Strat mgt research public sector

http://arp.sagepub.com/
Administration
The American Review of Public
http://arp.sagepub.com/content/40/5/522
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0275074010370617
2010 40: 522 originally published online 18 May 2010
The American Review of Public Administration
Theodore H. Poister, David W. Pitts and Lauren Hamilton Edwards
Future Directions
Strategic Management Research in the Public Sector: A Review, Synthesis, and
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
American Society for Public Administration
can be found at:
Additional services and information for
http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Email Alerts:
http://arp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Permissions:
http://arp.sagepub.com/content/40/5/522.refs.html
Citations:
What is This?
- May 18, 2010
OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Aug 3, 2010
Version of Record
>>
at Serials Section - The Library on February 18, 2013
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Articles
40(5) 522
–545
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0275074010370617
http://arp.sagepub.com
Strategic Management
Research in the
Public Sector: A Review,
Synthesis, and Future
Directions
Theodore H. Poister1
, David W. Pitts2
,
and Lauren Hamilton Edwards1
Abstract
Although there is considerable literature on strategic planning and management in the public
sector, there has been little effort to synthesize what has been learned concerning the extent
to which these tools are used in government, how they are implemented, and the results they
generate. In this article, the authors review the research on strategic planning and management
in the public sector to understand what has been learned to date and what gaps in knowledge
remain. In examining the 34 research articles in this area published in the major public admin-
istration journals over the past 20 years, the authors find substantial empirical testing of the
impacts of environmental and institutional/organizational determinants on strategic management,
but efforts to assess linkages between strategic planning processes and organizational outcomes
or performance improvements are sparse. Large-N quantitative analyses and comparative case
studies could improve the knowledge base in this critical area.
Keywords
strategic planning, strategic management
Scholars and practitioners have been interested in strategic planning and management in the
public sector for well over two decades (Bryson, 1988; Bryson & Roering, 1987; Eadie, 1983;
Olsen & Eadie, 1982; Ring & Perry, 1985). Over that period, many books and articles have been
published on this subject, and strategic planning has become prevalent in governmental jurisdic-
tions at the federal, state, and local levels. Whereas it was novel 20 years ago, it has become
orthodox practice by now.
Initial Submission: Month XX, XXXX
Accepted: March 31, 2010
1
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
2
American University, Washington, D.C., USA
Corresponding Author:
Theodore H. Poister, Suite 358, 14 Marietta Street NW, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA
Email: tpoister@gsu.edu
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 523
Considerable research has been conducted on the use and conduct of strategic planning and
management in the public sector, but this literature is fairly fragmented in terms of the specific
research questions addressed. To date there has been little effort to look at the bigger picture of
what has been learned about the extent to which public organizations explicitly engage in strategic
planning and management efforts, how they conduct these processes, and what comes out of such
efforts in terms of immediate results and broader impacts on overall performance. Thus, the find-
ings produced by this research need to be integrated to examine the extent to which they collectively
shed light on possible linkages between the determinants of strategic management activity and
the formulation, content, and implementation of strategic plans and between these elements of
the strategic management process and outcomes in terms of the tangible results they produce.
By way of contrast, Stone, Bigelow, and Crittenden (1999) reviewed more than 65 empirically
based journal articles on strategic management activities in nonprofit organizations published
between 1977 and 1999 to synthesize what had been learned and to identify research questions
that still needed to be addressed regarding strategic planning and management in the nonprofit
sector. These authors identified research on linkages between many of—but by no means all—the
components of the strategy process in nonprofit organizations. Although many of these findings
might also apply to strategic management in the public sector, others might not because of dif-
ferences between the sectors in terms of governance frameworks, funding environments, resource
dependencies, and definitions of mission and performance. In any case, no effort has been under-
taken to date to conduct a comprehensive review of research on strategic management in govern-
ment agencies.
Purpose and Approach
The purpose of this article is to fill that gap by consolidating and synthesizing research that has
been conducted on strategic planning and management in the public sector to understand better
what has been learned and what gaps in knowledge remain. What does the existing research tell
us about what motivates strategic planning in government, how public agencies develop and imple-
ment strategic plans, what kinds of factors facilitate or impede effective strategic planning, and the
extent to which these efforts are actually beneficial? What further research is needed to inform us
more fully about the role, conduct, and usefulness of strategic planning in the public sector?
We proceed in two steps. First, we examine expository research that describes the extent to
which public agencies engage in strategic planning and management. We use the large volume
of expository research to formulate a model depicting the principal elements of strategic planning
and management in the public sector and the theoretical relationships among them. Second, we
take an approach similar to that of Stone et al. (1999) and use this model as an organizing frame-
work for a more in-depth analysis of evaluative research that examines cause/effect linkages in
the theory underlying strategic management. Our purpose in this second step is not to test the
validity of the conceptual model that we build from the expository literature but, rather, to use
the model as an organizing framework to guide our review of the evaluative research.
We base our conceptual model on expository research published in both books and journals.
Our review of the evaluative research is purposefully narrower and includes only articles published
in 21 relevant, peer-reviewed journals since 1980 (see below).Although the books that have been
produced about strategic planning and management often include minicases, vignettes, and anec-
dotal evidence as illustrative material, they rarely include original empirical research. Given their
expository nature, we did not review them in our analysis of evaluative research. Our search
included the following journals, all outlets that are recognized for publishing rigorous empirical
research in public administration and/or strategic planning and management:
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

524 The American Review of Public Administration 40(5)
Administration & Society
American Review of Public Administration
Governance
International Journal of Public Administration
International Public Management Journal
Journal of Management Studies
Journal of Policy Analysis & Management
Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory
Journal of the American Planning Association
Long Range Planning
Public Administration
Public Administration Quarterly
Public Administration Review
Public Budgeting and Finance
Public Management
Public Management Review
Public Performance & Management Review
Public Personnel Management
Review of Public Personnel Administration
State and Local Government Review
Strategic Management Journal
Our keyword search of strategy, strategic planning, and strategic management identified 34
research articles appearing in 14 journals that have appeared between 1985 and 2009 and addressed
strategic planning and/or management as their core issue. We found no articles meeting our criteria
in 7 of the journals. This research includes both qualitative and quantitative approaches, as well as
a mix of case studies and large-N analyses. We examine the key research questions and hypotheses,
findings, and conclusions in each of these pieces of research, using as a guide the conceptual frame-
work that we develop based on the expository literature. We are more concerned with substantive
content and focus rather than the quality or appropriateness of the research methodology, and we
are particularly interested in what researchers discovered regarding linkages of different components
of strategic planning and management to environmental factors and organizational outcomes.
A Strategic Management Conceptual Framework
Ashared sense of strategy is of fundamental importance to public managers because it is essential
for positioning an organization to face a complex and uncertain future. Effective public managers
can use strategy to focus attention and effort on real priorities, provide a consistent framework to
guide decisions and actions, and give an organization a new or renewed sense of purpose (Nutt
& Backoff, 1992). Strategic planning is concerned with formulating strategy, a “disciplined effort
to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization (or other
entity) is, what it does, and why it does it” (Bryson, 2004, p. 6). It is a “big picture” approach that
addresses the most fundamental issues facing an organization in an attempt to promote the best
“fit” with the environment and ensure the organization’s long-term vitality and effectiveness
(E. J. Kemp, Funk, & Eadie, 1993; Poister & Streib, 1999). Strategic management is the broader
process of managing an organization in a strategic manner on a continuing basis. Strategic plan-
ning is a principal element of strategic management, which also involves resource management,
implementation, and control and evaluation (Steiss, 1985; Vinzant & Vinzant, 1996b). Thus,
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 525
strategic management is intended to enhance “the entire set of managerial decisions and actions
that determine the long-run performance of an organization” (Koteen, 1989, p. 18).
Following Stone et al. (1999), we employed a conceptual model to help organize our review
of the extant research on strategic planning and management in the public sector, shown in Figure 1.
The flow of logic in this model centers on strategic management processes carried out by public
agencies, including the formulation of strategy and the products generated by these planning
efforts, the content of the strategies devised, and the implementation of these strategies. On the
left side of the model are determinants that may influence public organizations’strategic manage-
ment activities, including environmental and institutional/organizational determinants. On the
right side of the model are outcomes produced by strategic management activities, including both
enhanced organizational capacity and impacts on organizational performance. It should be under-
stood that this model is not intended to identify steps taken in the strategic planning process but,
rather, to represent the logic underlying the principle elements of strategic management, their
determinants, and their impact on an organization’s capacity and performance.
