Critique the Application of the Process Hide This week, you will prepare a presentation with a PowerPoint file. You will create

1/18/22, 11:40 AM PUB-7021 v1: Strategic Management in the Public Sector (3279240621) – PUB-7021 v1: Strategic Management in the Public Se…

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/168029/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 1/3

Week 3

PUB-7021 v1: Strategic Management in the Public Sector (…

Strategic Management Process (Part 1)

The five stages of the strategic management process are goal-setting, analysis, strategy

formation, strategy implementation, and strategy monitoring.

Launch in a separate window

Be sure to review this week's resources carefully. You are expected to apply the information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.

References:

Internal Revenue Service. (2018). IRS strategic plan. Internal Revenue Service.

1/18/22, 11:40 AM PUB-7021 v1: Strategic Management in the Public Sector (3279240621) – PUB-7021 v1: Strategic Management in the Public Se…

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/168029/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 2/3

Books and Resources for this Week

Bredmar, K. (2015). What about

municipal strategic management and

performance measurement. Journal of

Public Administration, Finance & Law… Link

Creating videos in Kaltura

CaptureSpace Link

Elbanna, S., Andrews, R., & Pollanen, R.

(2016). Strategic planning and

implementation success in public

service organizations: Evidence from… Link

Mazouz, B., & Rousseau, A. (2016).

Strategic management in public

administrations: A results-based

approach to strategic public

management… Link

Pollanen, R., Abdel-Maksoud, A.,

Elbanna, S., & Mahama, H. (2017).

Relationships between strategic

performance measures, strategic

decision-making… Link

83.33 % 5 of 6 topics complete

1/18/22, 11:40 AM PUB-7021 v1: Strategic Management in the Public Sector (3279240621) – PUB-7021 v1: Strategic Management in the Public Se…

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/168029/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 3/3

Week 3 – Assignment: Critique the Application of the

Process Assignment

Due January 23 at 11:59 PM

This week, you will prepare a presentation with a PowerPoint file. You will create your

audio presentation by using an audio/video capturing tool located in NCUOne. To access

the capture tool, follow the tutorial found in your Books and Resources for this Week.

Frame the presentation in terms of public organizations and an audience of public

administration students. Explain the five stages of the strategic management process

(goal-setting, analysis, strategy formation, strategy implementation, and strategy

monitoring). Be sure to also include the following:

Analyze each stage and the importance of each in the strategic management

process.

Identify and explain the behaviors that are usually associated with each stage.

Provide examples to support your findings.

Critique the application of each stage, including any challenges your audience may

encounter once in the field.

Recommend opportunities to strengthen and develop operations using the process.

Incorporate appropriate animations, transitions, and graphics as well as speaker notes for

each slide. The speaker notes may be comprised of brief paragraphs or bulleted lists and

should cite material appropriately.

Support your presentation with at least five scholarly resources. In addition to these

specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources may be included.

Length: 12-15 slides (with a separate reference slide)

Notes Length: 200-350 words for each slide

Be sure to include citations for quotations and paraphrases with references in APA format

and style where appropriate. Save the file as PPT with the correct course code

information.

Upload your document, and then click the Submit to Dropbox button.

International Review of

Administrative Sciences

2016, Vol. 82(3) 411–417

! The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0020852316655522

ras.sagepub.com

International Review of Administrative SciencesArticle

Strategic management in public administrations: a results-based approach to strategic public management

Bachir Mazouz ENAP-University of Quebec, Canada

Anne Rousseau Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

With the collaboration of Pierre-André Hudon ENAP-University of Quebec, Canada

Abstract

As a field of knowledge, strategy has been taught and practised for over half a century.

However, there is still a distinct lack of consensus surrounding the effectiveness

of strategy in public administrations. This thematic issue of the International Review of

Administrative Sciences is devoted to advanced research which claims that in the age of

results-based management, public leaders must opt for a process-based approach to

strategy. In doing so, the emphasis is put on the complexity of strategic processes that

make it possible to support and maintain the institutions that serve the common good

and the general interest and that deliver public services using the results of public action.

