power nature of these contexts.
Public-sector adaptions of the Harvard model all draw on a roughly similar sequence of
activities, while recognizing that following a strict order is often not feasible, necessary,
or desirable (e.g., Bryson, 2018; Nutt & Backoff, 1992). These activities include
Prepare for strategic planning by determining what elements should be included and
a timeline. Stakeholder analysis is also valuable at this point to identify who is affected
by or should be involved in the process.
Create, clarify, or update organizational (or another entity’s) mission, vision, values,
and goals. Clarify any legal statutes or mandates that require adherence.
Assess external and internal environments by analyzing strengths, weaknesses, op
portunities, and threats.
Identify and analyze issues facing an organization or other entity based on upcoming
changes and/or challenges.
Identify potential strategies for effectively addressing the issues.
Assess the feasibility of strategies in terms of technical and administrative workabili
ty, political acceptance, and moral, legal, and ethical justifications.
Develop implementation plans and plans for related desirable changes.
Evaluate, monitor, and update the plan continually as new information becomes
available.
Reassess strategies and the strategic planning process.
Logical Incrementalism
Quinn (1980) argued that formal strategic planning was likely to fail when analysis and
centralization of decision-making were excessive; politics, power, and relationships were
not taken into account; and incrementalism’s benefits in terms of learning and building
consensus were ignored. In contrast, he emphasized the importance of incrementalism
that is guided by overall organizational (or another entity’s) purposes, even as incremen
tal changes on the ground may lead to changing the purposes. The resulting “logical in
crementalism” helps fuse strategic planning and implementation. Quinn sees formal
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 11 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
strategic planning and logical incrementalism as desirable complements and not as inher
ently antagonistic.
By fusing strategy formulation and implementation, logical incrementalism also joins
strategic planning and strategic management. Logical incrementalism done well can ad
dress complexity and help manage change, incorporate major as well as minor decisions,
incorporate formal and informal process, and be politically realistic. Note as well that in
cremental changes in degree can add up over time into changes in kind.
Public-sector entities can, and likely often do, pursue logical incremental strategies when
they use some sort of strategic planning to establish broad purposes and logical incre
mentalism to reach their goals. Indeed, one study found that organizations that do strate
gic planning improve but do so even more when they also use logical incrementalism
(Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013). Community-level collaborative planning typically
makes use of logical incrementalism. Collaborative goals and arrangements are likely to
emerge in an incremental fashion as organizations individually and collectively explore
their self-interests and possible collaborative advantages, establish collaborative relation
ships, and manage changes incrementally within a shared collaborative framework (Gray
& Purdy, 2018; Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Innes & Booher, 2018).
Stakeholder Management
Strategy can be understood in part as the way an organization or other entity relates to
its stakeholders. Freeman (1984) defines a stakeholder as any individual, group, organi
zation, or other entity that is affected by, or that can affect, the organization’s strategic
future. In his view and that of others, a strategy will only be effective if it satisfies the
needs of multiple groups (Ackermann & Eden, 2011; Gomes, Liddle, & Gomes, 2010;
Walker et al., 2010). Stakeholder management is highly relevant in the public sector be
cause of the many groups that have stakes in public organizations, functions, collabora
tions, and communities and because the approach incorporates economic, political, and
social concerns. Beyond that, some forms of stakeholder engagement (e.g., citizen partici
pation or open comment periods) may be mandated as part of government decision-mak
ing processes (Brody, Godschalk, & Burby, 2003; Buckwalter, 2014). Successful use of the
model assumes that key decision-makers can achieve reasonable agreement about who
the key stakeholders are and what the response to their claims should be.
Note, however, the difference between taking stakeholders’ interests and concerns seri
ously and actually engaging them in strategic planning (Quick & Feldman, 2011). While
some studies indicate that greater participation in strategic planning leads to better per
formance, at least in collaborative settings (e.g., Lee, McGuire, & Kim, 2018), a meta-
analysis of the impact of strategic planning on organizational performance indicates that
participation per se does not significantly increase performance, and practitioners should
carefully assess how they will organize participation (George et al., 2019)
The strengths of the stakeholder model are its recognition of the many claims—both com
plementary and competing—placed on organizations or other entities by insiders and out
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 12 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
siders and its awareness of the need to satisfy at least the key stakeholders. The ap
proach can be particularly useful in planning for cross-boundary functions, such as trans
portation (Neshkova & Guo, 2012; Poister et al., 2013), collaborations (Deyle & Wieden
man, 2014), and planning for places (Brody et al., 2003; Edelenbos & Klijn, 2005), which
all involve multiple stakeholders.
Partial Process Approaches
Strategic Negotiations
Strategy often results, at least in part, from the partial resolution of organizational issues
through negotiations. Allison (1971) and Pettigrew (1973) pioneered the resulting strate
gic negotiations process approach. Governance increasingly involves negotiations
through a variety of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial processes that include community
visioning processes to create political mandates (that can provide the overall direction
component of logical incrementalism), negotiated rule-making, and environmental dis
pute resolution (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015).
The use of negotiations acknowledges that power is shared in many public situations and
that cooperation and negotiation are required in order to reach agreements. Those agree
ments, however, may be subject to questions about the technical quality, process legitima
cy, and democratic responsibility of results (Page, Stone, Bryson, & Crosby, 2014). Inter
estingly, Innes and Booher (2018) find that negotiations can result in rational, politically
acceptable, and implementable solutions, even though the negotiation process itself looks
very messy.
Strategic Issues Management
The Harvard model skipped an important step between the SWOT analysis and strategy
formulation: the identification of strategic issues as part of the strategic planning process
and less comprehensive annual reviews. Direct attention to issues is important for many
public organizations or other entities, because their agendas often consist of issues that
should be managed strategically (Ackermann & Eden, 2011). As a result, many organiza
tions make use of strategic issue management processes actually separated from annual
strategic planning processes, since important issues emerge too quickly to be handled as
part of an annual or less frequent process. The approach also applies to functions, collab
orations, or communities, as long as there is a group able to address and manage the is
sue or issues.
