Strategi c planning in the public sector increasingly has been institutionalized as a common practice [613228]

Strategi c planning in the public sector increasingly has been institutionalized as a common practice
at all levels of government in the United States and several other countries. There is also reasonable
agreement on what it means to be strategic when it comes to planning. There is also reasonably
good evidence that public -sector strategic planning generally helps produce desirable outcomes and
good research that provides the beginnings of an understanding of why and how that is so. It is
important to realize, howe ver, that public -sector strategic planning is a set of concepts, procedures,
tools, and practices that must be applied sensitively and contingently in specific situations if the
presumed benefits of strategic planning are to be realized. In other words, th ere are a variety of
generic approaches to strategic planning, the boundaries between them are not necessarily clear,
and strategic planning in practice typically is a hybrid. In addition, it is unclear how best to
conceptualize context and match processes to context in order to produce desirable outcomes. For
example, should context be viewed as a backdrop for action or as actually constitut ive of action ?
Organizational leadership is a management approach that works toward empowering individuals to
become effective leaders, while also kee ping a company’s goals as the top priority. For those
preparing for a career in public administration – whether it be in civil departments, agencies or
government – the following five components are essential aspects of organizational leadership for
public administrators to understand, as they highlight key skills and responsibilities necessary for
assisting others and inspiring success in order to grow and develop a strong organization. A strong
strategic leader in public administratio n may originate from any level of an organization. They
possess a firm understanding of the institution’s vision and goals, as well as the ability to effectively
communicate those objectives and see them through to execution. Strategic leadership requires six
key skills: the abilities to anticipate, challenge, interpret, decide, align and learn. Public
administrators must develop strategic thinking skills, as they often deal with a variety of dissenting
viewpoints and opinions both within and outside of the ir respective organization. Responding
strategically to strong opinions —which includes being open to compromises or pushing for frank
discussions among employees and team leaders —can help a public administrator maintain stability
within an organization. Ad ditionally, a good strategic leader constantly monitors industry trends,
enabling him or her to anticipate changes in markets. As a result, these individuals are able to not
only seamlessly take on issues, but also delegate tasks to those who would ostensi bly excel at
tackling the given challenge. Strategic thinkers are also good at challenging assumptions and
considering a variety of viewpoints before taking decisive action. The organizational analysis is the
process of reviewing th e work environment, development, personnel and operations of an
organization. Leaders in public administration can expect to perform periodic, detailed analyses of
their organization in order to understand where adjustments can be made to enhance performan ce.
The comprehensive analysis of a public or private body can be a useful way for leaders to identify
inefficiencies or unaddressed issues that impact an organization’s clientele – particularly in
governmental offices such as the Department of Motor Vehic les. Once an analysis has been
completed, strategic leaders develop strategies to remedy systemic issues, thereby increasing
efficiency for employees and in addressing public needs. Conflict in the workplace can have a wide
variety of c auses – from philosophical differences or divergent political leanings to differing long –
term organizational goals. Unresolved conflicts in the workplace can hinder productivity and erode
trust, creating an unhealthy work environment. Conflict is particula rly detrimental to public
administration officials trying to pass legislation or create programming for constituents; therefore,

successful public organizations most often rely on collaboration between departments to reach
shared goals. Creative collaborat ion often takes time and requires open discussion, constructive
criticism, allocation of duties to various employees with particular skillsets, and the establishment of
priorities and objectives, as well as compromise. Each of the aforementioned components plays an
essential role in preventing or resolving a conflict. For example, by establishing short – and long -term
objectives, leaders can help reinforce the concept that all team members are working towards the
same objectives, allowing for greater comprom ise to take place in order to benefit the organization
as a whole. A common example of the importance of compromise is seen when public
administrators are charged with drafting legislation. For instance, during debates around the
creation of new pieces of legislation, compromises are often made between two parties who
previously could not align with each other to support the passing of a bill. Leaders are responsible
for cultivating a positive work environment that provides tangible benefi ts for an organization’s
employers, employees and clientele. New research in positive organizational psychology has shown
that cutthroat work environments are harmful to employee morale and thus, productivity.
Cultivating a healthy work culture encompasses many elements, beginning with an organizational
leader creating a space free from reprisal where employees and management can support and
communicate with one another. Compassion can be demonstrated through the forgiveness of
mistakes or the emphasis on p ositive contributions. When developed properly, a positive work
culture is inspiring and involves all employees treating one another with respect, trust, integrity and
gratitude. In public administration, a positive workplace culture starts with strong org anizational
leaders who create an environment of empathy, where employees’ concerns and values are
validated and they have a say in helping shape policy. When employees know that a leader is
committed to operating from a set of values based on mutual respe ct, that attitude can trickle down
to the rest of the organization, ensuring that other employees will follow suit. For example, if a
leader is visibly passionate about doing everything they can to help their local community —like
volunteering at a local fo od bank or participating in a charity walk —this passion can inspire their
staff, who may then feel driven to follow in their leader’s footsteps and pursue additional
community involvement opportunities. Another critical task for organization al leaders is to
effectively establish and communicate the vision, core beliefs, and overarching goals of an
institution, not only to his or her employees but also to the broader public. Ensuring employees
understand short -term personal and team goals can help align them with the company’s mission;
this can lead to an increase in productivity as well as a greater sense of purpose among staff
members. Part of that output is the successful communication of those goals to the public. For
instance, municipal go vernments might have the overarching goal of reducing traffic; public
administrators can translate this mission statement into practical plans, tasking individual
departments within the organization with creating a solution that will address all aspects of urban
congestion – while effectively communicating that goal to the public. A city council may issue a news
release stating that it will spend a certain amount of money in the upcoming year on initiatives to
ease congestion. The Office of Public Transport ation might launch a public relations campaign
encouraging more people to ride the bus to help the city reduce the prevalence of single -vehicle
commuting. In this way, members of the public are not only made aware of the institution’s vision,
they become a ctive participants within it. By clearly determining and communicating the overall
vision to both the public and to employees, public administrators can ensure that every objective
and corresponding assignment originates from the same vision.