From a process-based point of view, the strategy of public administration then assumes

that analysts and public leaders need to be more aware of the specificities of state

institutions. In particular, a thorough knowledge of the ways in which public officials

interact with the fundamental values, structures, regulatory frameworks and administrative

tools of public administrations is necessary.

Keywords

strategic management, public management, results-based management, governance,

administrative reforms

Corresponding author:

Bachir Mazouz, Ecole national d’administration publique, University of Quebec, Quebec, QC G1K 9H7,

Canada.

Email: [email protected]

Introduction

Long devised and implemented to deal with the ‘industrial dynamic’ marked by ‘competitive behaviour’ (Porter, 1982), strategy is now considered a field that makes it possible for the leaders of public and private organisations to ‘take options on the future’ (Williamson, 1999). However, despite increasingly sophisticated training programmes and highly advanced academic research on strategic contents, pro- cesses, options and actions, the effectiveness of public strategy is still a source of major controversies. At best, the strategic thinking and tools do not seem to have been sufficiently adapted to the context of public organisations (McHugh, 1997). At worst, the strategic exercise seems to be incompatible with the non-competitive environment in which public administrations traditionally operate.

Despite the scepticism of researchers and practitioners, many public adminis- trations of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries are now subject to legislation and regulations that have turned results- based management and strategic planning into tools that make it possible to intel- ligently combine the purposes, objectives, means and resources required to steer states’ administrations towards tangible results (Mazouz, 2014).

Given both the specificities (Nutt and Backoff, 1993) and the difficulties of measuring results in the public sector (Parenteau, 1979, 1992), as well as the lack of enthusiasm generated by the first two generations of administrative reforms (Poister and Streib, 2005; Tilli, 2007), practitioners and theorists of public action and government organisations have, until now, largely focused on the development and implementation of choices that uphold the values, purposes, objectives and structures of public action (Bryson et al., 2010; Denis et al., 2008; Drumaux and Goethals, 2007; Hutchinson, 2001; Johanson, 2009; Kinder, 2012; Levine, 1985; Mintzberg and Jorgensen, 1987; Paquin, 1992; Ring and Perry, 1985).

From a so-called ‘synoptic’ approach, advocating the rationality of decision- making principles, to an ‘incremental’ approach, which considers the development of strategies as ‘the culmination of a process triggering changes through continuous adaptation’, many researchers have devoted their efforts to ‘high quality [research] documenting the conditions for the adaptation of strategic tools to the realities of government departments and agencies’ (Bernier et al., 2013, 895–908). Undoubtedly, this renewed interest in strategic processes (Allison, 1983; Andrews et al., 2009; Backoff and Nutt, 1992; Boyne, 2002; Bruijn, 2007; Bryson and Roering, 1987; Rainey et al., 1976; Ring and Perry, 1985) can be explained partly by the growing institutionalisation of formal approaches and frameworks of objective-based management (Charih, 2000; Levine, 1985) and, more recently, of results-based management (Emery, 2005; Mazouz, 2014). This is the case, for instance, of the GPRA in the US, of the LAP in Quebec and the Loi organique sur les lois de finances (LOLF) in France.

From the process-based perspective proposed by Pettigrew (1977, 1997), aca- demic research spawned by controversies concerning the second generation of administrative reforms and hinged around a systemic perspective of the concept of results (Poister, 2005; Poister and Streib, 2005) seems to concentrate more on

412 International Review of Administrative Sciences 82(3)

‘ways of thinking’ and ‘ways of doing’ to explain the sustainability of public organ- isations. For the proponents of this strategic perspective, the dynamics of services supply/delivery structures to citizens is determined by the ways in which the statutory mission–organisational objectives–means–resources–outputs value chain is configured (Denis et al., 2007; Hutchinson, 2001; Johanson, 2009; McHugh, 1997).

Thus, seen in terms of processes, the strategic exercise is supposed to help public managers to counteract the binding effects of the normative, legal and administra- tive mechanisms that regulate the activities of public organisations. Various types of strategic exercises are explored and concretely illustrated in the articles presented in this special issue: they were selected to enable both public management practi- tioners and specialists to reflect upon the challenges and issues related to strategic management in the public sector.