The approach’s strength is its ability to articulate and analyze key issues quickly. A weak
ness is that it does not offer specific advice on exactly how to frame the issues other than
to precede their identification with a situational analysis of some sort. Nutt and Backoff
(1992) and Bryson, Cunningham, and Lokkesmoe (2002) have perhaps gone the furthest
in remedying this defect within the context of public strategic planning.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 13 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Strategic Planning as a Framework for Innovation
Other approaches use strategic planning—though it is typically called something else,
such as design—as a chance to innovate and provide creative solutions for upcoming chal
lenges (Ansell & Torfing, 2014; Bason, 2014; Osborne & Brown, 2012). These approaches
rely on many of the same components of the other approaches such as stakeholder analy
sis and issues management. What differentiates these approaches is their emphasis on
fostering innovation and creating a more entrepreneurial culture within the organization.
Unfortunately, pursuing innovation can be difficult in public entities with fewer resources
to test approaches or less room to make potentially costly mistakes (Bason, 2017). In ad
dition, public entities are often wary of risking failure in a visible way in a context where
rewards for trying and for learning from failure are less likely than punishment.
Only a few researchers have considered the connection between strategic planning and
public-sector innovation. R. Andrews et al. (2012) found that “organizations that empha
size a strategy of innovation get an even higher payoff when they fit this strategy to a
process characterized by flexibility and negotiation with powerful stakeholders [i.e., logi
cal incrementalism]” (p. 155). Another exception is Borins (2014), who in a large-scale
study of successful public-sector innovations found a strong reliance on strategic plan
ning (what he calls “comprehensive planning”) by the innovators, rather than “groping
along,” which is Behn’s (1988) term for a manager-focused (rather than organization-fo
cused) version of logical incrementalism. The relationship was contingent, however, on
who the innovators were and whether new technology was involved. If the innovators
were managers, planning was favored; if the innovators were front-line staff, groping
along was preferred. If new technology was involved, groping along was used more fre
quently.
Content Approaches
The process approaches assist planners with ways of doing strategic planning but offer
little advice as to what needs to be in strategies and plans. Strategic content approaches
help identify strategies that provide the best fit between the internal and external condi
tions of an organization or other entity but do not pay attention to process concerns. Two
of these are discussed in more detail: portfolio approaches and competitive analysis.
Portfolio Approaches
These approaches are meant to help assess and manage a “portfolio” of entities of some
sort (e.g., departments, programs, projects, budget items) in a strategic way. The portfo
lio arrays the entities against dimensions (usually two) deemed to be of strategic signifi
cance (e.g., the attractiveness of doing something vs. the capability of doing it). The re
sulting matrix helps users understand what kinds of issues they face with the different en
tities and what kinds of decisions they may need to make. Unfortunately, even though
many public organizations or other entities at least implicitly make use of portfolio ap
proaches, hardly any study exists that evaluates use of the approach in a public-sector
strategic planning context.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 14 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Competitive Analysis
Many public or quasi-public entities are clearly in competitive environments (Hansen &
Ferlie, 2016). For example, services in most countries often have to compete with private
businesses for customers. As a result, competitive analyses can be helpful as part of de
termining some of what should be in a strategic plan.
Vining (2011) adapted a private sector five-forces model (Porter, 1998) for the public sec
tor by adding political and economic considerations that are more appropriate for the
public sector. Vining emphasizes that public organizations need some autonomy in order
to have enough control over strategy to perform well. He hypothesizes that autonomy de
pends on a modified set of Porter’s five forces. These include the power of agency spon
sors/customers, the power of suppliers, the threat of substitute products, political influ
ence, and the intensity of rivalry between agencies. The usefulness of the model has not
been extensively tested. Hansen and Ferlie (2016) argue that the usefulness of these
analyses will be higher to the degree that there is administrative autonomy, performance-
based budgets are being used, and market-like conditions are present.
In sum, strategic planning is not a single thing but is instead a set of concepts, processes,
procedures, tools, techniques, and practices (Bryson, 2018; Höglund et al., 2018). Gener
ic approaches should be applied contingently in particular settings in order to produce
useful outcomes. Indeed, hybrid applications that blend approaches are often found
(Bryson, 2018; Favoreu, Carassus, Gardey, & Maurel, 2015).
Strategic Management in More Detail
Like strategic planning, strategic management consists of a family of generic approaches
that in practice must be adapted to specific contexts in a contingent fashion (Ferlie & On
garo, 2015). Strategic management approaches attempt to create a system for managing
a public organization or other entity strategically. Each strategic management system em
bodies a set of arrangements that empower particular actors, make particular kinds of is
sues more likely to arise, and favor particular kinds of strategies.
Strategic management systems are attempts to coordinate aspects of decision-making
across levels and functions and to concentrate on whether the entity is implementing its
strategies and accomplishing its mission. Relatively formal and comprehensive strategic
management systems are used by some kinds of public entities, such as hospitals, police
and fire departments, and the military. The U.S. federal government is moving toward a
reasonably comprehensive formal system (Moynihan, 2013). Early assessments of the rou
tines built into the new system show they do increase performance information use and
learning (Moynihan & Kroll, 2016). However, most government entities, including those
for collaborations and places, typically use less comprehensive, less formal, and more de
centralized systems that focus on a few goals and issues, rely on a decision process in
which politics play a major role, and control something other than program outcomes
(e.g., budget expenditures, contracting processes, etc.; Bryson, 2018).
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 15 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
There appear to be six main types of systems, though any strategic management system
in practice probably will be a hybrid of the six types, which can be labeled a seventh type
(Bryson, 2018; Bryson & Edwards, 2017). The types, or designs, thus refer to dominant
tendencies, which are
Integrated units of management approach (or layered or stacked units of manage
ment approach)
Strategic issues management approach
Contract approach
Collaboration approach
Lead organization
Shared governance
Network administrative organization
Portfolio management approach
Goal or benchmark approach
Hybrid approach
Integrated Units of Management Approach (or Layered or Stacked
Units of Management Approach)
The purpose of this approach is to link inside and outside environments through an inte
grated set of strategies across levels and functions of the organization or other entity.
Public entities have used variants of this approach to their advantage (Poister, Aristigue
ta, & Hall, 2015; Van Dooren et al., 2015). Keep in mind that it is precisely this sort of sys
tem that is most prone to driving out strategic thought and action when it is excessively
formal and also underpinned by a belief that the future can actually be predicted accu
rately—a belief detached from the messiness of operational reality (Mintzberg et al.,
2009). Such systems are likely to be blindsided by unpredictable events. Therefore, they
must be used with caution because they can take on a life of their own, promote incre
mental change when major change might be needed, and serve the interests only of the
planners who staff them and the leaders and managers who wish to resist—not promote—
major change.