Determinants
In the business sector strategy is seen as being largely driven by competitive forces in a company’s
environment (Porter, 2001). Similarly, in the public sector, an agency’s approach to strategic
planning and the strategy it ultimately develops are likely to be influenced by the operating envi-
ronment in which it functions (Heymann, 1987; E. J. Kemp et al., 1993; Ring, 2000), as represented
by Link 1 in Figure 1. In particular the extent to which that environment is characterized by stabil-
ity or turbulence is likely to influence the perceived need for strategic planning and perhaps the
type of strategy that might be most beneficial (Campbell & Garnett, 1989). The political context,
the area of policy with which it deals, concerns of constituency groups and policy advocates, and
trends in the substantive field in which it operates might all be determinants of an agency’s engage-
ment in strategic planning (Joyce, 2000).
The institutional context in which a public agency operates, specifically the governmental and
intergovernmental system of which it is a part, are also likely to have a major impact on its approach
to strategic management practices (Bozeman & Straussman, 1990; Ring & Perry, 1985), as
Strategic Management
Plan Formulation
Strategy Content
Implementation
Determinants
Environmental
Institutional/
Organizational
Outcomes
Organizational
Capacity
Performance
Improvement
1
4
3
10
9
8
2
12
6
5
7
11
Figure 1. Strategic planning and management conceptual framework
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

suggested by Link 2 in the conceptual framework. For example, some agencies may engage in
strategic planning simply because it is required by a legislative or central executive mandate
(Melkers & Willoughby, 1998). Whereas some agencies with little discretionary space may be
operating under constraints that significantly limit their ability to manage strategically (Nutt &
Backoff, 1993), others with more fiscal and statutory autonomy would be expected to have greater
incentive to engage in strategic planning, a wider range of options to consider in developing
strategies, and more potential benefit to gain from effectively implementing the strategies they
do settle on (Vinzant & Vinzant, 1996b). Furthermore, the extent to which a public agency oper-
ates through a decentralized program structure or service delivery system (Frederickson &
Frederickson, 2007; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973) or the extent to which it is a relatively self-
contained agency versus one that operates in a highly networked governance structure (Agranoff
& McGuire, 2001; Milward & Provan, 2006) is also likely to influence its approach to strategic
planning and management.
Similarly, a variety of organizational characteristics might well be expected to influence a
public agency’s approach to strategic management (Denhardt, 1985; Roberts, 2000). For example,
larger and more complex agencies may require more formalized planning systems and need to
dedicate more resources to strategic management processes in order to implement strategic plans
successfully (Vinzant & Vinzant, 1996b). The type of governing body, whether an authority board
or a legislative body, and with respect to local governments in particular the form of government
(e.g., city manager vs. strong mayor systems), is also likely to affect how and to what extent
strategic management processes are carried out.
Other factors that might facilitate or hinder strategic planning and management will likely vary
by the agency’s substantive policy area. For instance, prospects for effective strategic management
might be brighter in areas such as the police force, fire department, public works, transportation,
corrections, and sanitation, where there tends to be a greater consensus on mission, a more objec-
tive basis for decision making, and a heavier emphasis on formal authority (Halachmi, 1986). More
generally, organizations in which intense conflict exists within the governing body, the executive
staff, or between the two are likely to experience greater difficulties in trying to engage in strategic
planning (Gabris, 1992). Finally, a public agency’s value system and organizational culture, its
leadership style (Monahan, 2001), and especially its management capacity and analytical capabili-
ties (Joyce, 2000; Shapek & Richardson, 1989) as well as its length of time of involvement and
quality of experience with strategic planning and management (Vinzant & Vinzant, 1996b) are all
likely determinants of its ability to engage in strategic planning and management effectively.
Strategic Management Processes
Strategic planning processes vary considerably in the public sector, first of all in terms of participa-
tion. In local government jurisdictions and in public authorities, governing bodies may take a central
role in strategic planning, whereas in other agencies strategic planning may be seen as principally
a top executive function. In other cases, active participation may extend to other management levels
and even include key external stakeholders. Similarly, public agencies’ strategic planning efforts
may differ significantly in terms of overall scope, breadth of focus, time horizons, and extensive-
ness of information gathering (Eadie, 1989; Toft, 2000). Indeed, the focus or unit of analysis in
strategic planning efforts in the public sector ranges from individual public agencies and/or major
divisions of them to entire general purpose governments, specific functions—such as transporta-
tion, health, or education—that bridge organizational and governmental boundaries, interorgani-
zational networks, and entire communities, regions, or states (Bryson, 2004).
Furthermore, what strategic planning is intended to produce is conceived in various ways. In
one public organization a strategic plan may amount to a lofty vision of success in adding value
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 527
to the constituents it serves supported by a few broad goals, whereas in another, strategic planning
may be directed to identifying strategic issues facing the organization and determining how to
resolve them, and in yet another agency, strategic planning may be aimed at developing a set of
strategic initiatives complete with action plans, resource commitments, accountability structures
and performance measures intended to drive the enterprise into the future in a more purposeful
way. Clearly, although a conventional set of strategic planning processes and techniques has
emerged over the past 25 years for implementing strategic planning and management (Bryson,
2004; Bryson & Roering, 1987; Eadie, 1983; Finlay, 1994; Nutt & Backoff, 1992; Sorkin, Ferris,
& Hudak, 1984), public agencies vary widely in terms of how they formulate strategic plans, and
a “one-size-fits-all” approach is probably not beneficial (Roberts, 2000; Toft, 2000).
The processes an organization uses to develop strategy might also be expected to influence the
content of the resulting strategies and in turn influence approaches to strategy implementation
(Links 3 and 4 in Figure 1). Although a wide range of typologies have been suggested to describe
the content of strategies employed by public organizations (Nutt & Backoff, 1995; Osborne &
Plastrik, 1997; Rubin, 1988; Stevens & McGowan, 1983; Wechsler & Backoff, 1986), a more
recent conceptualization suggests that the principal dimensions of the strategies developed by
public agencies concern “strategic stance” and “strategic actions” (Boyne & Walker, 2004). Rooted
in an earlier model of strategy in the private sector (Miles & Snow, 1978), strategic stance concerns
behavioral approaches to aligning an organization to its environment, ranging from more proactive
to more reactive stances. Originating in a second early private sector–oriented model (Porter, 1980),
strategic actions, on the other hand, consist of substantive approaches to pursuing a public agency’s
overall mission that are often referred to as “focus areas” or “results areas” in practice.
For example, the original balanced scorecard model is defined by four categories of strategic
actions, including those that focus on customers, financial performance, internal business processes,
and organizational learning and growth (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). Adaptations of the balanced
scorecard for public sector organizations allow latitude for additional focus areas and encourage
the use of “strategy maps” to identify the logic relating them to each other (Niven, 2003). More
recently, three stances—prospectors, defenders, and reactors—and five types of strategic actions—
markets, services, revenues, external organization, and internal organization—have been integrated
in a model that can be used to describe the overall content of a public agency’s strategy in terms
of the relative emphasis placed on various combinations of stance and strategic action (Boyne &
Walker, 2004).
Once organizations have developed strategic plans, the real challenges may lie in implementa-
tion. Public agencies appear to vary widely in how purposeful and effective they are in executing
strategy, how they go about implementing initiatives, and the extent to which their strategies are
fully implemented. Some strategic plans include elements that help facilitate implementation, such
as strategic initiatives, performance measures, and action plans, whereas others do not. The effec-
tiveness of various approaches to implementing strategy is likely to depend on the organization
and its environment as well as the problems it faces and the kinds of strategies it devises (Campbell
& Garnett, 1989).
Some of these approaches include “cascading” strategy down through the organization through
the use of operating unit business plans (Niven, 2003; Poister & Streib, 1999), anchoring an orga-
nization’s overall performance management process in its strategic goals and objectives (Koteen,
1989; Steiss, 1985), using strategy to drive the budgeting process (Bryson, 2004; Koteen, 1989;
Melkers &Willoughby, 1998;Vinzant &Vinzant, 1996b), and using project management techniques
to implement cross-cutting strategic initiatives that do not naturally fall into the purview of indi-
vidual organizational units (Bryson, 2004; Koteen, 1989; Poister & Streib, 1999). Mobilizing
support for a public agency’s strategic agenda through internal communications, promoting it with
external stakeholders, and embodying it in a legislative agenda may also be critical ingredients to
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

successful strategy implementation (Poister & Streib, 1999). In some cases, strategy may also be
implemented through organization redesign (Golembiewski, 1989; Koteen, 1989) or ongoing
process improvement efforts (Vinzant & Vinzant, 1996a). Strategic management is typically an
iterative process, and an organization’s experience in implementing strategies may lead to revising
strategy and over the long run may influence both the planning process and the content of strategies
generated in subsequent rounds of strategic planning, as suggested by Links 5 and 6 in Figure 1.