Understanding the tools for effective organizational leadership strategies for public administrators is
valuable for helping to not only boost organizational performance at the group level, but also with
helping public administrators to become truly effective leaders f or their organization and
communities. By becoming well -versed in strategic leadership and utilizing accompanying key skills,
public administrators can bring positive change to their respective communities, guaranteeing that
the critical needs of the publi c are met properly and in a timely fashion.
Strategic planning has become a fairly routine and common practice at all levels of government in
the United States and elsewhere. It can be part of the broader practice of strategic management
that links planning with implementation. Strategic planning can be applied to organizations,
collaborations, functions (e.g., transportation or health), and to places ranging from local to national
to transnational. Research results are somewhat mixed, but t hey generally show a positive
relationship between strategic planning and improved organizational performance. Much has been
learned about public -sector strategic planning over the past several decades but there is much that
is not known.
There are a varie ty of approaches to strategic planning. Some are comprehensive process -oriented
approaches (i.e., public -sector variants of the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism,
stakeholder management, and strategic management systems). Others are more narrowl y focused
process approaches that are in effect strategies (i.e., strategic negotiations, strategic issues
management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation). Finally, there are content –
oriented approaches (i.e., portfolio analyses and compe titive forces analysis).
The research on public -sector strategic planning has pursued a number of themes. The first concerns
what strategic planning “is” theoretically and practically. The approaches mentioned above may be
thought of as generic —their osten sive aspect —but they must be applied contingently and sensitively
in practice —their performative aspect. Scholars vary in whether they conceptualize strategic
planning in a generic or performative way. A second theme concerns attempts to understand
whether and how strategic planning “works.” Not surprisingly, how strategic planning is
conceptualized and operationalized affects the answers. A third theme focuses on outcomes of
strategic planning. The outcomes studied typically have been performance -related, such as
efficiency and effectiveness, but some studies focus on intermediate outcomes, such as participation
and learning, and a small number focus on a broader range of public values, such as transparency or
equity. A final theme looks at what contributes to strategic planning success. Factors related to
success include effective leadership, organizational capacity and resources, and participation, among
others.
A substantial research agenda remains. Public -sector strategic planning is not a single thing, but
many things, and can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. Useful findings have come from each of
these different conceptualizations through use of a variety of methodologies. This more open
approach to research should continue. Given the increasing ubiquity of strategic planning across the
globe, the additional insights this research approach can yield into exactly what works best, in which
situations, and why, is likely to be helpful for advancing public purposes.

In the most widely used text in the field, strategic planning is defined as “a deliberative, disciplined
effort to produce decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization or other entity
*such as a collaboration, function, or community or region+ is, what it does, and why it does it”
(Bryson, 2011 , pp. 7 –8). Defined in this manner, strategic planning consists of a set or family of
concepts, procedures, tools, and practices meant to help decision makers and other stakeholders
address what is trul y important for their organizations and/or places. Additionally, approaches to
strategic planning vary in their purposes; formality; temporal horizon; comprehensiveness;
organizational, inter -organizational and/or geographic focus; emphasis on data and ana lysis; extent

of participation; locus of decision -making; connection to implementation; and so on. Successful use
of strategic planning is thus dependent on which approach is used, for what purposes, and in what
context (Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ).
Strategic planning can be part of the broader practice of strategic management that links planning
with implementation (Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; Talbot, 2010 ). It can be applied to
organizations, collaborations, functions (e.g., transportation or health) and places ranging from local
to national and international (Albrechts & Balduc ci, 2013 ). Note, however, that organizational,
community, function -oriented, or place -base d strategies have numerous sources besides explicit
planning (Bryson, 2011 ; Ferlie & Ongar o, 2015 ). This entry focuses solely on planning.
Over the past 40 years in the United Stat es, strategic planning by governments and public agencies
has become increasingly widespread. All federal agencies have been required since 1993 to engage
in strategic planning as a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the
Gover nment Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 ( https://www.performance.gov/ ).
Surveys over the years have indicated that an increasingly large percentage of governments at the
state and local levels currently use strategic planning (Poister & Streib, 2005 ; Jimenez, 2013 ).
Strategic planning is also increasingly common around the globe, including in non -English -speaking
countries and those with an administrative law culture, such as Italy and France (e.g., Joyce &
Drumaux, 2014 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ; Balducci, Fedeli, & Pasqui, 2011 ; Albrechts, Balducci, &
Hillier, 2016 ).
Yet, why strategic planning has beco me an increasingly standard practice is unclear. Understanding
the reasons why it is used in different contexts is thus an important topic for future research, in part
because those reasons are likely to affect the results of using it. Possible explanation s include
faddishness (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006 ), coercion (Radin, 2006 ; Tama, 2015 ), normative mimesis
(DiMaggio & Powell 1983 ; Tama, 2015 ), or prior relationships and experience with potential s trategic
planning participants (Percoco, 2016 ). On the other hand, strategic planning also may be adopted
because users think it will help them figure out what their organizations should be doing, how, and
why. In other words, strategic planning in some circumstances may provide a way of sense -making,
or knowing, helpful to decision makers (Bry son, Crosby, & Bryson, 2009 ), especially within the
framework of what is called the New Pu blic Management (NPM).
NPM is a reform narrative that has explicitly or implicitly guided much government reform in the
United States, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent elsewhere (Pollitt &
Bouckaert, 2011 ). NPM involves a significant break with (or at least a shifting of emphasis from) prior
eras when government agencies w ere more typically organized as large, public Weberian
bureaucracies in charge of direct service delivery and accountable exclusively, or at least principally,
to their political masters. In contrast, NPM emphasizes: public choice; the applicability of pri ncipal –
agent models to controlling government agencies, managers and those with whom they contract;
the importance of customer service and focusing on results or outcomes; managers having more
discretion in how they go about achieving results; and less rel iance on rules and regulations.
In this context, and given the increased discretion managers and often agencies are supposed to
have, strategic planning and strategic management are likely to be far more useful (Ferlie &
Ongaro, 2015 ; Hansen & Ferlie, 2016 ). On the other hand, NPM reforms also may conflict with more
traditional bureaucratic controls that have been an important part of accountability requirements in