Through an analysis of the territorial innovation systems of three French regions, the article by F. Pallez and D. Fixari shows how public action coordin- ation takes place in the medium and long term. Various ways of establishing strategic convergence are explored: the merger of structures, the specialisation of entities and the formalisation of coordination activities. Ultimately, in complex administrative systems that are increasingly results-oriented, strategy must be developed and implemented by focusing on coordination processes based on a logic of progressive evolution, guided by the intentions of multiple stakeholders.

The article by C. Favoreu, D. Carassus and C. Maurel concerns the possible theoretical approaches to public policy formulation processes and, in particular, the rational, political and collaborative logics behind the strategy. Presented simultan- eously as the result of (1) a teleological process focused on decision-making and the quest for results, (2) a power game designed to favour certain issues over others in the public sphere and (3) a broader and more complex democratic phenomenon, strategy consists of the outcome of subtle interactions between numerous stakeholders. The case study of the French fire and rescue services (SDIS) clearly illustrates how strategy formulation processes involve actors with their own rationality and interests and how the coordination mechanisms are inherent to an incremental development of strategy.

The analysis by M. Audette-Chapdelaine looks at the strategic process as a sense-making exercise (drawing on K. Weick’s theory). By analysing the water management policy of the City of Montreal, the author shows how the political– administrative interface becomes a transmission mechanism for sense-making. Common meanings are derived from the interaction between the political demands (often unclear in the case at hand) and the professionalism of the technical experts in the civil service. Strategy is therefore presented as the result of the ongoing and contextualised reinterpretation, by the stakeholders, of their collective understanding of public sector objectives.

Finally, the analysis proposed by G. Divay focuses on the integrated territorial approach as a tool of strategic coherence. Studying various regional consultations having taken place in Quebec and targeting poverty and social exclusion

Mazouz et al. 413

alleviation, the analysis raises several questions about how the consultation strate- gies make it possible to generate coherent policies and strategies. The author empha- sises that, as a strategic process, multi-stakeholder territorial consultation requires thought patterns that are often seen as incompatible with ‘linear’ rational planning. The article stresses that regional consultations can generate coherence in policy- making, but also that they require a long-term investment by managers and an investor mentality focusing on the process rather than on the purpose.

Like in most Western bureaucracies, the legal and functional requirements imposed on public administrations transform the strategic processes into an exer- cise of collective learning: while the tabling of a strategic plan is dictated by statu- tory considerations with no apparent added value, it does not hold true for strategy development and management. Indeed, the level of effort required by this statutory demand may generate significant learning related to the reaching of strategic goals and the acquisition of new skills (Maltais and Mazouz, 2004). In other words, it raises the question of whether public policies result from the application of a regulatory vision (sum of the powers exercised and defined by law) and/or from an organisational and territorial vision (requiring a more sophisticated knowledge of internal and external realities, prior to any strategic exercise). In both cases, these learnings do not take place outside the strategic exercise itself (McHugh, 1997; Mintzberg and Jorgensen, 1987; Nutt and Backoff, 1993) and allow state officials and employees to give meaning to their mandates (Fabbri and Gallais, 2010).

Understanding the complexity of public governance systems means that states and their governments must abandon the widely held notion that the strategy of public organisations must be limited to considering the administrative apparatus as a ‘simple’ black box that implements public policies, or, on the other side of a simplistic continuum, to considering the political level as a ‘simple’ environmental constraint to be integrated into a strategic approach. A conceptual clarification is urgently needed by the different public stakeholders at a time when the renewed methods of governance are putting them very much in the spotlight. From the moment we seek to integrate the complexity of public action, we must deal with three distinct rationalities: political, administrative and managerial. In doing so, we must develop an understanding of the specificities of public policy that incorpor- ates the management of inputs (resources required), outputs (services provided) and outcomes (public policy indicators). However, in this area, there is a wide- spread tendency towards simplification.

A truly strategic management of the public sector in the medium and long term goes beyond the mere administrative exercise. In other words, it is not enough to comply with policy directives that aim at producing and publishing administrative documents conveying public intentions and means. In the public sphere, the stra- tegic exercise is determined by three powers: the power of choice, the power of law and the power of ways and means (Mazouz, 2014). ‘The strategic latitude’, to use the expression put forward by Yves Emery (in Mazouz, 2014), is defined by the ability of public managers to integrate these three powers: the power of choice

414 International Review of Administrative Sciences 82(3)

wielded by politicians must assist public managers in deciding on the ways and means to be used within the current laws and regulations (Facal and Mazouz, 2013). This is a novel conceptualisation of the new roles and responsibilities of public officials with regards to public performance indicators (Mazouz et al., 2015a and 2015b).