Outcomes
Perhaps the most important linkages in Figure 1 are Links 8, 9, and 10 through which strategic
planning, strategy content, and implementation are intended to bring about desired outcomes. These
outcomes can be conceived as coming in two stages: enhanced organizational capacity versus
longer term changes in performance. The organizational impacts pertain to benefits in terms of
general health and viability that may be derived from a sustained emphasis on strategic planning
and management. These include possible effects such as stronger partnerships and stakeholder
relations (Bryson, 2004), a more positive public image and/or political support (Backoff, Wechsler,
& Crew, 1993), increased management capacity or analytical capability (Nutt & Backoff, 1992),
an improved ability to respond effectively with rapidly changing environmental circumstances
(Bryson & Roering, 1988), more effective leadership, and a more positive organization culture
(Bryson, 2004).
The performance outcomes, on the other hand, are changes in organizational or program per-
formance that arise from strategic plans in terms of the services delivered, regulations enforced,
or governmental activities carried out by a public agency (Bryson & Roering, 1988; Halachmi,
1986). These would include more efficient operations, higher levels of productivity, improved
service quality, more cost-effective programs, and increased customer satisfaction in addition to
more effective programs in terms of alleviating problems or improving conditions in clientele
groups, target communities, or entire populations. In addition to being generated directly by strategy
content and implementation, such performance improvements may be produced indirectly through
strengthened organizational capacity, represented by Link 11, which in turn allows the organization
to manage programs or deliver services more efficiently and effectively. In practice, these outcomes
may often be part of a larger set of reciprocal relationships that include a feedback loop from
outcomes to environmental and institutional/organizational determinants of strategic planning as
well as to the strategic management processes themselves, as represented by Link 12 in the con-
ceptual framework.
Research to Date
In this section, we review the existing research on strategic management in the public sector,
focusing in particular on causal linkages between components of the strategic management model
that we outlined above (see Table 1).
Determinants: Environmental Influences on Strategic Planning
We identified four articles that examined the relationship between environmental factors and the
strategic management components of plan formulation, content, and implementation. First, Berry’s
(1994) study of strategic planning in state government agencies found that external influences had
significant impacts on an organization’s decision to initiate strategic planning. Specifically, she
found that agencies were more likely to engage in strategic planning when neighboring agencies
were also doing it and when they were closely aligned to private sector organizations. This certainly
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 529
Table 1. Empirical Research on Public Sector Strategic Planning and Management
Authors Research Question Context Areas of Focusa
Bryson and
Roering (1988)
What are the necessary
conditions for the successful
initiation of a strategic
planning process in
government agencies?
Eight governmental units
in the Minneapolis/St.
Paul metropolitan area
Plan formulation
Poister and Streib
(1989)
What is the prevalence and
effectiveness of strategic
management techniques in U.S.
municipalities?
Survey of 451 senior
managers in municipal
jurisdictions with
populations from 25,000
to 1 million
2; Plan
formulation;
Outcomes
Poister and Streib
(1990)
To what extent is strategic
management used in U.S.
municipalities?
Survey of 451 senior
managers in municipal
jurisdictions with
populations from 25,000
to 1 million
Plan formulation;
Outcomes
Miesing and
Anderson
(1991)
What is the size and scope of
strategic planning efforts in
state agencies?
Survey of 54 state agency
heads in New York
state
2
Baker (1992) How can corporate-style
strategic planning be
implemented by public
agencies?
Case study of the U.S.
Department of Defense
Plan formulation;
10
Bruton and
Hildreth (1993)
How should internal and external
stakeholders be used to guide
strategic planning efforts?
Survey of 45 public-sector
financial executives
Institutional/
Organizational
determinants
E. J. Kemp, Funk,
and Eadie
(1993)
What accounts for the success in
EEOC’s strategic management
program?
Participant observation
case study of the EEOC
Outcomes
Wheeland (1993) What are the characteristics of a
successful strategic planning
effort?
Case study of Rock Hill,
South Carolina
2; Plan formulation
Berry (1994) What factors lead a state agency
to adopt strategic planning?
directors
1; Institutional/
Organizational
determinants
Poister and Streib
(1994)
What is the prevalence and
effectiveness of strategic
management techniques in U.S.
municipalities?
Survey of 520 municipal
managers
2; Outcomes
Roberts and
Wargo (1994)
What factors predict success in
strategic planning for large-
scale public organizations?
Case study of the U.S.
Navy
2; Plan
formulation; 9
Berry and
Wechsler
(1995)
How frequently do public
agencies adopt strategic
planning, what approaches do
they use, and what are their
objectives and outcomes?
directors
2; Outcomes
Kissler, Fore,
Jacobson,
Kittredge, and
Stewart (1998)
What factors have led to success
in strategic planning for
Oregon state government?
Case study of the state of
Oregon
2; Plan
formulation;
Outcomes
(continued)
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Table 1. (continued)
Donald, Lyons,
and Tribbey
(2001)
Which factors lend themselves to
lasting partnerships between
unions and management in
strategic planning?
Case study of a public
utility organization
2; Outcomes
Franklin (2001) What processes do agencies use
in developing strategic plans?
Content analysis of 15
federal agency strategic
plans; semistructured
interviews with 14
department employees
2
Smith, Campbell,
Subramanian,
Bird, and
Nelson (2001)
How does strategic planning
work in municipal information
technology initiatives?
Case study of St. Louis city
government
2; Outcomes
Brymer, Ingman,
and Kersten
(2002)
How does strategic planning
operate in a small city
government?
Case study of College
Station, Texas
2
Campbell (2002) How can corporate-style
strategic planning mechanisms
be implemented in public
organizations?
Case study of the U.S. Air
Force
2; Plan
formulation;
Outcomes; 11
Daley, Vasu, and
Weinstein
(2002)
What are the impacts of strategic
human resource management?
Survey of 672 public-
sector employees in
North Carolina counties
Outcomes
Poister and Van
Slyke (2002)
How do leading-edge
transportation departments
link strategic planning with
other management processes?
Interviews with executives
in 21 state departments
of transportation
Outcomes; 10
Boyne and
Gould-Williams
(2003)
What are local service managers’
perceptions of the effectiveness
of strategic planning initiatives?
sector employees in
Welsh local authorities
8
Hendrick (2003) What affects the implementation
of strategic planning, and how
do strategic planning initiatives
relate to organizational
outcomes?
Survey of 15 city
government managers in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
1; Plan
formulation; 8;
9; 10
Rivenbark and
Kelly (2003)
To what extent are smaller
municipal governments
engaging in strategic planning
and management?
Survey of 346 managers in
municipal jurisdictions
with fewer than 25,000
residents
8
Blair (2004) Does participatory strategic
planning increase local
development and sustainable
activities in a community?
Case study of Nebraska Plan formulation
Boyne, Gould-
Williams, Law,
and Walker
(2004)
What prevents strategic planning
initiatives from being
successful?
sector employees in
Welsh local authorities
1; 2; Outcomes
Andrews, Boyne,
Meier, O’Toole,
and Walker
(2005)
How does strategy content
interact with racial/ethnic
representation to affect
organizational outcomes?
Survey of 2,355 public-
sector employees in
English local authorities
9
(continued)
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 531
reflects Porter’s (2001) general argument that organizations align themselves to the competitive
environment in which they operate. Economic problems seem to have also been the primary
impetus behind the initiation of large-scale strategic planning in the state of Oregon, widely
considered one of the leading states in benchmarking (Kissler, Fore, Jacobson, Kittredge, &
Stewart, 1998). Oregon has continued its emphasis on strategic planning as a means of responding
to voter cynicism, loss of trust in government, and other political issues in the external environ-
ment. Thus, it would appear that a political context that favors strategic planning has been a key
driver in its continued success.
In her case study of strategic planning in Milwaukee city government, Hendrick (2003) was
perhaps the most comprehensive of these in her assessment of the environment, modeling it as one
of four primary conceptual areas in the strategic planning process. Interestingly, Hendrick’s research
Table 1. (continued)
Poister (2005) To what extent have state
departments of transportation
been successful in advancing
their strategic planning and
management initiatives?
Survey of executives in 24
state/6 provincial
departments of
transportation in the
United States and
Canada
Outcomes
Poister and Streib
(2005)
To what extent are strategic
planning and management
implemented in local
government agencies?
Survey of 512 municipal
government managers in
jurisdictions with 25,000
or more residents
Outcomes; 8
Andrews, Boyne,
and Walker
(2006)
How do different approaches to
strategy content affect
Survey of 2,355 public-
sector employees in
English local authorities
9
Korosec (2006) How does department-level
strategic planning differ from
agency-level strategic planning?