a democracy (Kettl, 2013 ). For example, in one study Moynihan ( 2006 , p. 77) finds that US state
governm ents “emphasized strategic planning and performance measurement, but were less
successful in implementing reforms that would enhance managerial authority, undermining the logic
that promised performance improvements.” NPM, in other words, can be yet anothe r “tide of
reform” that is layered on top of previous tides of government reform, and the interactions among
these reforms are often conflictual, hard to assess, and can and do undermine agency effectiveness
(Light, 1998 ).
This entry is organized into the following sections. First, we discuss the meaning of the
adjective strategic in front of p lanning, in contrast to other adjectives such as long -range, program
or project, or action planning. Second, we discuss briefly the applicability of strategic planning to
organizations, collaborations, cross -boundary functions, and places. Third, we discus s how the
various approaches to strategic planning have been conceptualized and what research shows, if
anything, regarding their use and effectiveness. Fourth, we look at important themes in the research
and implications for future research. Finally, we o ffer a set of conclusions.
What Makes Public -Sector Planning Strategic ?
The roots of public -sector strategic planning are originally mostly military and tied to statecraft
(Freedman, 2013 ). Starting in the 1960s, however, most of the development of the concepts,
procedures, tools and practices of strategic planning has occurred in the for -profi t sector. Public –
sector strategic planning got a serious start in the US in the 1980s (e.g., Eadie, 1983 ). This history has
been documented by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009) and Ferlie and Ongaro ( 2015 ).
Public -sector strategic planning is a subset of planning, but what exactly makes it strategic ? All or
most of the following features are typically used to characterize public -sector planning as strategic
(e.g., Kaufman & Jacobs, 1987 ; Poister & Streib, 1999 ; Christensen, 1999 ; Conroy & Berke, 2004 ;
Chakraborty et al., 2011 ; Albrechts & Balducci, 2013 ; Bryson & Slotterback, 2016 , pp. 121 –122):
 • Close attention to context and to thinking strategically about how to tailor the strategic
planning approach to the context, even as a purp ose of the planning typically is to change
the context in some important way.
 • Careful 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 as it functions —or ideally should function —across s pace
and time, including the interrelationships among constituent subsystems.
 • Careful attention to stakeholders, in effect making strategic planning an approach to
practical politics; typically multiple levels of government and multiple sectors are expli citly
or implicitly involved in the process of strategy formulation and implementation.
 • A focus on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; and a focus on competitive
and collaborative advantages.

 • A focus on thinking about potential futures an d 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 effectively is
hardly strategic.
 • A clear realiz ation 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 com plexity, take
advantage of important opportunities, and advance public purposes, resilience and
sustainability in the face of an uncertain future.
The list is extensive and approaches vary in how well they attend to each item in both theory and
practice. T he underlying hypothesis guiding research and much practice is that strategic planning by
public -sector organizations will lead to better performance by these organizations. Two issues,
however, become immediately obvious: first, how does one operationally assess the “strategic -ness”
of the planning, and second, what effects do different levels of “strategic -ness” have on results of
various kinds? Unfortunately, the empirical research on public -sector strategic planning in general,
and especially its connec tion with implementation, is remarkably thin, given how widespread the
use of strategic planning is (Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; George &
Desmidt, 2014 ). That said, the few studies that have explored these issues have generally, though
not always, found a positive causal effect of strategic planning on implementation success.
Applicability to Organizations, Collaborations, Functions, and Places
At its most basic, strategic planning involves three things: deliberations around important issues of
ends and means, decisions, and actions.1 The various approaches to strategic planning help make the
process reasonably orderly, increase the likelihood that what is important is actually recognized and
addressed, and typically allow more people to pa rticipate in the process. When the process is
applied to an organization as a whole on an ongoing basis, or at least to significant parts of it, usually
it is necessary to construct a strategic management system, or what is often called a performance
manag ement system (see the section “Ways in Which Strategic Planning Has Been Conceptualized” ).
The s ystem allows the various parts of the process to be integrated in appropriate ways, and
engages the organization in strategic management, not just strategic planning.
When applied to a function or collaboration that crosses organizational boundaries, or to a
community, cross -organizational sponsorship of some sort is usually necessary. Working groups or
task forces probably will need to be organized at various times to deal with specific strategic issues
or to oversee the implementation of specific strategi es. Special efforts will be needed to engage
traditionally underrepresented groups (Innes & Booher, 2010 ). Because so many more people and
groups will need to be involved, and because implementation will have to rely more on consent than
authority, the process is likely to be much more time -consuming and iterative than strategic
planning applie d to an organization. On the other hand, more time spent on exploring issues and
reaching agreement may be made up later through speedy implementation (Innes, 1996 ;
Bovaird, 2007 ; Innes & Booher, 2010 ). Strategic planning in an organization typically involves a