Evoking objectives-based (or results-based) management prompts public leaders to think as much about strategy definition and the formulation of the strategies as about strategic procedures and tools. In doing so, the use of the strategy must be seen as a tool that forces a reflection regarding which new managerial skills are needed, as well as ways to better involve stakeholders in organisational change (Rossignol et al., 2014). Public organisations, now seen as ‘performance centres’, are thus forced to redefine their organisational model and examine how organisa- tional change will be implemented.

This special issue of the International Review of Administrative Sciences helps to understand how strategic processes are influenced by public policy steering/moni- toring/evaluation tools and managerial rationality. In the minds of the creators of official management frameworks (such as the French LOLF, the Quebec LAP, etc.), strategy is often interpreted by civil servants as being strictly limited to ‘objectives–programmes–evaluations of the results’. For some people, this consti- tutes a qualitative leap, especially in a situation where budgets are regularly renewed and spent but rarely evaluated. Strategy must be defined with respect to the way public leaders understand issues and work towards the common good and the bettering of public services.

Acknowledgements

Major points of the case developed for the needs of our introductory text have been drawn

from the Call for contributions to the International Symposium ‘Regards croisés sur la transformation de la gestion et des organisations publiques’, held on 21–22 November 2013 at the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the CRP Tudor, a public research center cur-

rently Luxembourg Institute of science and technology.

References

Allison GT (1983) Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In: Perry JL and Kraemer KL (eds) Public Management: Public and Private Perspectives. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, pp. 72–92.

Andrews R, Boyne GA, Law J, et al. (2009) Strategy, structure and process in the public sector: A test of the Miles and Snow model. Public Administration 87: 732–749.

Backoff RN and Nutt PC (1992) Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector

Organisations. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishers. Bernier L, Bourgault J, Mazouz B, et al. (2013) Organisations publiques. In: Hafsi, et al.

(eds) Encyclopédie de la stratégie. Paris: Vuibert.

Mazouz et al. 415

Boyne GA (2002) Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies 39(1): 97–122.

Bruijn HD (2007) Managing Performance in the Public Sector. London: Routledge.

Bryson JM and Roering WD (1987) Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector. Journal of the American Planning Association 53(1): 9–22.

Bryson JM, Berry FS and Yang K (2010) The state of public strategic management research:

A selective literature review and set of future directions. American Review of Public Administration 40: 495–521.

Charih M (2000) Government departmental strategies: A taxonomy of strategic behaviour in

the Canadian government. Management international 5(1): 1–9. Denis J-L, Langley A and Rouleau L (2007) Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking

theoretical frames. Human Relations 60: 179–215. Denis J-L, Langley A and Rouleau L (2008) Repenser le leadership dans les organisations

publiques. In: Mazouz B (ed.) Le Métier de gestionnaire public à l’aune de la gestion par résultats. St-Foy: Presses de l’université du Québec.

Drumaux A and Goethals C (2007) Strategic management: A tool for public management?

An overview of the Belgian federal experience. International Journal of Public Sector Management 20(7): 638–654.

Emery Y (2005) La gestion par les résultats dans les organisations publiques: de l’idée aux

défis de la réalisation. Télescope 11(1): 1–11. Fabbri R and Gallais M (2010) Sensemaking and commitment to action: Proposal of read-

ing improvement projects in Luxembourgish public organizations. In: EURAM, Vergata University, Roma, Italy, 19–22 May, pp. 1–22.

Facal J and Mazouz B (2013) L’imputabilité des dirigeants publics. Revue française de gestion 237: 117–132.

Hutchinson J (2001) The meaning of ‘strategy’ for area regeneration: A review, UK.

International Journal of Public Sector Management 14(3): 265–276. Johanson JE (2009) Strategy formation in public agencies. Public Administration 87:

872–891.