Survey of 202 city
managers in U.S. cities
with populations greater
than 50,000
2; Plan formulation
Meier, Boyne, and
Walker (2007)
How do different approaches to
strategy content affect
Data from 3,041 Texas
school districts from
2000-2005
8; 9
Andrews, Boyne,
Law, and
Walker (2008)
How does centralization and
different approaches to
strategy content impact
Data from 53 Welsh local
authorities
9
Andrews, Boyne,
Law, and
Walker (2009)
How does different approaches
to strategy formulation and
strategy content impact
Data from 47 Welsh local
authorities
8; 9
Barzelay and
Jacobsen (2009)
How are strategic planning
initiatives used to effect change
in public agencies?
Case study of the
European Commission
2; 10
Note. EEOC = Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
a. 1 = Environmental determinants to strategic management; 2 = Institutional/organizational determinants to strategic
management; 3 = Plan formulation to strategy content; 4 = Strategy content to plan formulation; 5 = Strategy content
to implementation; 6 = Implementation to strategy content; 7 = Implementation to plan formulation; 8 = Plan
formulation to outcomes; 9 = Strategy content to outcomes; 10 = Implementation to outcomes; 11 = Organizational
capacity to performance improvement; 12 = Outcomes to determinants and strategic management.
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

found that external environmental factors such as hostility/munificence, conflict, and external
influence had relatively little impact on strategic management and planning processes. Her findings
were reinforced a decade later, when Boyne, Gould-Williams, Law, and Walker (2004) found no
relationship between the political context and support for strategic planning in their analysis of
local authorities in the United Kingdom.Although they note that political officials are often skepti-
cal of strategic planning, they do not find that to be the case in their study.
Determinants: Institutional and Organizational Influences on Strategic Planning
Several studies linked institutional and organizational characteristics to strategic planning and
management, noting a variety of challenges that can stem from different institutional arrangements.
For example, Berry (1994) showed that networked organizations were more likely to engage in
strategic planning than those that operated in a more traditional “closed” system, arguing that
strategic planning is an innovation that is most likely to occur as it is diffused across interorgani-
zational partnerships. This research may be a bit outdated, because strategic planning and man-
agement are hardly the innovative exercises they once were. If strategic planning constitutes more
of a common practice than innovation, it may be that well-networked managers are no more likely
than insulated managers to pick it up and encourage its use. In addition, Berry found that agencies
were more likely to engage in strategic planning in states whose overall fiscal health was strong
and whose governors were newly elected.
Mandates may also affect strategic planning processes in the public sector, although the research
results to date are mixed. In the case of Oregon, Kissler et al. (1998) demonstrate that environ-
mental shifts led to a mandate by the governor and an institutional context where strategic planning
was emphasized. Here, the impact of the environment on strategic planning and management was
not direct but, rather, via the creation of institutional factors that encouraged it. Governor Neil
Goldschmidt mandated strategic planning in the mid-1980s in response to economic crises in the
state. The benchmarking and strategic planning initiatives that followed were particularly suc-
cessful by most standards, lending evidence to a theory that strong centralized authority—here,
via executive mandate—can be a positive influence on strategic planning. Similar relationships
emerged in Barzelay and Jacobsen’s (2009) case study of the European Commission, where politi-
cal forces appeared to be the primary factor behind the adoption and continued implementation
of strategic planning.
Berry and Wechsler (1995) examined institutional influences on strategic planning and man-
agement by surveying state agency leaders about their experiences. The overwhelming majority
of respondents (88%) said that their agencies had not initiated strategic planning as a result of a
formal mandate. However, they were more likely to have engaged in strategic planning because
their chief executive officer had prior experience with it or because it had been recommended by
internal planning officers. Franklin (2001) examined the mandate that the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 gives to federal agencies that they must consult with stakeholders during
strategic planning. She finds that this requirement does not seem to affect the substantive content
of the plans but that it makes agencies at least appear to be more responsive in general to citizen
and stakeholder concerns. The mandate of the Government Performance and Results Act seems
to affect strategic planning and management most strongly by promoting the inclusion of advocacy
groups and policy community representatives. It is clear that many different types of mandates
and institutional contexts can influence the initiation of strategic planning, but empirical research
on these relationships is sparse.
A number of organizational factors also affect the formulation, implementation, and content
of strategic plans. Organizational factors may be even more important to strategic planning than
political ones. Boyne et al. (2004) found that strategic planning implementation problems were
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 533
more likely to stem from managerial issues than political ones. Strong executive commitment and
strong expectation for employee participation appear to be important predictors of plan formula-
tion and implementation, though ultimately less important than resources. Smith, Campbell,
Subramanian, Bird, & Nelson (2001) found that a lack of support from top officials and lack of
incentive for employees to cooperate impeded the implementation of a comprehensive informa-
tion systems plan in their case study of St. Louis’municipal information systems strategic planning
initiative. Strong leadership was also key to the success of the strategic planning process in the
City of Rock Hill, South Carolina (Wheeland, 1993) as well as in the strategic planning process
used by the U.S. Air Force (Campbell, 2002).
Bruton and Hildreth’s (1993) survey of public-sector financial managers sought to examine
attitudes toward strategic planning at the individual level. They find that managers with the most
involvement in external affairs—those with a higher “external orientation”—were more likely than
others to support strategic planning and management. In building a strategic management team,
they argue that externally oriented managers are in the best position to lead the effort, given their
greater commitment to the process and understanding of external stakeholders and issues. Unfor-
tunately, this is the only study we found that explicitly tested how a manager’s external or internal
style affected his or her engagement in strategic planning. Most of the other research in this area
focused on organization-level strategic planning, but knowing the individual manager’s motivations
and incentives is perhaps just as critical to a comprehensive understanding of strategic planning.
As mentioned above, Smith et al. (2001) found in their St. Louis study that a lack of senior
management support for strategic planning led to serious obstacles in its implementation. Con-
versely, Korosec (2006) found in a survey of city managers and chief administrative officers of
cities with a population of more than 50,000 that senior manager support was a positive and sig-
nificant factor in creating change through strategic planning, but middle manager support had no
impact—evidence for a conclusion that top-down processes may be more successful at crafting a
plan with appropriate content and then implementing it effectively. Likewise, Donald, Lyons, and
Tribbey (2001) found in their case study that management support was an important factor in the
success of cooperation between a public utility company and its union in strategic planning. Brymer,
Ingman, and Kersten (2002) also find management support, as well as political support, important
to the overall success of the strategic management in the city of College Station, Texas.
Perhaps the most accurate conclusion to draw from this line of research is that effective strategic
planning is most likely when a top leader establishes the process and creates a centralized mecha-
nism for implementing it, keeping in mind that stakeholders from across the organization should
be involved at all stages (see, e.g., Bruton & Hildreth, 1993; Campbell, 2002). Of course, involving
too many stakeholders in strategic planning can create resource and time dilemmas, in addition to
encouraging more disagreement on key issues than may be productive. However, research seems
to argue for top management support with at least representative participation from stakeholders
at other levels.
Research in this area has also linked organizational resources to the initiation and implementa-
tion of strategic plans, but much more analysis is needed to be confident about the direction and
magnitude of the impacts. On the one hand, Boyne et al. (2004) found that organizational resources
were crucial to strategic planning initiatives in an analysis of Welsh local authorities. Smith et al.
(2001) note that budgetary constraints were an issue in their case study, perhaps because of the
technological needs involved in implementing IT plans. According to Wheeland (1993), the suc-
cessful experience of Rock Hill was in part because of making the necessary resources available
and avoiding what he terms the “shortcut” approach.
Berry and Wechsler (1995) found that agencies were engaged in strategic planning because
budgetary pressures required them to find efficiencies. Although the effective implementation of
a strategic plan certainly requires resources, Berry and Wechsler find that a lack of resources could
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

actually encourage strategic plan formulation, even if it makes the implementation stage more
difficult. Interestingly, we did not identify many quantitative studies that included resources as a
key independent variable in predicting the implementation or success of strategic planning efforts.
Most of the research that considered resources seemed to be descriptive case studies, where we
were more likely to see a holistic evaluation of the role of resources. More research is needed on
how organizational resources lead one toward (or away from) strategic planning.
Organizational size and structure seemed to be a primary influence on the implementation of
strategic planning, although evidence is mixed as to how these variables affect decision making.