mixture of lateral collaboration and vertical hierarchy. In interorganizational collaborations, lateral
collaborative processes overshadow hierarchy, yet attention to the hierarchical structures and
power differences that exist within the collaboration and in its participating organizations will be
vital in developing and implementing a strategic plan (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2015 ).
In addition, when a community is involved, special efforts will be necessary to make sure that
resulting strategic plans are compatible with the community’s spatial comprehensive plan, along
with the various devices used to implement it, such as capital improvements programs, spatial
subdivision controls, a zoning ordinance, and official maps (Bryson & Slotterback, 2016 ). City
planners can play a crucial mediating role in linking the broadly inclusive visioning and goal -setting
processes of strategic planning with the ongoing formal decision -making mechanisms of cities and
regions (Legacy, 2012 ; Quick, 2015 ).
Ways in Which Strategic Planning Has Been Conceptualized
Because planning must attend to context in order to be strategic, approache s to strategic planning
may be represented as generic in form but in practice are likely to be highly contingent (Ferlie &
Ongaro, 2015 , p. 123). Generic approaches to strategic planning may emphasize process or content.
A key contingency is whether the approach is being applied at the organizational or subunit level, to
a boundary -crossing function or collaboration, or to a community or place. We briefly review
prominent approaches below, drawing from Bryson ( 2002 , 2015 ) and Ferlie and Ongaro ( 2015 ).
Comprehensive Process Approaches
Process approaches may be characterized as comprehensive or partial in what they consider. We
treat more comprehensive process approaches first, including those influenced by the Harvard Policy
Model, logica l incrementalism, stakeholder management, and strategic management systems
approaches. Next, we consider more partial process approaches that are, in effect, strategies. These
include strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic plann ing as a framework
for innovation. Finally, we consider two content approaches, namely, portfolio and competitive
forces analyses.
The Harvard Policy Model. The Harvard Policy Model, with suitable adaptions, has had a strong
influence on the most widely us ed generic processes in the public sector. The Harvard model seeks
the best fit between a firm or strategic business unit (SBU) and its environment (Andrews, 1980 ;
Bower, Bartlett, Christensen, & Pearson, 1991 ). This is achieved via an analysis of the focal unit’s
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; and the values of senior management and the
social obligations of the firm. Planning is separate from and precedes imple mentation. The model
assumes there is a senior management group that is in charge and able to implement its decisions.
The model does not offer specific advice on how to develop strategies.
The model can be applied in public -sector organizations, especiall y at the program or departmental
levels, but typically a number of adaptations are necessary. First, a broader range of stakeholders
must be considered, often including elected policy boards. Second a portfolio approach of some kind
is often needed to allo w strategic decision making for a portfolio of agencies or programs. A strategic
issues management approach is needed because much public work is typically quite political, and
articulating and addressing issues are at the heart of much political decision making. When applied

to a collaboration or place, strategic planning should be paired with portfolio, issues management,
and stakeholder management approaches, given the absence of hierarchical authority and 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 some sort of strict order is often not feasible, necessary, or even
desirable (e.g., Nutt & Backoff, 1992 ; Bryson, 2011 ). These activities include:
 • Preparing for strategic planning by determining what elements should be included and a
timeline. Stakeholder analysis is also valuable at this point to id entify who should be
involved in the process.
 • Creating, clarifying, or updating organizational mission, vision, values, and goals and
clarifying any applicable legal statutes or mandates.
 • Assessing external and internal environments by analyzing streng ths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats.
 • Identifying and analyzing issues facing the organization, based on upcoming challenges
and/or changes coming to the organization.
 • Identifying potential strategies for effectively addressing the issues.
 • Assessing the feasibility of strategies using reasonable criteria.
 • Developing and implementing plans and related desirable changes.
 • Evaluating, monitoring, and updating the plan continually as new information becomes
available.
 • Reassessing strategies and the strategic planning process.
A handful of researchers has tested the assumption that pursuing all or most of these activities will
lead to strategy implementation success. For example, in one of the most complete tests to date ,
Elbanna, Andrews, and Pollanen ( 2016 ), in a study of 188 Canadian government organizatio ns across
federal, provincial, and local levels, found that formal strategic planning had a strong positive effect
on strategy implementation, that the quality of managerial involvement in the process mediates the
effect in a positive way, and that formal strategic planning can be especially beneficial in the face of
stakeholder uncertainty. Other studies that have operationalized strategic planning in roughly
analogous ways have find roughly analogous positive effects of more formal planning on outcomes
(e.g. Walker et al., 2010 ; Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2012 ; Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ).
These findings are at odds with arguments put forward by Mintzberg 1994 ), Mintzberg, Ahlstrand,
and Lampel ( 2009 ) that formal strategic planning is likely to hinder strategy formulation and
implementation in business organizations. This may be because “effective control in the public
sector may be best exercised ex ante , that is, through formal plannin g, instead of ex post through
organizational performance measurement” (Elbanna et al., 2016, p. 1035).
Furthermore, the findings are also at odds with the conventional wisdom that rational approaches
are untenable in the public sector because of the technical problems of acquiring necessary data and