Kinder T (2012) Learning, innovating and performance in post-New Public Management of locally delivered public services. Public Management Review 14(3): 403–428.

Levine CH (1985) Police management in the 1980s: From decrementalism to strategic think-

ing. Public Administration Review 45(Special Issue: Law and Public Affairs): 691–700. McHugh M (1997) Trouble in paradise: Disintegrated strategic change within a government

agency. International Journal of Public Sector Management 10(6): 433–443. Maltais D and Mazouz B (2004) À nouvelle gouvernance, nouvelles competences. Revue

Internationale de Gestion 29(3): 82–92. Mazouz B (2014) La stratégie des organisations de l’État (s/dir). Ste-Foy: Presses de

l’Université du Québec.

Mazouz B, Sponem S and Rousseau A (2015a) Le gestionnaire public à l’épreuve des résultats. Revue française de gestion 251: 89–95.

Mazouz B, Sponem S and Rousseau A (2015b) Le gestionnaire public en question. Revue

française de gestion 253: 89–104. Mintzberg H and Jorgensen J (1987) Emergent strategy for public policy. Administration

Publique du Canada 30(2): 214–229. Nutt PC and Backoff RW (1993) Organizational publicness and its implications for strategic

management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3(2): 209–231.

416 International Review of Administrative Sciences 82(3)

Paquin M (1992) La planification stratégique dans le secteur public. In: Parenteau R, et al. (eds) Management public: Comprendre et gérer les institutions de l’État, 1992. Ste-Foy: Presses de l’Université du Québec, pp. 389–398.

Parenteau R (1979) Pourquoi les bons résultats sont si difficiles à réaliser dans le secteur public? Gestion. Revue Internationale de Gestion 4(4): Hiver: 7–17.

Parenteau R (1992) Le management public n’est pas le management privé. In: Parenteau R,

et al. (eds) Management public: Comprendre et gérer les institutions de l’État, 1992. Ste-Foy: Presses de l’Université du Québec, pp. 49–73.

Pettigrew AM (1977) Strategy formulation as a political process. International Studies in

Management and Organization 7(2): 78–87. Pettigrew AM (1997) What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management

13(4): 337–348. Poister TH (2005) Strategic planning and management in state departments of transporta-

tion. International Journal of Public Administration 28: 1035–1056. Poister TH and Streib GD (2005) Elements of strategic planning and management in muni-

cipal government: Status after two decades. Public Administration Review 65(1): 45–56.

Porter M (1982) Choix stratégiques et concurrence. Techniques d’analyse des secteurs et de la concurrence dans l’industrie. Paris: Economica.

Rainey HG, Backoff RW and Levine CH (1976) Comparing public and private organiza-

tions. Public Administration Review 36(2): 233–244. Ring PS and Perry JL (1985) Strategic management in public and private organizations:

Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. Academy of Management Review 10(2): 276–286.

Rossignol K, Rousseau A, Pichault F, et al. (2014) L’évaluation multidimensionnelle du changement: le cas des organisations publiques. Question(s) de Management, EMS 3(7): 91–115.

Tilli M (2007) Strategic political steering: Exploring the qualitative change in the role of ministers after NPM reforms. International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(1): 81–94.

Williamson PJ (1999) Strategy as options on the future. Sloan Management Review 40(3): 117–126.

Bachir Mazouz is a Full Professor at the Ecole national d’administration publique, University of Quebec, Canada. He is chief editor of the journal Management inter- national (Mi) and was the recipient of the Gutenberg Chair in 2009 at the École Nationale d’Administration (ENA) in Strasbourg, France.

Anne Rousseau is a Professor at the Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. She also heads a research team into socio-technical innovation processes at the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology.

Pierre-André Hudon is a post-doctoral researcher at the Ecole national d’adminis- tration publique, University of Quebec, Canada. He is a lecturer and contributes to the research on Public-Private Partnership (PPP).

Mazouz et al. 417

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS IN PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS Evidence from Canada

Said Elbanna , Rhys Andrews and Raili Pollanen

Said Elbanna Strategic Management, College of Businessand Economics Qatar University Doha Qatar E-mail: <a href='/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection' class='__cf_email__' dat

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.