For example, Poister and Streib (1989, 1994) found that larger cities were most likely to engage
in strategic planning and management, although Boyne et al. (2004) note that planning is often
more difficult to do effectively in large organizations, encouraging further research on why size
might discourage it. In their case study of planning in the U.S. Navy, Roberts and Wargo (1994)
concluded that effective comprehensive organization-wide planning may be prohibited and can
generate dysfunctional consequences in very large and complex public organizations, particularly
when the requirements of the planning cycle exceed an organization’s ability to respond to changes
in its external environment in a timely fashion. Concerning organization structure regarding plan-
ning functions in particular, public agencies that have self-contained planning units might well
be expected to be more likely to engage in strategic planning efforts than agencies that do not
have such units, but in a study of operating agencies in New York State government, Miesing and
Andersen (1991) found that most of these agencies did not have units dedicated to planning but
nevertheless engaged in strategic planning.
A final structural issue raised in the literature is the extent to which an agency is led by elected
officials or career bureaucrats. Poister and Streib (1989, 1994) note that the council–manager
structure is more likely to lead to strategic planning than the traditional mayor–council government
structure. This relationship is based on the idea that appointed and career professional managers
may be more receptive to strategic planning than elected officials. Because strategic planning and
management is a rational, systematic approach to organizational problem solving, it makes sense
that appointed administrators would support it more than elected officials, who are more likely to
espouse a more a political process. Boyne et al (2004) hypothesize this relationship in their study
ofWelsh local authorities, but they actually find no significant difference between career bureaucrats
and elected officials in their perceptions of planning as a positive exercise. Indeed, most of the
issues they uncover are technical management problems, many stemming from whether necessary
resources are provided for appropriate implementation. Further empirical research is needed to
understand whether size, structure, and elected versus appointed officials affect strategic planning
and management and, if so, in which direction.
Strategic Management: Plan Formulation
Much of the research on strategic planning in the public sector takes a descriptive approach that
explores plan formulation on its own. We found a number of articles that considered plan formula-
tion but did not link it to determinants or to outcomes. In many of these cases, however, a link to
performance, or at a minimum to immediate plan-oriented results, is implied but not explicit. For
example, Bryson and Roering (1988) use data from local government organizations in Minnesota
to generate a series of recommendations for the initiation of a strategic plan. They did not test
whether variants of plan formulation factored into success but, rather, the tools through which plan
formulation might be successful.
Another example would be Poister and Streib’s (1990) research that explored the extent to which
strategic planning had permeated municipal governments in the United States and then asked
whether participants perceived strategic planning initiatives to be successful. Poister and Streib
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 535
did not test whether perceptions varied according to different variants of plan formulation but,
rather, explored it descriptively. Although these approaches to understanding strategic planning
and performance are valuable, they are representative of a larger issue with research in the area:
Improved performance is either implicit or indirectly assumed, but not empirically tested.
With respect to strategic planning process, there is some disagreement on whether strategic
planning should be a top-down or bottom-up exercise, with arguments that both organizational
approaches can be effective at initiating a strategic plan and implementing it effectively. Kissler
et al. (1998) recommend a bottom-up approach for government organizations, so that citizens can
be more engaged in the process and plan implementation is more probable. Hendrick (2003) argues
from her case studies in Milwaukee that strategic planning cannot simply be a top-down “order”
for middle managers but should instead involve people at all levels, both inside and outside the
organization. In the case of a military organization like the U.S. Air Force or Department of
Defense, a top-down approach may be most effective at marshalling a strategic planning agenda
through adoption and implementation (Baker, 1992; Campbell, 2002).
This finding was further validated by the experience of strategic planning at Rock Hill. Wheeland
(1993) found that involving key stakeholders from the business and community helped increase
the likelihood of successful implementation and consensus on the final product. Likewise, Blair
(2004) found that when the public was involved in strategic planning in Nebraska local govern-
ments, the plans included aspects of community development, not just traditional economic devel-
opment, and successful implementation was more likely.
On the other hand, Hendrick (2003) also found that strategic planning was more difficult in
departments that use a decentralized planning process. Although a decentralized approach may
permit faster and more accurate adaptation to the environment (see, e.g., Roberts & Wargo, 1994),
Hendrick (2003) finds that employees tend to view strategic planning as a top-down enterprise.
When it deviates from that—becoming a bottom-up, decentralized activity—support wanes. Simi-
larly in some respects, Poister and Streib (1989) found in their earlier survey of city managers that
strategic planning was viewed much more positively when implemented across the city than when
implemented by individual units at their discretion.
Korosec (2006) examined this issue directly by comparing strategic planning processes at the
unit level with those at the organizational level. Whereas Hendrick (2003) found that strategic
planning was perceived as more difficult at the unit level, Korosec (2006) found few differences
between managers at the unit and organization level. It is difficult to be confident in either set of
results, given that the attitudes toward strategic planning were self-reported by the managers them-
selves, who may be guided toward overstating (or understating) support to manipulate organizational
decision making. More research is needed on structural issues and managerial attitudes to clarify
these muddy conclusions.
Strategic Management: Plan Formulation and Outcomes
It was fairly common for case study research to focus on organizations that were deemed successful
in an overall sense. In these cases, there was no empirical examination of outcomes but, rather, a
more holistic discussion of the benefits that accrued from the strategic planning process (see, e.g.,
Campbell, 2002; E. J. Kemp et al., 1993; Kissler et al., 1998; Roberts & Wargo, 1994; Smith et al.,
2001). The quantitative studies varied in their treatment of what comprised an outcome: perceptions
of strategic planning effectiveness (Boyne et al., 2004; Poister, 2005; Poister & Streib, 1989, 1990,
1994), employee satisfaction with strategic planning (Poister & Streib, 2005), effective performance
appraisal (Daley, Vasu, & Weinstein, 2002), customer satisfaction (Andrews, Boyne, & Walker,
2006; Poister & Van Slyke, 2002), and student outcomes in public schools (Meier, O’Toole, Boyne,
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

& Walker, 2007). As mentioned earlier, some research focused more on analyzing the prevalence
of strategic planning and management initiatives, with particular attention to municipal government
(Poister & Streib, 1989, 1990, 1994; Rivenbark & Kelly, 2003).
Two studies focused on outputs and outcomes as a central theme. For example, in their survey
of strategic planning in state agencies Berry and Wechsler (1995) identified six potential types of
benefits that might be sought from strategic planning. The first five of these—clarification of agency
direction and goals, assistance in policy and decision making, client and external relations, internal
management improvements, and agency reorganization—correspond to enhanced organizational
capacity in our strategic management framework, whereas the sixth type of benefit, service delivery
improvements, constitutes an improvement in performance.Although their study was more descrip-
tive than evaluative, particularly as it did not link these outcomes with other aspects of strategic
planning, Berry and Wechsler’s careful consideration of the range of possible outputs and outcomes
is instructive.
Ten years later, in their survey of strategic planning in municipal governments in the United
States, Poister and Streib (2005) asked about specific kinds of potential benefits of strategic plan-
ning grouped into five clusters relating to mission and goals, external relations, management and
decision making, employee supervision and development, and substantive performance in terms
of maintaining overall financial condition, managing operations efficiently, and delivering high-
quality services to the public. They found that assessing the feasibility of proposed strategies
and developing action plans for implementing strategic initiatives were both positively associated
with the perceived impact of cities’strategic planning processes. They also found that including
citizens and/or other external stakeholders in the planning process was associated with greater
perceived beneficial impacts.
Boyne and Gould-Williams (2003) also considered the relationship between strategic plan for-
mulation and perceptions of organizational performance. Using data from Welsh local authorities,
Boyne and Gould-Williams measured strategic plans along several dimensions, including whether
they set targets, whether they included internal and external analyses, and whether they included an
action plan. Interestingly, the number of targets related negatively to perceptions of overall agency
performance, whereas the other three indicators did not contribute to performance at all.
Hendrick’s (2003) comprehensive study of strategic planning in Milwaukee also considered
performance linkages. She found that the comprehensiveness of the strategic planning process in
terms of coverage of substantive issue areas, the environmental factors taken under consideration,
and the depth of analysis supporting the plan was strongly and positively associated with the
organization’s resulting strategic capacity regarding improved managerial control, budgeting, and
communications. Although these articles explore the linkage between plan formulation and out-
comes to a certain extent, what has been missing from the research literature is an examination
of whether agencies that conduct strategic planning perform better or worse than those that do
not. In the case of all of these articles, the data set is populated almost exclusively by agencies
that affirmatively engage in strategic planning. The variation on the variable is not sufficient to
meaningfully explore the impact of strategic plan formulation on work-related outcomes.
One recent exception to this gap is a study by Andrews, Boyne, Law, and Walker (2009) of
Welsh local authorities. They asked respondents a series of questions to determine to what extent
the authority used rational planning, incrementalism, or no strategy in their decision-making pro-
cesses. They found that the rational planning strategy made no impact on the performance of the
organization. However, they defined rational planning as being a formal, logical process in a general
sense and not more specifically as strategic planning. Future research should identify data where
the distinctions between organizations in the sample are more pronounced with regard to strategic
plan formulation.