information, and because of the political pro blems raised by competing stakeholders, including
issues between the planners and those being planned for. Boyne, Gould -Williams, Law, and Walker
(2004 ), however, found that in a recent attempt by UK local authorities to introduce a new planning
system, the statistical results suggest that the problems of rational planning are largely technical
(meaning lack of resources and expertise) rather than political. The link between rationality and
politics thus clearly merits additional attention.
Logical incrementalism . Quinn ( 1980 ) was critical of formal strategic planning when taken to
extremes of analysis and centralization; when it failed to take politics, power, and relationships into
account; and when it failed to appreciate how incrementalism is important for learning and building
consensus. In contrast, he emphasized the importance of incrementalism but only in support of
overall organizational purposes. The idea of incrementalism g uided by a set of overall organizational
purposes (even as it may lead to changing the purposes) provides the link between formal strategic
planning and logical incrementalism. In other words, Quinn sees formal strategic planning and logical
incrementalism as desirable complements and not as inherently antagonistic. They are antagonistic
only if strategic planning is taken to extremes, or if incrementalism ceases to be logical, meaning it
no longer occurs within a broader framework of purposes.
Logical incr ementalism is an approach that, in effect, fuses strategy formulation and
implementation, and thus strategic planning and strategic management. The strengths of the
approach are its ability to handle complexity and change, its emphasis on minor as well as major
decisions, its attention to informal as well as formal processes, and its political realism. Beyond that,
incremental changes in degree can add up over time into changes in kind. The major weakness of
the approach is that it does not guarantee that t he various loosely linked decisions will add up to
fulfillment of organizational purposes.
Logical incrementalism is applicable to public organizations, as long as it is possible to establish some
overarching set of strategic objectives to be served by the approach. Public organizations can (and
likely often do) pursue some sort of strategic planning to establish broad purposes and logical
incrementalism to reach their goals. Indeed, one study found that organizations that do strategic
planning improve —but do so even more when they pair it with logical incrementalism (Poister,
Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ).
At the community level, there is a close relationship between logical incrementalism and
collaboration. Indeed, collaborative goals and arrangements typically emerge in an incremental
fashion as organizations individually and collectively explore th eir self -interests and possible
collaborative advantages, establish collaborative relationships, and manage changes incrementally
within a collaborative framework (Huxham & Vangen, 2005 ; Innes & Booher, 2010 ).
Stakeholder management. Freeman ( 1984 ) states that strategy can be understood as an
organization’s mode of relating to or building bridges to its stakeholders. Stakeholder m ay be
defined as any individual, group, or organization that is affected by, or that can affect, the future of
the organization. Freeman argues, as do others who emphasize the importance of attending to
stakeholders, that a strategy will only be effective if it satisfies the needs of multiple groups (Gomes,
Liddle, & Gomes, 2010 ; Walker, Andrew s, Boyne, Meier, & O’Toole, 2010 ; Ackermann & Eden, 2011 ).
Because many interest groups have stakes in public organizations, functions, and communities, and
because the approach in corporates economic, political, and social concerns, it is applicable to the

public sector. In addition, some forms of stakeholder engagement such as citizen participation are
often mandated in government decision -making process (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.
The strengths of the stakeholder model are its recognition of the many claims —both complementary
and competing —placed on organizations by insiders and outsiders and its awareness of the need to
satisfy at least the key stakeholders if the organization is to survive. Because of its attention to
stakeholders, the approach can be particularly useful in planning for cross -boundary functions, such
as transportation (Neskova & Guo, 2012 ; Poister, Thomas, & Berryman, 2013 ; Deyle &
Wiedenman, 2014 ) and pl anning for places (Brody et al., 2003 ; Edelenbos & Klijn, 2005 ).
The primary weakness of the model is that genuine collaboration is difficult to achieve, as found by
Vigar in trans portation planning in England (2006). Another study of spatial planning in India found
an additional difficulty in broadening stakeholder engagement beyond elite participants (Vidyarthi,
Hoch, & Basmajian, 2013 ). Another challenge is the absence of criteria with which to judge
competing claims and the need for more advice on developing strategi es to deal with divergent
stakeholder interests.
Strategic management systems . These are approaches that allow public leaders and managers to
strategize about, and coordinate, important decisions across levels and functions within an
organization, and acro ss organizations (Talbot, 2010 ; Clarke & Fuller, 2010 ). Strategic planning is a
necessary component (Poister & Streib, 1999 ). Strategic management systems vary along several
dimensions: the comprehensiveness of decision areas inc luded, the formal rationality of the
planning and decision processes, and the tightness of control exercised over implementation of the
decisions, as well as how the strategy process itself will be tailored to the organization and managed.
The strength of these systems is their attempt to coordinate the various elements of an
organization’s strategy across levels and functions. In doing so, they can help integrate better what
NPM reforms have often fragmented (Christensen & Laegreid, 2007 ). Their weakness is that
excessive comprehensiveness, prescription, and control can drive out attention to m ission, strategy,
and innovation, and can exceed the ability of participants to comprehend the system and the
information it produces (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2009 ).
Strategic management systems are potentially applicable to public organizations (and to a lesser
extent, communities), because regardless of the nature of the particular or ganization, managers
must coordinate at least some decision making across levels and functions and concentrate on
whether the organization is implementing its strategies and accomplishing its mission. Some public
organizations —such as hospitals, police and fire departments, and the military —often make use of
relatively comprehensive formal strategic planning and implementation systems. The US federal
government is moving toward a reasonably comprehensive formal system (Moynihan, 2013 ). Early
assessments of the routines built into the new system show they increase performance information
use and learning (Moynihan & Kroll, 2016 ). Most government organizations, however, typically use
less comprehensive, less formal, and more decentralized systems (Poister & Streib, 2005 ). These
systems, as well as those for collaborations and places, typically focus on a few goals and issues, rely