Strategic Issues Management Approach
Strategic issues management systems are the most common form of institutionalized
strategic management systems in public organizations or other entities. These systems do
not attempt to integrate strategies across levels and functions to the extent that integrat
ed units of management approaches do. The reason is that the various issues are likely to
be on different time frames, involve different constituencies and politics, and need not be
considered in the light of all other issues. CitiStat or PerformanceStat systems are exam
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 16 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
ples (Behn, 2008), though typically they are focused mostly on operational rather than
strategic issues. In these systems, a central analysis staff uses data (often geographically
coded) to spot trends, events, and issues that need to be addressed by line departments.
The heads of the relevant units meet regularly with the mayor or chief executive and his
or her key advisers to examine the data and address the issues face to face. Actions and
follow-up procedures are agreed upon on the spot. In general, in cities using these sys
tems better outcomes were produced, money was saved, teamwork and competence were
enhanced, or all three occurred.
Contract Approach
The contract approach is another popular system of institutionalizing strategic manage
ment, especially in simple to moderately complex shared-power environments. The con
tract model is employed for much of the planning and delivery of publicly financed social
services in the United States via either public or nonprofit service providers (Sandfort &
Moulton, 2015). The system is also used to institutionalize strategic management in
school districts with site-based management. In this system, a center establishes strate
gic objectives for the jurisdiction, organization, or entity as a whole; negotiates contracts
with individual units of management; monitors performance; and ensures the integrity of
the system.
At its best, this approach allows both the center and the individual units to focus on what
is important for them—both are empowered to do their jobs better. In such a system, the
center establishes a strategic plan and each unit has a complementary plan. Problems
may arise when the center has trouble acquiring adequate information, incentives are not
properly aligned, the center has difficulties in exercising control when faced with a large
number of contractors, and units invest inadequately because they cannot be sure of a
long-term contract.
Collaboration Approach
Collaboration represents a fourth type of strategic management system. Like contracting,
collaboration is increasingly being used to govern and manage in shared-power, multior
ganizational environments. In fact, the contract system represents a classic form of col
laboration, but many different (and often more complicated) approaches to collaboration
are more suitable for situations involving moderate to high levels of complexity and ambi
guity (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015; Klijn, Steijn, & Edelenbos, 2010).
Collaboration involves varying degrees of sharing power and resources between units to
achieve common ends that could not be achieved separately. The gain beyond what could
be achieved separately is called collaborative advantage (Huxham & Vangen, 2005), and
the often elusive pursuit of this advantage is behind persistent calls for more collabora
tion. Three different archetypal approaches to network collaboration are considered
(Provan & Kenis, 2009): the lead organization, shared governance, and network adminis
trative organizations.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 17 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
In the lead organization approach, a single partner organization coordinates the major
collaboration activities and key decisions. Milward and Provan (2003), in their longitudi
nal study of mental health service delivery networks, found that network effectiveness is
greatest when there is a strong central integrating unit, clear and consistent lines of au
thority and accountability embodied in contracts, aligned incentives that give everyone a
stake in the success of the network, system stability, and munificent resources. These fac
tors allow constructive norms, social capital, and network learning capabilities to develop
and needed incremental investments and changes to be made.
The contracts in these situations are what economists call relational contracts, as op
posed to competitive contracts. Relational contracting involves infrequent rebidding and
focuses on maintaining an effective relationship between buyer and seller—because there
are only a few sellers to begin with, the production function is ambiguous, and effective
performance by the seller depends on trust, collaboration, and long-term investment in
the network’s infrastructure.
A key system concern with the lead organization approach is how to achieve the right bal
ance between network stability and adaptability. Provan and Milward (1995; see also Mil
ward & Provan, 2000) found that the highest performing mental health networks were
the most stable in the sense that there were no significant changes in any structural fea
ture or funding relationships. On the one hand, stability allows the all-important trust,
shared norms, expertise, productive relationships, learning by doing, and long-term in
vestments to occur. On the other hand, if a network is too stable, learning and responsive
ness to environmental changes will diminish and the network will be unlikely to respond
effectively to unexpected changes (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015).
The shared governance approach is likely when no partner has significantly greater pow
er and resources than the others and no external governance organization is formed or
mandated. The viability of the approach depends on each organization’s involvement and
commitment as the partners are responsible for managing the internal and external rela
tions. Viability also depends on reasonable goal consensus, since exit is usually an option
for member organizations. If the number of organizations participating in shared gover
nance becomes too large, trust levels decline, goal consensus becomes shaky, and the col
laborators have limited collaboration abilities, they may create a separate administrative
entity—a network administrative organization (NAO)—to govern the collaboration and its
activities and decision. In their study of 39 networks, Raab, Mannak, and Cambré (2015)
found that effective networks are centrally integrated, have been in existence for at least
three years, and show a high degree of stability. They also either have substantial re
sources available or they have an NAO.
Portfolio Management Approach
In the portfolio management approach, entities of various sorts (programs, projects, prod
ucts, services, or providers) are arrayed against dimensions that have some strategic im
portance. The dimensions usually consist of the attractiveness or desirability of the entity
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 18 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
(from high to low) and the capability of the organization or community to deliver what is
needed (also from high to low). Portfolio methods are quite flexible in that any dimension
of interest may be arrayed against another with entities mapped on to the resulting ma
trix. Portfolio methods also can be used at sub- and supraorganizational levels to assess
options against strategically important factors (Bryson & Edwards, 2017). Unfortunately,
few public and nonprofit organizations or other entities utilize portfolio models in a for
mal way, even though many use them informally. The problem with using this method in a
formal way, of course, is that it creates comparisons that may be troubling for politically
powerful actors.
Goal or Benchmark Approach
In general, the goal or benchmark approach is generally applied at the community, re
gional, or state level. It is designed to gain reasonable agreement on overarching goals,
indicators, or benchmarks toward which relatively independent groups, units, or organi
zations might then direct their energies. This consensual agreement on goals and indica
tors can function somewhat like the corporate control exercised in integrative models
though it is, of course, weaker.
This system’s looseness means that calling it a strategic management system may be an
overstatement. Nonetheless, when agreement can be reached and support for implemen
tation can be generated, this approach can work reasonably well. Plus, in the fragmented,
shared-power environments in which most public problems occur, the approach may be
the only viable one. For example, most community strategic plans are implemented via
goal or benchmark models (Bryson & Schively Slotterback, 2017). Typically, large num
bers of leaders and citizens are involved in the process of goal-setting and strategy devel
opment. Then action plans outline what each organization might do to implement the
strategies and achieve the goals on a voluntary basis. Collective impact models (Kania &
Kramer, 2011) may be classified as a kind of goal or benchmark approach, though by
adding a “backbone organization,” a kind of NAO, they blend with collaboration ap
proaches.