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 537
Strategic Management: Strategy Content and Outcomes
Five recent articles have explicitly examined the link between plan content and organizational
outcomes, using large-N quantitative analyses of cross-sectional data covering numerous comparable
agencies. All five operationalized strategic content as strategic stance, or an enduring orientation
with which an organization relates to its environment. In a study of 119 English local authorities,
Andrews et al. (2006) find that a prospector stance is most likely to lead to high performance, fol-
lowed by the defender and reactor stances. Another article 1 year earlier by some of the same
scholars, also on English local authorities, found that diversity among the workforce of the authori-
ties had a negative impact on citizen perception of performance in their local authority. However,
they found that this negative impact was mitigated when the local authority used the prospector
stance (Andrews, Boyne, Meier, O’Toole, & Walker, 2005).
Andrews et al. (2009) found that the defender strategy, in addition to the prospector strategy,
positively affected performance of Welsh local authorities.Astudy done a year earlier by the same
authors found that the role of strategic stance is contingent on whether or not the decision-making
process is centralized or decentralized in Welsh authorities (Andrews et al., 2009). In authorities
with a centralized process, the defender stance led to better performance, and in authorities with a
decentralized process, the prospector stance was associated with superior outcomes. Somewhat
similarly, Meier et al. (2007) found that the impact of strategic stance on performance was affected
by the type of goals that were operationalized to measure performance. They found that the defender
stance was most likely to lead to high performance on standardized test scores in their study of
Texas school districts, arguing that the risky prospector strategy is too uncertain in the context of
public education. However, the prospector and reactor stances led to greater performance on high-
end indicators, such as scores on college entrance exams.
Although the results may not be totally consistent, these five studies do show clear linkages
between strategy content and performance. Strategy content is perhaps easier to operationalize in
quantitative research than other aspects of strategic planning and management, which may explain
the (slightly) more consistent findings between this part of our model and outcomes. Strategy
content is also more substantive in nature than other aspects of strategic planning and management,
which are focused on processes that are perhaps more dynamic and tougher to pin down at any
given point in time. Additional research is needed to further specify these relationships in other
policy and institutional contexts.
To date no research addresses the impact of strategy content on plan implementation, although
Andrews, Boyne, Law, and Walker (2008) and Meier et al. (2007) control for organizational char-
acteristics that likely reflect implementation concerns. Research on other approaches to strategic
content, such as strategic actions, was very limited. Hendrick (2003) included strategic actions—the
number of items considered and the depth of analysis in each—as part of her larger model of stra-
tegic planning. However, her empirical analysis did not include any content variables, making it
difficult to discern whether there is a link between content and performance. Somewhat surpris-
ingly, we found no research that linked balanced scorecard approaches to organizational performance
through empirical tests. Given the paucity of empirical research on strategy content, it is difficult
to determine whether a consistent relationship between content and outcomes exists, much less
identify approaches to strategic content that appear to be most successful. This is an area of research
in need of much more empirical analysis, whether qualitative or quantitative.
Strategic Management: Plan Implementation and Outcomes
The success of strategic planning ultimately depends on an organization’s capability to implement
the system that it creates. We expect that the benefits of good plan formulation and appropriate
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

strategy content will often be filtered through plan implementation, but we identified only five
articles that explicitly examined connections between implementation and outcomes. This research
is consistent with Boyne et al.’s (2004) finding that problems in strategic planning are largely
technical and related to implementation, not political and related to environmental factors.
Early research in this area creates conceptual linkages between implementation and outcomes,
even if it is not able to test them directly. For example, Kissler et al. (1998) suggest in their case
study that successful strategic plans will be linked to benchmarks, which assists in establishing a
long-term plan with momentum. Berry and Wechsler (1995) argue that strategic plans should be
linked directly to budget processes and attempt to span as long as time horizon as possible.
In more recent research the elements of implementation that are found to be important seem
to vary by context, with a cluster of issues emerging from our review of the literature. For example,
Poister and Van Slyke (2002) find that the best strategic management systems in state departments
of transportation were linked to the budget, communicated effectively to internal and external
stakeholders, and treated as a central component of overall management systems to facilitate the
use of strategy to drive ongoing decision making and actions.
Looking at strategic management in U.S. cities, Poister and Streib (2005) later found that stra-
tegic planning appeared to be more effective in strengthening organizational capacity and perfor-
mance in cities that tied their budgeting and performance management processes to strategic goals
and emphasized the use of performance measures to track progress in achieving them. Hendrick
(2003) also found that strategic planning processes with extensive monitoring were more likely to
generate increased strategic capacity. Barzelay and Jacobsen (2009) find that strategic planning
initiatives can be strong catalysts for change within large-scale bureaucracies in their case study
of the European Commission. Strategic planning appears to work very effectively in military
organizations when there are executive leaders who support the initiatives and incentivize employees
to participate (Baker, 1992; Campbell, 2002).
As discussed above, much of the research on strategic planning and management is prescriptive
in nature, such that best practices and performance are implicit in recommendations and analyses.
This is a difficult linkage to test empirically, given that the most effective implementation tools
for any given strategic plan are likely contingent on a number of environmental factors that cannot
necessarily be included in a parsimonious quantitative model.
Discussion and Conclusions
Our purpose in this study has been to review and synthesize the literature on public sector strategic
management since 1985. Some of the first research on strategic planning in public organizations
seemed to be most interested in connections between determinants of strategic planning and the
processes associated with it. We found substantial empirical research testing the impacts of envi-
ronmental, institutional, and organizational factors on strategic management. There appears to be
a complex set of contextual issues that encourage organizations to engage in strategic planning,
including the political environment (Berry, 1994; Kissler et al., 1998; Smith et al., 2001), insti-
tutional mandates and requirements (Berry & Wechsler, 1995; Franklin, 2001; Hendrick, 2003;
Kissler et al., 1998), and organizational factors such as top executive support and/or decentralized
management (Campbell, 2002; Korosec, 2006; Poister & Streib, 1989). Larger agencies and local
jurisdictions may be more likely to engage in strategic planning (Poister & Streib, 1989, 1994),
but their larger size may make it more difficult for them to do so effectively (Baker, 1992; Boyne
et al., 2004; Roberts & Wargo, 1994). Some of the research points to public agencies being encour-
aged to adopt strategic planning by forces in their external environment (Roberts & Wargo, 1994),
whereas other research suggests that internal structural issues may be more important in driving
adoption of strategic planning (Hendrick, 2003).
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 539
There are mixed findings concerning how the strategic planning process should be conducted.
Some have found a more top-down or centralized approach to the strategic planning process
produces better results (Hendrick, 2003; Poister & Streib, 1989), whereas others have found that
a bottom-up or decentralized approach is preferable (Kissler et al., 1988; Roberts & Wargo, 1994).
There is some agreement, however, that more widespread participation in the planning process is
advantageous, including managers from different levels within the organization as well as citizens
and other external stakeholders (Blair, 2004; Kissler et al., 1988; Wheeland, 1993).
A wide range of outcomes has been conceptualized as possible results of strategic planning
(Berry & Wechsler, 1995; Poister & Streib, 2005). However, there is little research that tests the
link between the planning process and these outcomes. Including multiple stakeholders in the
process is one factor that has been shown to lead to improved outcomes (Poister & Streib, 2005).
Other factors that have been found to increase organizational performance are elements of the
planning process itself, such as taking a comprehensive approach (Hendrick, 2003), conducting
feasibility assessments (Poister & Streib, 2005), developing action plans as part of strategic plans
(Boyne & Gould-Williams, 2003; Poister & Streib, 2005), setting targets (Boyne & Gould-Williams,
2003), and analyzing internal and external environments in some depth (Boyne & Gould-Williams,
2003; Hendrick, 2003). Interestingly, no study to date has tested whether or not strategic planning
leads to improved performance. One recent study, however, found no evidence that a rational
planning approach in general, simply having a formal planning process in place, had any impact
on organizational performance (Andrews et al., 2009).
All of the research that analyzes strategic content operationalizes the concept by focusing on
strategic stance, the enduring orientation with which an organization relates to its environment.
The results of these studies are somewhat mixed.Afew studies have found that a prospector strategy
is advantageous (Andrews et al., 2005; Andrews et al., 2006), and one study found that a defender
strategy was also helpful in addition to the prospector strategy (Andrews et al., 2009). Other studies
found that the impact of stance may be contingent on other factors such as the authority structure
of the organization (Andrews et al., 2008) or the particular goals chosen to represent performance
(Meier et al., 2007).