on a decision process in which politics plays a major role, and control something other than program
outcomes (e.g. budget expenditures, contracti ng processes, etc.) (Bryson, 2011 , pp. 323 –341).
Unfortunately, there are remarkably few s cholarly assessments of the strategic planning component
of any strategic management systems. One of the best is Hendrick ( 2003 ), a study of Milwaukee’s
strategic planning system. She found that departments with more comprehensive, formal, and
rational processes had better performance, a result generally in line with other studies. The role of
politics in these systems, however, cannot be ignored. Gilmour and Lewis ( 2006 ), for examp le, found
that assessments of the efforts of US government departments that included their strategic planning
were used to reward “conservative” programs and punish “liberal” ones in the George W. Bush
administration.
The applicability of strategic managem ent systems to the community level is problematic, given the
shared -power nature of these domains. In a comparative case study, for example, Loh ( 2012 ) found
four ways in which a community planning process can fail. These include disconnects between:
residents’ true desires and stated plan goals; plan goals and implementation steps; implementat ion
steps and actual legal devices needed for implementation; and enforcement tied to these devices.
Partial Process Approaches
Considered here are three partial process approaches. Each is, in effect, a kind of strategy. These
include: strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework
for innovation.
Strategic negotiations . Strategy is ofte n viewed as a partial resolution of organizational issues
through a highly political process. Pettigrew ( 1973 ) and Mintzberg and Waters ( 1985 ) helped pioneer
this process approach, but its roots go back to public sector accounts of strategizing (Allison, 1971 ).
Negotiations are increasingly a part of governance through a variety of quasi -legislative and quasi –
judicial processes (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005 ; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015 ). These
processes include empowered community visioning processes that create political mandates,
negotiated rule -making, and environmental dispute resolution processes.
The strength of the approach is that it acknowledges t hat power is shared in many public situations
and that cooperation and negotiation are required in order to reach agreements. The main
weakness is that though the process can facilitate agreements, questions can and often do arise
about the technical quali ty, process legitimacy, and democratic responsibility of results (Page, Stone,
Bryson, & Crosby, 2015 ). Interestingly, Innes ( 1996 ) and Innes and Booher ( 2010 ) finds that while the
negotiation processes can look messy, they quite often result in extremely rational, poli tically
acceptable, and implementable solutions.
Strategic issues management. A major shortcoming of the Harvard model was a missing step
between the SWOT analysis and strategy formulation. This was remedied with the addition of the
step of identifying str ategic issues as part of the strategic planning process, as well as less
comprehensive annual reviews. This approach is especially important for public organizations, in
particular those with continually or rapidly changing environments, since the agendas of these
organizations consist of issues that should be managed strategically (Ackermann & Eden, 2011 ). In
addition, many organizations have developed strategic issue management processes separate from

annual strategic planning processes. Many important issues emerge too quickly to be handled as
part of an annual or less frequent process. The a pproach also applies to functions, collaborations, or
communities, as long as some group, organization, or coalition is able to engage in the process and
to manage the issue.
The strength of the approach is its ability to recognize and analyze key issues q uickly. The main
weakness is that in general the approach offers no 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 , 1993 ) and Bryson, Cunningham, & Lokkesmoe ( 2002 ) have gone the furthest in remedying
this defect within the context of public strategic planning. Fairhurst ( 2011 ) and Gray, Purdy, and
Ansani ( 2015 ), among others, provide u seful advice outside of that context.
Strategic planning as a framework for innovation. In contrast with a strategic management system
approach that can decrease innovation, other approaches use strategic planning as a chance to
innovate and provide creati ve solutions for upcoming challenges (Osborne & Brown, 2012 ). These
approaches rely on many of the same components discussed above but differ in that they emphasize
fostering innovation and creating a more entrepreneurial culture within the organization. This
approach can be difficult to use in some public organiz ations, particularly those with fewer resources
to test approaches or room to make potentially costly mistakes. Furthermore, public organizations
are often operating in highly visible and accountable contexts making any mistakes or learning
opportunities m ore visible and problematic.
While there is a growing body of scholarly work on innovation in public organizations, there is little
research on the connection between strategic planning and innovation. An exception is Andrews et
al. (2012 , p. 155), who found that “organizations that emphasize a strategy of innovation get an even
higher payoff w hen they fit this strategy to a process characterized by flexibility and negotiation with
powerful stakeholders” (i.e., logical incrementalism). Another exception is Borins ( 2014 , pp. 73 –93),
who in a large -scale study of successful public -sector innovations, found a strong reliance on
strategic planning (what he calls “comprehensive planning”) by the innovators, rather than “groping
along,” which is Behn’s ( 1988 ) term for a manager -focused 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
frontline staff, groping along was preferred. If new technology was involved, groping along was used
more frequently.
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 pl ans. Strategic content approaches help by providing a way
to determine the content of strategies that best fit the internal and external conditions facing an
organization. We consider two: portfolio approaches and competitive analysis.
Portfolio approaches . These approaches conceptualize strategic planning as a way of helping manage
a portfolio of entities (e.g., departments, programs, projects, budget items) in a strategic way. The
portfolio arrays the entities against dimensions deemed strategically signi ficant (e.g., the desirability
of doing something against the capacity to do it). The resulting array helps clarify decisions about
what to do. The strength of the approach is that it helps organizations make sense of and manage