Another variant of the approach might make use of principles rather than goals. This ap
proach would be applicable in very complex situations where the challenges are adaptive,
not simply technical; many organizations are involved, affected, or have some partial re
sponsibility to act; power is shared; there are many feedback effects; goals and cause–ef
fect relations are at best unclear; and technologies are at best unproven. Bottom-up adap
tive management is necessary, and strategy will be emergent based on innovation, rapid
prototyping, and ongoing learning (Eoyang & Holladay, 2013). Principles can help guide
the rapid prototyping and adaptive learning required to make progress and figure out
what viable solution models are because they do not already exist. Developmental evalua
tion is needed to help inform the learning (Patton, 2010). Examples of such systems in
practice may be found in Patton, McKegg, and Wehipeihana (2015).
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 19 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
The final type of strategic management system consists of the hybrid approaches. As sug
gested earlier, any actual system is likely to be a hybrid of all six types.
Conclusion
This article presents key elements of strategic management in public administration:
strategy, strategizing, strategic planning, and strategic management. Criticisms of these
elements were also discussed and an overview of different generic types of strategic plan
ning and strategic management systems was provided that might be useful as public or
ganizations or other entities seek to address challenges in such a way that important
goals are achieved and public value is created.
Strategic planning and management are approaches to identifying and addressing chal
lenges. It is important to remember neither is a single invariant thing but is instead a set
of concepts, processes, procedures, tools, techniques, and practices (and structures in
the case of strategic management systems) that must be drawn on selectively and adapt
ed thoughtfully—strategically—to specific contexts if they are to help produce desirable
results. While there are a variety of generic approaches to both, the boundaries among
them are not necessarily clear, and strategic planning and management in practice are
typically hybridic.
Research is accumulating about which approaches to strategic planning and management
work under which circumstances, how, and why, but there is still a long way to go (Bryson
et al., 2010; Bryson et al., 2018; George et al., 2019; Poister et al., 2010). A number of
suggestions are presented to help guide future research:
First, researchers should clearly define what they mean by strategy, strategic, strategiz
ing, strategic planning, and strategic management. This will help clarify contributions
and enable better comparisons and contrasts among results. Second, greater understand
ing is needed of the social mechanisms that enable strategic planning and management
to work, or not (Mayntz, 2004). Third, research should unravel the ways in which strate
gy, strategizing, strategic planning, and strategic management can be useful, or not, to
public entities that are not formal organizations. For instance, how can these concepts
help collaborations, networks, or communities perform better? Which adaptations are
needed? Do these in turn influence the strategies of the entities involved? These ques
tions remain largely unanswered.
Fourth, more attention to capabilities and competencies is needed, especially in relation
to aspirations (Bryson et al., 2007). How best can competencies, capabilities, and aspira
tions be measured? Can one also link these to performance antecedents, processes, and
outcomes? How can a public entity move from being a reactor, dreamer, or underachiever
toward being a savvy strategist?
Finally, a search for effective configurations of situations and approaches to strategic
planning and management should be pursued. In other words, what hybrid forms of
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 20 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
strategic planning and management are most effective in which contexts? But recall as
well that strategic planning and management are but two general approaches to strate
gizing. Are other approaches present in practice that are being unduly neglected? And
how might these other approaches be made more effective, or not, by incorporating or
adapting approaches to strategic planning and management?
In sum, while a great deal is already known about strategic planning and management in
public administration, there is much work to be done on this important topic, and future
public administration scholars should feel encouraged to engage with this timely issue.
Given the widespread use of public-sector strategic planning and management, additional
insight into exactly what works best, in which situations, and why, is likely to be helpful
for advancing public purposes.
Acknowledgment
Parts of this article draw from John M. Bryson and Lauren Hamilton Edwards’ article
“Strategic Planning in the Public Sector” in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Busi
ness and Management (see Bryson & Edwards, 2017).
References
Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Making strategy: Mapping out strategic success. Thou
sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Albrechts, L., & Balducci, A. (2013). Practicing strategic planning: In search of critical
features to explain the strategic character of plans. disP—The Planning Review, 49(3), 16–
27.
Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, MA:
Little Brown.
Andrews, K. (1980). The concept of corporate strategy (rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2012). Strategic management and
public service performance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2014). Public innovation through collaboration and design.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bason, C. (2017). Leading public design. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press.
Bason, C. (Ed.). (2014). Design for policy. Burlington, VT: Gower.
Behn, R. D. (1988). Management by groping along. Journal of Policy Analysis and Man
agement, 7(4), 643–663.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 21 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Behn, R. D. (2008). Designing “PerformanceStat.” Public Performance and Management
Review, 32(2), 206–235.
Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and
processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Ad
ministration Review, 65(5), 547–558.
Borins, S. (2014). The persistence of innovation in government. Washington, DC: Brook
ings Institution.
Bower, J., Bartlett, C., Christensen, C., & Pearson, J. (1991). Business policy: Texts and
cases (7th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in
plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 69(3), 245–264.
Bryson, J. M. (2015). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. In J. D.
Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.,
Vol. 23, pp. 515–521). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.
Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organization (5th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2007). Putting the resource-based view of strat
egy and distinctive competencies to work in public organizations. Public Administration
Review, 67(4), 702–717.
Bryson, J. M., Berry, F. S., & Yang, K. (2010). The state of strategic management research:
A selective literature review and set of future directions. American Review of Public Ad
ministration, 40(5), 495–521.
Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. L., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakehold
ers matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men Project of
Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 568–584.
Bryson, J. M., & Edwards, L. H. (2017). Strategic planning in the public sector. In R.
Aldag (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management. Oxford, U.K.: Ox
ford University Press.
Bryson, J. M., Edwards, L. H., & Van Slyke, D. (2018). Getting strategic about strategic
planning research. Public Management Review, 20(3), 317–339.
Bryson, J. M., & Schively Slotterback, C. (2017). Strategic spatial planning in the USA. In
L. Albrechts, A. Balducci, & J. Hillier (Eds.), Situated practices of strategic planning. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 22 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Buckwalter, N. D. (2014). The potential for public empowerment through government-or
ganized participation. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 573–584.