There are some consistent findings that the way an organization implements strategy has con-
sequences for outcomes and an organization’s performance. Studies found that linking the strategic
plan to the budget (Poister & Streib, 2005; Poister & Van Slyke, 2002), using the strategic plan
to drive the organization’s overall performance management system (Poister & Streib, 2005;
Poister & Van Slyke, 2002), and using performance measures to monitor the progress of strategic
initiatives (Hendrick, 2003; Poister & Streib, 2005) leads to better outcomes.
Future Research Needs
We believe that our conceptual framework accurately depicts the relationships articulated in
expository literature on strategic management but creates a high bar for empirical research to
meet. The linkages that we identified in the first part of this article are often difficult to test empiri-
cally, and evidence suggests that strategic planning is defined and implemented in vastly different
ways across organizations (Bryson, Crosby, & Bryson, 2009). The measurement error involved
in empirical studies of strategic planning and management make it tough to uncover relationships
that are meaningful and statistically significant, and data for such empirical analyses are very
difficult to collect. However, we argue that understanding the steps involved in strategic planning
and management, and their relationships with antecedent determinants and later with outcomes,
is important for providing public managers with prescriptions for success. Much more research
is needed to generate a comprehensive understanding of strategic management in the public sector.
Practical definitions of “strategic planning” and “strategic management” are rapidly changing as
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

organizations learn from each other what seems to work and what does not. There is a strong need
for more attention to rigorous, scientific inquiry about the best practices in strategic planning and
management—the knowledge deficit is so large that it is difficult to envision recommending too
much research in this area.
Our analysis of strategic management research on public-sector organizations identifies a number
of empirical gaps. Perhaps most problematic is the implicit assumption that strategic planning will
lead to performance improvements without testing whether the argument has empirical support.
Linkages between strategic planning processes and organizational outcomes were sparse, and
distinctions between levels of outcomes (increased organizational capacity vs. performance improve-
ment) were rarely discussed. Furthermore, much of the work on the strategic management component
of the framework focused independently on one of its three elements: plan formulation, content,
or implementation. Evidence of relationships within that component of the framework is much
more limited. For example, research does not determine if and how an organization formulates its
strategic plan influences strategy content or implementation. Much of the research on the strategic
management process describes it as a series of discrete steps or actions, ignoring how the process
unfolds between phases or focusing on either a single phase to promote ease of discussion. None
of the articles we found treated strategic planning and management as an iterative process in which,
for example, difficulties arising in implementing a strategy may lead to reviewing and perhaps
revising it. These simplifying assumptions are necessary in empirical research, but they require a
greater accumulation of work to push theory forward.
Despite our smaller sample of research concerning the public sector, our conclusions match
those of Stone et al.’s (1999) work in the nonprofit sector along several dimensions. Strategic
management research on government agencies is fragmented, with little overlap. It can be char-
acterized more as shallow pools of knowledge than as a deep reservoir of theory, a finding that is
particularly true of linkages between strategic management processes and organizational or program-
matic outcomes. In addition to this fragmentation—and perhaps stemming directly from it—is a
lack of research that comprehensively examines the strategic planning and management enterprise.
Rather than chipping away at discrete aspects of the strategic management process, research might
ideally connect all phases together in the same model. A notable exception is Hendrick’s (2003)
comprehensive model of strategic planning, a model that would be ideally tested on more extensive
data from other levels of government and regions of the country.
Research might also consider the range of management and social science theories that could
be brought to bear in testing relationships in strategic planning and management (see, e.g., Barzelay
& Jacobsen, 2009). For example, does organizational strategy reflect recursive and adaptive
practices at different levels of the organization (Jarzabkowski, 2008)? Is it a series of repeat games
played between principals and agents within the firm? Can a rational choice framework be applied
to questions of strategy, or are decisions jointly produced to the extent that network theories
provide a better depiction of how strategy evolves? Placing strategic planning and management
research in the context of broader social science theories has the potential to elevate its profile in
the scholarly literature and, by extension, call attention to the need for research. Many theories
from the organization theory and behavior literatures are well tested and suitable for use as frame-
works through which to understand strategic planning and management. We believe that moving
in this direction will generate benefits for the literature in this area.
Much of the existing research is limited to perceptions of strategic planning and performance.
Although valuable, these data are potentially biased and would be ideally complemented by more
objective data on strategic planning initiatives and organizational performance. Much of the research
is based on case studies that are grounded very specifically in their own historical, political, and
economic contexts. Although case studies such as those produced by Kissler et al. (1998) and
Hendrick (2003) provide rich detail and explore causal linkages very effectively, they are limited
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 541
in their generalizability to other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, additional case studies, especially
comparative case studies, are needed to help understand how these processes actually work and,
in particular, how and whether various aspects of strategic plan formulation, content, and imple-
mentation lead to improvements in organizational performance. Similar to the findings in the
nonprofit research reviewed by Stone et al. (1999), the interaction between strategic planning
implementation and its impact in the public sector need to be fully explored.
As with other areas of public administration, a mix of methods that incorporate both quantita-
tive and qualitative data would be the strongest approach for research in strategic planning and
management to take. Qualitative research is perhaps the best way to get at the causal mechanisms
that explain why we would anticipate the relationships that we find between aspects of strategic
planning and management and outcomes. The causal “black box” in quantitative studies needs to
be more thoroughly explored through instrumental case studies if we are to make the assumptions
that are necessary for large-N, quantitative research. A good example of this is the in-depth case
study of “exceptionally robust” strategic planning efforts undertaken by the U.S. Air Force from
1996 to 2000 developed by Barzelay and Campbell (2003). Characterizing these efforts as best
practices, this study focuses not only on the effect of environmental and institutional influences
on how strategic planning was initiated and carried out but, more important, it traces the linkages
of strategic visioning and planning to policy, organizational, and expenditure plans and the link-
ages of strategic planning and policy plans to implementation and results.
Using an actor–network theory-based approach to trace the associations among strategic plan-
ning context, leaders and other stakeholders, analyses and their results, products, decisions, actions,
strategies, resource flows, performance results and so forth to understand exactly what happened
and what the results were appears to be a very promising approach (Bryson et al., 2009).
Working from the opposite direction, evidence-based comparative case studies designed to identify
whether the use of various strategic management approaches is associated with independently
observed performance improvements or other specified results also offer potential for determin-
ing whether, among myriad other factors, strategic planning may have accounted at least in part
for successful results (Kelman & Myers, 2009).
By the same token, more large-N quantitative analyses along the lines of the English and Welsh
authority studies (Andrews et al., 2005; Andrews et al., 2006; Andrews et al., 2008, 2009) are
needed to test specific hypotheses regarding strategic planning process, content, and implementa-
tion so that findings can be generalized across a variety settings. Particularly important to this line
of research are studies that would specifically examine whether or not strategic planning and/or
particular elements or characteristics of the strategic management process actually lead to improved
performance. Although strategic planning has become orthodox practice in both sectors, no clear
relationship was found between planning and performance in the review of strategic planning
research in the nonprofit sector ten years ago (Stone et al., 1999), and to date only a single large-N
analysis has even tried to test the effect of strategic planning on performance in the public sector
(Andrews et al., 2009). Thus, it is of paramount importance for public management scholars to
focus on whether and the extent to which strategic planning and management are effective in
strengthening the performance of public sector organizations.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

References
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 295-326.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2008). Centralization, organizational strategy, and
public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 57-80.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2009). Strategy formulation, strategy content, and
performance. Public Management Review, 11, 1-22.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Meier, K. J., O’Toole, L. J., & Walker, R. M. (2005). Representative bureaucracy,
organizational strategy, and public service performance: An empirical analysis of English local govern-
ment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 489-504.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2006). Strategy content and organizational performance:
An empirical analysis. Public Administration Review, 66, 52-63.
Backoff, R., Weschler, B., & Crew, Jr., R. E. (1993). The challenge of strategic management in local
government. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 127-144.
Baker, F. E. (1992). Strategic planning in a U.S. federal agency. Long Range Planning, 25, 73-99.
Barzelay, M., & Campbell, C. (2003). Preparing for the future: Strategic planning in the U.S. Air Force.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Barzelay, M., & Jacobsen, A. S. (2009). Theorizing implementation of public management policy reforms: A
case study of strategic planning and programming in the European Commission. Governance, 22, 319-334.
Berry, F. S. (1994). Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic planning. Public Admin-
istration Review, 54, 322-330.
Berry, F. S., & Wechsler, B. (1995). State agencies’ experience with strategic planning: Findings from a
national survey. Public Administration Review, 55, 159-168.
Blair, R. (2004). Public participation and community development: The role of strategic planning. Public
Administration Quarterly, 28, 102-147.
Boyne, G., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2003). Planning and performance in public organizations: An empirical
analysis. Public Management Review, 5, 115-132.