the various entities for wh ich it is, or might be, responsible. The weaknesses of the approach include
the difficulty of deciding on the dimensions, arraying entities against dimensions, understanding
how to fit the approach into a broader strategic planning process, and managing th e politics of
winners and losers. While many public organizations at least implicitly make use of portfolio
approaches, we know of no studies evaluating use of the approach in a public -sector strategic
planning context.
Competitive analysis. Another approa ch uses competitive analysis to determine some of what should
be in a strategic plan. The language may be difficult for public sector organizations, since they may
not see themselves as competing for customers. However, many public or quasi -public organiza tions
are clearly in competitive environments. For example, many services in most countries have to
compete at least in some ways with businesses for customers. Vining ( 2011 ) adapted Porter’s ( 1998 )
private sector five forces model for the public sector by adding political and economic considerations
that are more appropriate for any public sector organization. Vining hypothesizes that organizational
autonomy —which is necessary to h ave some control over strategy —depends on a modified set of
Porter’s five forces. Vining’s adaptations include: the power of agency sponsors/customers, power of
suppliers, threat of substitute products, political influence, and the intensity of rivalry bet ween
agencies. Autonomy is hypothesized to impact organizational performance but can also help
organizations determine what strategies are best suited to their internal and external conditions. To
the best of our knowledge, the usefulness of the model has not been tested.
In sum, there are a variety of approaches to strategic planning. In other words, it is not a single thing
but rather a set of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices. These presumably need to be applied
contingently in particular settin gs in order to produce useful outcomes. Indeed, hybrid applications
that blend approaches are often or even typically found (Bryson, 2011 ; Favoreu, Carassus, Gardey, &
Maurel, 2015 ).
Prominent Research Themes and Implications for Future Research
In this section, we look at a number of themes that have animated research on public -sector
strategic planning. We also consider implications for future research.
What is Public -Sector Strat egic Planning?
How strategic planning is defined makes a difference in how it is studied and what the results of
those studies are likely to be. As noted above, there are a variety of approaches to strategic planning
and there is a reasonably clear set of criteria for determining whether an approach is strategic or
not. The various approaches may be viewed as generic —their ostensive aspect —but must be applied
contingently in context —their performative aspect (Feldman & Pentland, 2008 , pp. 302 –303). This
interpretation is consistent with much of the contemporary literature in public administration and
urban and regional planning. The view is at odds, however, with some of the work in the business
management literature associated primar ily with Mintzberg ( 1994 ) and Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and
Lampel ( 2009 , pp. 49 –84), who by definition limits strategic planning to a formalized, rigid, highly
analytic, staff -driven exercise (i.e. an ostensive view). In other words, scholars in public
administration and planning take a far more flexible view of what strategic planning is, based largely
on studying what people do when they say they are doing strategic planning (i.e., h ow strategic
planning is performed).

Does Strategic Planning “Work,” and How Does It Work?
Assessments of whether and how well strategic planning “works” depend on how it is defined and
studied.2 An important methodological distinction is between what Mohr ( 1982 )
calls variance studies and process studies (see also Van de Ven, 2007 ). In variance studies, public –
sector strategic planning is essentially treated as a routine or practice that is a fixed object, not as a
generative system comprising many interacting and changeable parts. Variance studies typically
assume that strategic planning is an intermediary , to use Latour’s ( 2005 , p. 58) term, meaning the
planning itself is essentially invariant and merely the transporter of a cause from inputs to outputs.
Inputs, in other words, are assumed to predict outputs fairly well as long as the “transporter” is
transportin g.
Studies of strategic planning in government do report mixed results. Roberts ( 2000 ) and Radin
(2006 ) are among public management scholars who have questioned the effectiveness o f strategic
planning in government, particularly mandated strategic planning in the US federal government. In
both studies, the authors viewed strategic planning as essentially an invariant intermediary. On the
other hand, the majority of variance studies of public strategic planning that have used linear
regression methodologies, have found positive (though not necessarily large) effects (e.g.,
Borins, 1998 , 2014 ; Boyne & Gould -Williams, 2003 ; Andrews, Boyne, & Walker, 2006 ; Meier, et
al., 2007 ; Andrews et al., 2012 ; Elbanna et al., 2016 ).
Structural equation modeling, which has been underused, could be helpful. This type of analysis
would allow researchers to determine whether or not strategic planning improves intermediate
outcomes such as, for example, communication and conflict management strategies and whether or
not intermediate outcomes improve performance (e.g., Bryson & Bromiley, 1993 ). It would also
allow researchers to analyze how much of th e impact is direct or indirect.
Process studies, in contrast, generally assume that the key to understanding the effectiveness (or
ineffectiveness) of strategic planning may lie in seeing it as a complex process approach to knowing
and acting (Ferlie & Ong aro, 2015 ). In the process, organizational (or multiorganizational)
stakeholders engage wi th one another in a series of associations and performances over time to
explore and ultimately agree on and implement answers to a series of Socratic questions. These
include: What should we be doing? How should we do it? What purposes or goals would be s erved
by doing it? And how can we be sure we are doing what we agreed we ought to do, and that we are
achieving the effects we want?
Few studies have taken this approach. Exceptions include Wheeland ( 2004 ) and Bryson, Crosby, and
Bryson ( 2009 ). The latter authors traced strategic planning as a complex cognitive, behavioral, social,
and political practice in which thinking, acting, learning, and knowing matter and with which some
associations are reinforced, others are created, and still others are dropped in the process of
formulating and implementing strategies and plans. They showed that terms such as process steps;
planners; stakeholder analyses; strategic plans; and mission, visi on, goals, strategies, actions, and
performance indicators are all relevant to any study of strategic planning in practice but not as
rigidly defined terms. In short, these authors sought to understand how these terms
are performed and what that meant for understanding strategic planning as a way of knowing that is
consequential for organizational performance.