Chakraborty, A., Kaza, N., Knaap, G., & Deal, B. (2011). Robust plans and contingent
plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(3), 251–266.
Christensen, K. S. (1999). Cities and complexity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Conroy, M. M., & Berke, P. R. (2004). What makes a good sustainable development plan?
An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development. Environment
and Planning A, 36(8), 1381–1396.
Deyle, R., & Wiedenman, R. E. (2014). Collaborative planning by metropolitan planning
organizations: A test of a causal theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
34(3), 257–275.
Drumaux, A., & Joyce, P. (2018). Strategic management for public governance in Europe.
London, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2005). Managing stakeholder involvement in decision mak
ing: A comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 417–446.
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative management regimes. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Eoyang, G., & Holladay, S. J. (2013). Adaptive action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Favoreu, C., Carassus, D., Gardey, D., & Maurel, C. (2015). Performance management in
the local public sector in France: An administrative rather than a political model. Interna
tional Review of Administrative Science, 81(4), 672–693.
Ferlie, E., & Ongaro, E. (2015). Strategic management in public sector organizations:
Concepts, schools, and contemporary issues. New York, NY: Routledge.
Freedman, L. (2013). Strategy: A History. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:
Pittman.
Gaddis, J. L. (2018). On grand strategy. New York, NY: Penguin.
George, B. (2017). Does strategic planning “work” in public organizations? Insights from
Flemish municipalities. Public Money & Management, 37(7), 527–530.
George, B., & Desmidt, S. (2014). A state of research on strategic management in the
public sector: An analysis of the empirical evidence. In P. Joyce & A. Drumaux (Eds.),
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 23 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives (pp.
151–172). New York, NY: Routledge.
George, B., Desmidt, S., Cools, E., & Prinzie, A. (2018). Cognitive styles, user acceptance
and commitment to strategic plans in public organizations: An empirical analysis. Public
Management Review, 20(3), 340–359.
George, B., Desmidt, S., Nielsen, P. A., & Baekgaard, M. (2017). Rational planning and
politicians’ preferences for spending and reform: Replication and extension of a survey
experiment. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1251–1271.
George, B., Walker, R. M., & Monster, J. (2019). Does strategic planning improve orga
nizational performance? A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 810–
819.
Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2015). Cambridge handbook of strategy
as practice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Gomes, R. C., Liddle, J., & Gomes, L. O. M. (2010). A five-sided model of stakeholder influ
ence: A cross-national analysis of decision making in local government. Public Manage
ment Review, 12(5), 701–724.
Gray, B., & Purdy, J. M. (2018). Collaborating for our future. New York, NY: Oxford Univer
sity Press.
Hansen, J. R., & Ferlie, E. (2016). Applying strategic management theories in public sec
tor organizations: Developing a typology. Public Management Review, 18(1), 1–19.
Höglund, L., Caicedo, M. H., Mårtensson, M., & Svärdsten, F. (2018). Strategic manage
ment in the public sector: How tools enable and constrain strategy making. International
Public Management Journal, 21(5), 822–849.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate. New York, NY: Routledge.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. (2018). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collabora
tive rationality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011, Winter). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Re
view, pp. 36–41.
Kaufman, J. L., & Jacobs, H. M. (1987). A planning perspective on strategic planning.
Journal of American Planning Association, 53(1), 23–33.
Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (1997). Managing complex networks: Strate
gies for the public sector. London, U.K.: SAGE.
Klijn, E. H., Steijn, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2010). The impact of network management on out
comes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88(4), 1063–1082.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 24 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Lee, D., McGuire, M., & Kim, J. H. (2018). Collaboration, strategic plans, and government
performance: The case of efforts to reduce homelessness. Public Management Review,
20(3), 360–376.
Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of
the Social Sciences, 34(2), 237–259.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). How networks are governed. In C. J. Heinrich & L.
E. Lynn (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 238–262). Washing
ton, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2003). Managing the hollow state. Public Administration
Review, 5(1), 1–18.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (2009). Strategy safari (2nd ed.). Philadelphia,
PA: Trans-Atlantic Publications.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moynihan, D. P. (2013). The new federal performance management system: Implementing
the Government Performance Modernization Act. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the
Business of Government.
Moynihan, D. P., & Kroll, A. (2016). Performance management routines that work?
An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act. Public Management Review,
76(2).
Neshkova, M. I., & Guo, H. (2012). Public participation and organizational performance.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 267–288.
Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector or
ganizations: A handbook for leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Developing schools as
learning organisations in Wales. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2012). Managing public-sector innovation (2nd ed.). London,
U.K.: Routledge.
Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2014). Public value creation by
cross-sector collaborations: A theory and challenges of assessment. Public
Administration, 93(3), 715–732.
Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Patton, M. Q., McKegg, K., & Wehipeihana, N. (2015). Developmental evaluation exem
plars: Principles in practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 25 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London, U.K.: Tavis
tock.
Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strate
gic management and performance. Public Administration Review, 70(Suppl. 1), s246–
s254.
Poister, T. H., Aristigueta, M. P., & Hall, J. L. (2015). Managing and measuring perfor
mance in public and nonprofit organizations: An integrated approach. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley.
Poister, T. H., Edwards, L. H., & Pasha, O. (2013). The impact of strategic planning on or
ganizational outcomes. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(4), 585–615.
Poister, T. H., Pitts, D., & Edwards, L. H. (2010). Strategic management research in the
public sector: Synthesis, assessment, and future directions. American Review of Public
Administration, 40(4), 522–545.
Porter, M. (1998). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2009). Modes of network governance: Structure, management,
and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229–252.
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational net
work effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Ad
ministrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1–33.
Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272–290.
Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Raab, J., Mannak, R. S., & Cambré, B. (2015). Combining structure, governance and con
text: A configurational approach to network effectiveness. Journal of Public Administra
tion Research and Theory, 25(2), 479–511.
Sandfort, J., & Moulton, S. (2015). Effective implementation in practice: Integrating pub
lic policy and management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of performance: Organizational and service improvement in
the public domain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the
public sector (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Vining, A. R. (2011). Public agency external analysis using a modified “five forces” frame
work. International Public Management Journal, 14(1), 63–105.
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Page 26 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020
Walker, Richard M., Rhys Andrews, George A. Boyne, Kenneth J. Meier, & Laurence J.
O’Toole, Jr. (2010). Wakeup Call: Strategic Management, Network Alarms, and Perfor
mance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 731–741.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Notes:
(1.) The original quote was in Dutch and was part of a management presentation given by
van Gaal. Available online.
John Bryson
Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota
Bert George
Department of Public Governance and Management, Ghent University
... Transcending all borders with the When it comes to the concept of strategic management, we find many approaches associated with that concept, such as strategic planning, strategic formulation, strategic learning, and strategic vision (J. Bryson & George, 2020), which have long been used as tools for revitalizing privately owned corporations and government-owned public agencies with the aim of improving the achievement of established goals and value creation. ...
... Adapting from J. Bryson and George (2020), we provide a comprehensive view of strategic management: "Strategic management is an approach to the building of a strategy by INGOs via their integration of its formulation, development, planning, implementation, and learning". Historically strategic planning has been the primary activity associated with strategic management. ...
... J. Bryson & George, 2020 Strategic management in public administration To introduce strategic management in public administration. ...
Article
Full-text available
International activities by all NGOs have become ubiquitous. Therefore, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are significantly and gradually increasing their international influence shaping a new paradigm for global affairs ranging from human aid to digital governance. In this study, we delve into the literature and connect with professionals to get a deeper understanding of how strategic management is addressed and perceived in INGOs. The paper is composed of two parts, namely a comprehensive literature review followed by a pilot survey-based empirical study, to assess and validate relevant constructs/factors in the context of INGOs. The survey methodology approach was used to assess factors using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Outcomes from the literature review were cross-examined against the EFA to guide the categorization of factors vis-à-vis new findings. Twelve validated questions relevant to our context were adapted and composed in the survey. EFA resulted in the significant regrouping of items into three factors. We therefore reformulated the constructs in the INGO context. These constructs are strategic structures, human capital, and change management. Strategic constructs represent the traditional strategic management theory. Change management was shown to be a strong factor for the adequate setup and management of strategic structures, and human capital represents a new factor specific to INGOs.
... Strategic planning is an effective tool for strategic management in the public sector, especially strategy formulation and development (or strategizing) (Bryson & George, 2020;Ugboro et al., 2011). In the classic view, strategic planning must induce the entire organization to commit to the objectives, favoring the understanding of approaches and methods, as well as actions leading to achieving the organizational goals (Johnson et al., 2011). ...
... They link these objectives to some form of planning in which the organization deliberately and intentionally proposes setting goals and formulating strategies. This process involves the deliberate use of strategic planning concepts, processes, procedures, tools, techniques, and practices (Bryson & George, 2020). ...
... It is also observed that the inclusion of the "planning" element in the collective construction of the meaning of organizational goals is not limited to formal strategic planning, even though the expression has been recalled within the semantic grouping. Poister (2010) already indicated that formal strategic planning could evolve into strategic management, which is more comprehensive than strategic planning, working with management levers to ensure the implementation of strategic initiatives and encourage strategic and continuous organizational learning (Bryson & George, 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to examine the effects of organizational goal-setting through strategic planning on the motivation of civil servants. Grounded in the social representation theory, the research explores both the core and peripheral systems that shape the social representation of these goals. Data were collected from 324 civil servants through a word recall test, revealing that organizational goal-setting is positively linked to high-quality motivation and the high-performance cycle. The study identifies key elements - such as goals, efficiency, outcomes, planning, and organization - as central to the social representation of organizational objectives. These elements are closely associated with motivation, suggesting that clear organizational goals contribute to employee engagement and performance. The findings also highlight the role of peripheral factors, like transparency, alignment, and well-being, which further influence the perception and implementation of strategic planning. The research concludes that strategic planning, whether based on rational or emergent approaches, positively impacts employee motivation, thereby supporting the effective execution of public sector strategies.
... 2.1 Planejamento estratégico e definição de objetivos O planejamento estratégico é reconhecido como ferramenta eficaz para a gestão estratégica no setor público, especialmente quando é relacionado com o processo de formulação e desenvolvimento da estratégia, ou strategizing (Bryson & George, 2020;Ugboro et al., 2011). Na visão clássica, sua condução eficaz deve induzir toda organização ao compromisso com os objetivos fixados, visto que favorecem ações de coordenação das atividades e o conhecimento das abordagens e métodos para alcançar os objetivos definidos (Johnson et al., 2011). ...
... "Planejamento" também foi alocado no núcleo central, o que sugere que o grupo social dos servidores públicos construiu um senso comum sobre os objetivos organizacionais vinculando-os a alguma forma de planejamento, no qual a definição de objetivos e a formulação de estratégias são propostas pela organização de forma deliberada e intencional, utilizando-se conceitos, processos, procedimentos, ferramentas, técnicas e práticas de planejamento estratégico (Bryson & George, 2020). ...
... Observa-se também que a inclusão do elemento "planejamento" na construção coletiva sobre o significado dos objetivos organizacionais não se fixa tão somente no planejamento estratégico formal, muito embora a expressão tenha sido evocada dentro do agrupamento semântico. Poister (2010) já indicava que o planejamento estratégico formal poderia evoluir para gestão estratégica, mais abrangente que o planejamento estratégico, trabalhando-se com alavancas de gerenciamento para assegurar a implementação das iniciativas estratégicas e encorajar o aprendizado organizacional estratégico e contínuo (Bryson & George, 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Resumo Este estudo tem como objetivo examinar os efeitos do estabelecimento de metas organizacionais por meio do planejamento estratégico na motivação dos servidores públicos. Fundamentada na teoria das representações sociais, a pesquisa explora os sistemas centrais e periféricos que moldam a representação social desses objetivos. Os dados foram coletados de 324 funcionários públicos por meio de um teste de evocação de palavras, revelando que o estabelecimento de metas organizacionais está positivamente ligado à motivação de alta qualidade e ao ciclo de alto desempenho. O estudo identifica elementos-chave - como metas, eficiência, resultados, planejamento e organização - como centrais para a representação social dos objetivos organizacionais. Estes elementos estão intimamente associados à motivação, sugerindo que objetivos organizacionais claros contribuem para o envolvimento e desempenho dos funcionários. As conclusões também destacam o papel de fatores periféricos, como transparência, alinhamento e bem-estar, que influenciam ainda mais a percepção e implementação do planeamento estratégico. A pesquisa conclui que o planejamento estratégico, seja baseado em abordagens racionais ou emergentes, impacta positivamente a motivação dos funcionários, apoiando assim a execução eficaz das estratégias do sector público.