Our view is that the field will be advanced by pursuing a variety of variance and process studies.
Variance studies can show in the aggregate what wo rks and what does not. Detailed process studies,
and especially comparative, longitudinal case studies, can help show how it works. In particular,
much more knowledge is needed about what the actual process design features and social
mechanisms are that le ad to strategic planning success (or not) (Mayntz, 2004 ; Bryson, 2010 ).
Barzelay and Campbell ( 2003 ), Barzelay and Jacobsen ( 2009 ) are among the few studies to actually
focus on the importance of design features and social mechanisms for strategic planning.
What are the Outcomes of Strategic Planning?
Most studies of public -sector strategic planning have focused on performance outcomes, especially
target achievement, efficiency, and effectiveness. In terms of these outcomes, strategic planning
generally seems to have a beneficial effect. Some students h ave found that perceptions of improved
performance are linked to strategic planning (e.g., Boyne & Gould -Williams, 2003 ; Poister &
Streib, 2005 ; Ugboro, Obeng, & Spann, 2010 ). Others have avoided common source bias and
perceptions of performance by connecting secondary performance measures with survey data (e.g.,
Andrews et al., 2009 ; Walker, Andrews, Boyne, Meier, & O’Toole, 2010 ; Poister, Edwards, &
Pasha, 2013 ; Elbanna, Andrews, & Pollanen, 2016 ). The findings have been mixed, but generally
support a positive strategic planning -performance link.
However, as laid out by Poister, Pitts, and Edwards ( 2010 ), the link between strategic planning and
performance needs further investigation. As noted, research indic ates that strategic planning
generally, though not always, leads to better performance. The mixed findings are likely due to a
number of factors. First, performance in the public sector is notoriously hard to operationalize. This
task can be very difficult in municipal and state governments, where departments and agencies have
different purposes and different measures of performance. Obviously, many different types of
performance should be taken into account beyond fiscal measures (Poister, 2003 ).
Second, a theoretical link between strategic planning and performance has not been well
established . Poister, Edwards, and Pasha ( 2013 ) use goal setting theory originated by Locke and
Latha m (see Latham, 2004 ). However, this theoretical link needs more fleshing out, which leads to a
third observation: there are likely to be a variety of direct and indirect links between strategic
planning and performance.
Some studies have emphasized the importance of intermediate outcomes, such as participation (see
earlier citations), visioning (e.g., Helling, 1998 ), situated learning (e.g., Vigar, 2006 ), and
communication and conflict management strategies (e.g., Bryson & Bromiley, 1993 ). Very few
studies have focused on equity, social justice, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, or the
broader array o f public values (Cook & Harrison, 2015 ; Beck Jorgensen & Bozeman, 2007 ). Clearly,
attending to a range of outcomes and how they are produced would be very h elpful.
What Contributes to Strategic Planning Success?
Research indicates that organizations can face significant barriers before and during strategic
planning that can potentially outweigh any benefits. First, public sector organizations need to build
the necessary capacity to do strategic planning. The skills and resources to do strategic planning in
the public sector should match the complexity of the processes and practices involved (Streib &

Poister, 1990 ). Necessary resources include, for example, financial capacity (Boyne, Gould -Williams,
Law, & Walker, 2004 ; Wheeland, 2004 ), knowledge about strategic planning (Hendrick, 2003 ), and
the capability to gather and analyze data and to judge between potential solutions (Streib &
Poister, 1990 ).
Additionally, leadership of different kinds is needed in order to engage in effective strategic
planning. Process sponsors have the authority, power, and resources to initiate and sustain the
process. Proc ess champions are needed to help manage the day -to-day process (Bryson, 2011 ).
Transformat ional practices by sponsors and champions, as well as the groups they engage appears
to help energize participants, enhance public service motivation, increase mission valence, and
encourage performance information use (e.g., Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2013 ), all of which are
important for strategic planning.
Broad participation generally can also improve the process, as well as the resulting plan by giving
various stakeholders a sense of ownership and commitment. We know that different perspectives
can enrich any analyses and the eventual implementation of the plan (Burby, 2003 ; Bryson, 2011 ).
Several studies demonstrate that citizens can help throughout the process by educating government
staff about issues and with decision making about solutions (Blair, 2004 ). Including citizens has the
additional benefit of reducing citizen cynicism about government (Kis sler et al., 1998 ). Likewise,
employees from all levels of the organization may need to be included in strategic planning for their
input and knowledge about their respective areas of the organization (Wheeland, 2004 ; Donald,
Lyons, & Tribbey, 2001 ). That said, we also know that there is great variation in how stakeholders
are included, and at least two studies show that participation of key stakeholders (internal and
external) often remains shallow and elitist (Vigar, 2006 ; Vidyarthi et al., 2013 ). Moreover, inclusion
and broad stakeholder participation may not always make sense (Thomas, 1995 ). There do not seem
to be any strategic planning studies indicating when it might be advisable not to include stakeholders
in public -sector strategic planning, but one hopes such studies will be forthcoming.
Finally, integration with other strategic management practices can improve strategic planning.
Poister ( 2010 ) writes that integrating strategic planning and performance management more closely
will likely improve performance and decision making about planning. For example, Kissler et al.
(1998 ) found that this link improved the strategic plan for the US state of Ohio because planners had
a better i dea of where the state stood in terms of social and financial performance. Plan
implementation also improved because plan progress was linked to measurable outcomes making it
easier to monitor progress. However, performance is not the only area for integra tion. It is also
known that strategic planning should be integrated with budgeting, human resource management,
and information technology management, although exactly how is unclear. One survey of local
government practices in the United States found that many governments do some integration
between strategic planning and other resource management practices but are not very sophisticated
in how they do it (Poister & Streib, 2005 ). That said, there is evidence that strategic planning can
help inform budgetary and human capital allocation (Berry & Wechsler, 1995 , 2010).