... For the purposes of understanding organizational-level resilience of service providers in our chosen countries, we will adopt the category of adaptive resilience as it focuses attention on how service providers have been transforming themselves to meet the evolving needs of their communities in the face of these ongoing disruptions. Key elements of organizational-level adaptive resilience have implicitly been understood in the research on strategic management (Mintzberg, 1979(Mintzberg, , 1994Mintzberg and McHugh, 1985;Andrews et al., 2006;Bryson and George, 2020;Ongaro and Ferlie, 2020). The emphasis on the need for organizations to be adaptive, responsive, and innovative in dynamic environments (Mintzberg, 1979;Mintzberg and McHugh, 1985) has led to the fundamental insight that strategies often emerge through unplanned actions, rather than being strictly the product of top-down planning. ...
... This approach is particularly pertinent in the present context of distinguishing between the public and private sectors. While public sector organizations are primarily tasked with creating public value rather than generating profit (Andrews et al., 2006;Bryson and George, 2020), they must nonetheless exhibit flexibility, continuous learning, and the capacity to adapt to diverse contexts, including political, administrative, and cultural factors (Ongaro and Ferlie, 2020). This tension between the public sector's focus on value creation and its need for strategic adaptability is evident in Andrews et al.'s (2006) influential study of the relationship between strategy content and organizational performance in public sector organizations. ...
Article
Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have posed profound challenges to social enterprises and public sector organizations engaged in social service delivery in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. This study examines the resilience strategies employed by these organizations and seeks to discern any notable divergences between social enterprises and public sector entities. Design/methodology/approach We employ a qualitative approach, utilizing semi-structured interviews with key personnel across 28 organizations within the Czech and Slovak Republics, comprising both social enterprises and public sector bodies. Findings Our findings reveal a consistent pattern: social enterprises primarily utilize offensive strategies, such as seeking new resources, exploring new markets and innovating products or services. In contrast, public sector organizations tend to rely on defensive strategies, focusing on streamlining operations, reducing expenses and supporting staff. Originality/value This study addresses a gap in scholarly understanding of how recent crises, including COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, have impacted management practices in the public and nonprofit sectors across Central and Eastern Europe.
... The choice of a SWOT analysis framework is grounded in its applicability to strategic planning and its ability to provide a structured assessment of internal and external factors affecting organizational or sectoral performance (Bryson and George, 2020). By employing this framework, we aim to integrate sustainability considerations into Tunisia's tourism policies and strategies, aligning with the principles of sustainable development (Bizikova et al., 2018). ...
... This research employs a SWOT analysis framework to comprehensively assess Tunisian tourism policies and the challenges of governance and mainstreaming sustainability. The SWOT methodology facilitates a structured examination of internal and external factors influencing the effectiveness and viability of current strategies (Bryson and George, 2020). The analysis employed a thematic analysis and included gathered data from government and international organizations reports with insights obtained from 20 semi-structured interviews conducted in person in March 2023 with different stakeholders in the Tunisian tourism sector. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This research investigates the integration of sustainability within Tunisia's tourism sector, employing a comprehensive analysis of its strategies, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). Methodologically, the study conducts an extensive review of national tourism policies over the past two decades. The analysis encompasses governance, environmental, economic, and socio-cultural dimensions, shedding light on the nation's achievements and challenges. It entails a qualitative analysis of 20 semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders in the Tunisian tourism sector strengthened by literature review, data analysis of country and international reports. Noteworthy findings reveal advancements in participatory decision-making and abundant natural resources, juxtaposed with governance deficiencies and environmental degradation threats. Economic contributions are tempered by precarious jobs and competitiveness issues, while socio-cultural riches contrast with underutilization and awareness gaps. External opportunities include international cooperation, while threats encompass climate change impacts and economic downturns. Strategic recommendations emphasize political will, stakeholder collaboration, monitoring systems, and regulatory modernization, alongside region-specific policies and international project leveraging.
... Strategic planning, execution, and strategic learning are involved. Strategic helps firms achieve important goals and create value (Bryson & George, 2020). Resource based view suggested that organizations can improve their performance by deploying their resources and capabilities (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993a;Wibowo et al., 2022). ...
... Generally, 34% of respondents feel excluded from decision-making. Employees may become dissatisfied, less committed to organization objectives, and experience higher turnover rates if they feel isolated or separated from decision-making (Bryson & George, 2020). To achieve higher productivity and prosperity for employees the organization should evaluate and improve the decision-making process to create better diversity to increase overall employee satisfaction and organizational success. ...
Article
Full-text available
The researchers aimed to examine the implication of employee participation in decision-making on employee productivity at the Mwalimu Nyerere Memorial Academy- Karume campus in Zanzibar. The population of the study comprised 70 academic and non-academic employees. Both probability and non-probability sampling were used to select a sample of 60 participants. Purposive sampling was used to select key informants who have managerial roles, such as Campus Directors, heads of departments, and heads of faculty while simple random sampling was used for other participants among the employees as they had an equal chance to participate in the study. The study was guided by two research objectives: to determine the extent to which employees are involved in the decision-making process and to assess the impacts of employee participation in decision-making on productivity. The study was guided by the Management by Objectives (MBO) theory which assumes that involving employees in setting goals and creating action plans leads to better participation, commitment, and alignment of objectives throughout the organisation. The study adopted a case study design. Data was collected through questionnaires and interviews. Content analysis was used to analyse qualitative information and descriptive statistics was used to analyse quantitative data. The findings show that participation in decision-making creates a sense of belongingness, honesty, and commitment among employees in the organisation. Furthermore, employee participation in decision-making allows employees to share their opinions, ideas, and skills, which enhances team cooperation and collaboration, leading to more successful decision implementation. The study concludes that employee participation in decision-making leads to improved productivity levels. The study, therefore, recommends that management should assess the reasons for employees to feel isolated from decision-making processes.
Article
Effective public administration governance in the 21st century requires adapting to an ever-changing landscape of complex societal needs, technological advancements, and shifting political contexts. In the face of rapid urbanization, demographic changes, and shifting global dynamics, African public administrations are being called upon to navigate an increasingly complex governance landscape. This paper explores the imperative of innovative adaptation and resilience practices in African public administration governance. It also examines the role of adaptive governance, digital transformation, and human-centered design in fostering a resilient and responsive public sector and highlights the importance of building trust, engaging citizens, and promoting diversity and inclusivity in public administration. This paper argues that traditional approaches to governance are no longer sufficient to address the multifaceted challenges facing African countries, and that innovative strategies are needed to build resilience and adapt to an ever-changing environment. It reviews existing literature on public administration governance in Africa, highlighting the key challenges and opportunities that arise from demographic shifts, technological advancements, and changing societal expectations. It then presents case studies of successful adaptation and resilience strategies employed by New Zealand and Singapore governments, highlighting the importance of inclusive and participatory approaches, digitalization, and capacity building. Ultimately, this research aims to provide a roadmap for policymakers and practitioners seeking to navigate the complexities of public administration governance and create a more agile, effective, and citizen-centric government. The paper concludes by outlining a framework for navigating the dynamic landscape of public administration governance in Africa, emphasizing the need for ongoing learning, collaboration, and innovation to ensure effective and sustainable governance practices. Through embracing a culture of continuous learning, experimentation, and collaboration, public administrators can develop the capacity to respond to emerging challenges and seize opportunities for improvement.
Article
Full-text available
Strategic management practices have been said to hold significant promise for public sector organizations. While the focus has long been on understanding the strategy-performance link, some scholars have made recent calls to understand how strategizing happens in the public sector. We engage this literature through an advising experience with an agency in the U.S. Department of Defense. Using planning resources that are well-respected in the field, we noticed the value in considering participants’ mental representations about strategic issues. In doing so, we were able to better understand the organization and meet its needs. While strategic cognition is not a subject commonly found in research on strategic planning in public sector organizations, management scholars have developed a significant body of literature on the subject. We encourage scholars interested in strategic planning in the public sector to consider how and why strategic representations influence strategic planning activities and ultimately performance.
Article
Full-text available
Strategic planning is a widely adopted management approach in contemporary organizations. Underlying its popularity is the assumption that it is a successful practice within public and private organizations that has positive consequences for organizational performance. Nonetheless, strategic planning has been criticized for being overly rational and inhibiting strategic thinking. This article undertakes a meta-analysis of 87 correlations from 31 empirical studies and asks: Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? A random-effects meta-analysis reveals a positive, moderate and significant impact of strategic planning on organizational performance. Meta-regression analysis suggests that the positive impact of strategic planning on organizational performance is strongest when performance is measured as effectiveness and strategic planning is measured as formal strategic planning. This impact holds across sectors (i.e., private and public) and countries (i.e., U.S. and non-U.S.). Implications for public administration theory, research and practice are discussed in the conclusion.
Article
Full-text available
Strategic management (SM) has become prominent on the agenda in several public organizations due to new public management (NPM) reforms. Nevertheless, there are few studies investigating how public organizations apply SM in practice and what tools are used. As a result, calls have been made for such studies. This paper can be seen as an attempt to meet this call by presenting a qualitative case study of how SM has been applied in the Swedish Transport Administration (STA), a central government agency in Sweden, and what tools it used in strategy making. By analysing the micro processes of strategizing at STA, our results indicate that public organizations need to be aware of at least three specific tensions that can enable or constrain strategy making. These tensions are: short v. long-term, parts v. whole, and reactivity v. proactivity.
Article
Full-text available
Practice has outpaced our empirical knowledge of the role and impact of collaboration on the design and effect of strategic plans. It is this lack of awareness and understanding of the phenomenon that motivates the research presented in this paper. We explore empirically the linkage between collaboratively developed strategic plans and governmental effort to ameliorate a public problem through a mixed-method approach using panel data analysis. The findings demonstrate that the existence of a collaborative strategic plan and the presence of various components of a plan’s design increase the number of beds made available for homeless individuals in the US. Homelessness is one of the most intractable social and economic problems in the US, but our analysis demonstrates that a collaborative plan design can be one mechanism to help address the problem.
Book
Organizations turn to multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) to meet challenges they cannot handle alone. By tapping diverse stakeholders' resources, MSPs develop the capability to address complex issues and problems, such as health care delivery, poverty, human rights, watershed management, education, sustainability, and innovation. This book provides a comprehensive understanding of MSPs, why they are needed, the challenges partners face in working together, and how to design them effectively. Through the process of collaboration partners combine their differing strengths, vantage points, and expertise to craft innovative responses to pressing societal concerns. The book offers valuable advice for leaders about how to design and scale up effective partnerships and how to address potential obstacles partners may face, such as dealing with the conflicts and power issues likely to arise as partners negotiate with each other. Drawing on three comprehensive cases and countless shorter examples from around the world, the book offers practical advice for organizations embarking on an MSP, as well as theoretical understanding of how partnerships function. Using an institutional theory lens, it explains how partnerships can effect change in institutional fields by reducing turbulence and negotiating a common set of norms and routines to govern partners' future interactions within the field of concern. Topics covered include: the nature of working collaboratively, why partnerships are needed, types of partnerships, guidelines for partnership design, partnerships and field dynamics, how to deal with conflicts among partners, negotiating across power differences, partnerships for sustainability, collaborative governance, working across scale differences, and how partnerships transform fields.
Chapter
The purpose of this chapter is to outline the development of the idea of "stakeholder management" as it has come to be applied in strategic management. We begin by developing a brief history of the concept. We then suggest that traditionally the stakeholder approach to strategic management has several related characteristics that serve as distinguishing features. We review recent work on stakeholder theory and suggest how stakeholder management has affected the practice of management. We end by suggesting further research questions.
Book
Strategic management makes a difference to the performance of public organizations. This book demonstrates that the most appropriate response is ‘it all depends’: on which aspects of strategy content and processes are pursued together, and how these are combined with organizational structure and the technical and institutional environment. © Rhys Andrews, George A. Boyne, Jennifer Law and Richard M. Walker 2012. All rights reserved.
Article
This introduction to the special issue on strategic planning has four main parts. First comes a discussion of what makes public-sector strategic planning strategic. This discussion is meant to reduce confusion about what strategic planning is and is not. Next, we introduce in detail the five articles in the special issue and note their unique contributions to strategic planning research. Third, we provide a broad assessment of the current state of strategic planning research organized in terms of prominent themes in the literature and our assessment of how the articles address voids related to the themes. The themes are: how should strategic planning be conceptualized and defined? How should it be studied? How does strategic planning work, or not? What are the outcomes of strategic planning? What contributes to strategic planning success? Finally, we offer conclusions and an agenda for future research.