Boyne, G., Gould-Williams, J. S., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Problems of rational planning in public
organizations:An empirical assessment of the conventional wisdom. Administration & Society, 36, 328-350.
Boyne, G., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 14, 231-252.
Bozeman, B., & Straussman, J. (1990). Public management strategies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bruton, G. D., & Hildreth, W. B. (1993). Strategic public planning: External orientations and strategic plan-
ning team members. American Review of Public Administration, 23, 307-317.
Brymer, T., Ingman, D., & Kersten, J. (2002). Strategic planning that uses an integrated approach. Public
Management, 84, 16-18.
Bryson, J. M. (1988). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, J. M. (2004). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. K. (2009). Understanding strategic planning and the formulation
and implementation of strategic plans as ways of knowing: The contributions of actor-network theory.
International Public Management Journal, 12, 172-207.
Bryson, J. M., & Roering, W. D. (1987). Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector.
Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter, 6-20.
Bryson, J. M., & Roering, W. D. (1988). Initiation of strategic planning by governments. Public Administration
Review, 48, 995-1004.
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 543
Campbell, C. (2002). Long-range corporate strategic planning in government organizations: The case of the
U.S. Air Force. Governance, 15, 425-453.
Campbell, R. W., & Garnett, J. L. (1989). Implementing strategy: Models and factors. In J. Rabin, G. Miller,
& W. B. Hildreth (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 257-278.
Daley, D., Vasu, M. L., & Weinstein, M. B. (2002). Strategic human resource management: Perceptions
among North Carolina county social service professionals. Public Personnel Management, 31, 359-375.
Denhardt, R. B. (1985). Strategic planning in state and local government. State and Local Government
Review, 17, 174-179.
Donald, C. G., Lyons, T. S., & Tribbey, R. C. (2001). A partnership for strategic planning and management
in a public organization. Public Performance and Management Review, 25, 176-193.
Eadie, D. C. (1983). Putting a powerful tool to practical use: The application of strategic planning in the
public sector (2nd ed.). Public Administration Review, 43, 447-452.
Eadie, D. C. (1989). Identifying and managing strategic issues: from design to action. In J. Rabin, G. J. Miller,
& W. B. Hildreth (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 169-186.
Finlay, J. S. (1994). The strategic visioning process. Public Administration Quarterly, 18, 64-74.
Franklin, A. L. (2001). Serving the public interest? Federal experiences with participation in strategic planning.
American Review of Public Administration, 31, 126-138.
Frederickson, D. G., & Frederickson, H. G. (2007). Measuring the performance of the hollow state.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Gabris, G. T. (1992). Strategic planning in municipal government: A tool for expanding cooperative decision
making between elected and appointed officials. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16, 77-93.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1989). Strategy and structure: Developmental themes and challenges. In J. Rabin,
G. Miller, & W. B. Hildreth (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker,
91-121.
Halachmi, A. (1986). Strategic planning and management? Not necessarily. Public Productivity Review,
10, 35-50.
Hendrick, R. (2003). Strategic planning environment, process, and performance in public agencies: A com-
parative study of departments in Milwaukee. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
14, 491-519.
Heymann, P. B. (1987). The politics of public management. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use. Organization
Studies, 25, 529-560.
Joyce, P. (2000). Strategy in the public sector: A guide to effective change management. New York, NY:
John Wiley.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system.
Harvard Business Review, January/February, 75-85.
Kelman, S., & Myers, J. (2009, October). Successful executing ambitious strategies in government: An
empirical analysis. Paper presented at the Public Management Research Conference in Columbus, OH.
Kemp, E. J., Jr., Funk, R. J., & Eadie, D. C. (1993). Change in chewable bites: Applying strategic management
at EEOC. Public Administration Review, 2, 129-134.
Kissler, G. R., Fore, K. N., Jacobson, W. S., Kittredge, W. P., & Stewart, S. L. (1998). State strategic planning:
Suggestions from the Oregon experience. Public Administration Review, 58, 353-359.
Korosec, R. L. (2006). Is department-based strategic planning more effective than organization-wide strategic
planning? Empirical evidence from senior management. Public Performance and Management Review,
30, 221-244.
Koteen, J. (1989). Strategic management in public and nonprofit organizations. New York, NY: Praeger.
Meier, K. J., O’Toole, L. J., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Strategic management and the perfor-
mance of public organizations: Testing venerable ideas against recent theory. Journal of Public Admin-
istration Research and Theory, 17, 357-377.
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. G. (1998). The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting requirements
in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review, 58, 66-73.
Miesing, P., &Andersen, D. F. (1991). The size and scope of strategic planning in state agencies: The New York
experience. American Review of Public Administration, 21, 119-137.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organization strategy, structure, and process. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2006). A manager’s guide to choosing and using collaborative networks.
Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Monahan, K. E. (2001). Balanced measures for strategic planning: A public sector handbook. Vienna, VA:
Management Concepts.
Niven, P. R. (2003). Balanced scorecard: Step-by-step for government and nonprofit agencies. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley.
Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector organizations.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1993). Organizational publicness and its implications for strategic management.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 209-231.
Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1995). Strategy for public and third sector organizations. Journal of Public
Administration and Theory, 5, 189-211.
Olsen, J. B., & Eadie, D. C. (1982). The game plan: Governance with foresight. Washington, DC: Council
of State Planning Agencies.
Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing bureaucracy: The five strategies for reinventing government.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Poister, T. H. (2005). Strategic planning and management in state departments of transportation. International
Journal of Public Administration, 28, 1035-56.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. D. (1989). Management tools in municipal government: Trends over the past
decade. Public Administration Review, 49, 240-248.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. D. (1990). Strategic planning U.S. cities: Patterns of use, perceptions of effec-
tiveness, and an assessment of strategic capacity. American Review of Public Administration, 20, 29-44.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. D. (1994). Municipal management tools from 1976 to 1993: An overview and
update. Public Productivity & Management Review, 18, 115-125.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. D. (1999). Strategic management in the public sector: Concepts, models, and
processes. Public Productivity & Management Review, 23, 308-325.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. D. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government:
Status after two decades. Public Administration Review, 65, 45-56.
Poister, T. H., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2002). Strategic management innovations in state transportation departments.
Public Performance and Management Review, 26, 58-74.
Porter, M. E. (2001). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky,A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in
Oakland: Or why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all. LosAngeles: University of California Press.
Ring, P. S. (2000). The environment and strategic planning. In J. Rabin, G. J. Miller, & W. B. Hildreth (Eds.),
Handbook of strategic management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 89-122.
Ring, P. S., & Perry, J. L. (1985). Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of
distinctive contexts and constraints. Academy of Management Review, 10, 276-286.
Rivenbark, W. C., & Kelly, J. M. (2003). Management innovation in smaller municipal government.
State and Local Government Review, 35, 196-205.
Roberts, N. (2000). The synoptic model of strategic planning and the GPRA. Public Productivity &
Management Review, 23, 297-311.
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Poister et al. 545
Roberts, N., & Wargo, L. (1994). The dilemma of planning large-scale public organizations: The case of the
United States Navy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 469-491.
Rubin, M. (1988). Sagas, ventures, quests and parlays: A typology of strategies in the public sector. In
J. Bryson & R. Einsweiler (Eds.), Strategic planning. Chicago, IL: Planners Press, 84-105.
Shapek, R.A., & Richardson, W. C. (1989). Strategic capability. In J. Rabin, G. J. Miller, & W. B. Hildreth (Eds.),
Handbook of strategic management. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 219-240.
Smith, L. D., Campbell, J. F., Subramanian, A., Bird, D. A., & Nelson, A. C. (2001). Strategic planning
for municipal information systems: Some lessons from a large U.S. city. American Review of Public
Administration, 31, 139-157.
Sorkin, D. L., Ferris, N. B., & Hudak, J. (1984). Strategies for cities and counties: A strategic planning guide.
Washington, DC: Public Technology.
Steiss, A. W. (1985). Strategic management and organizational decision making. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Stevens, J. M., & McGowan, R. P. (1983). Managerial strategies in municipal government organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 26, 527-534.
Stone, M. M., Bigelow, B., & Crittenden, W. (1999). Research on strategic management in nonprofit
organizations: Synthesis, analysis, and future directions. Administration & Society, 31, 378-423.
Toft, G. S. (2000). Synoptic (one best way) approaches of strategic management. In J. Rabin, G. J. Miller,
& W. B. Hildreth (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker,
1-30.
Vinzant, D. H., & Vinzant, J. C. (1996a). Strategic management and total quality management. Public
Administration Quarterly, 20, 201-219.
Vinzant, D. H., & Vinzant, J. C. (1996b). Strategy and organizational capacity: Finding a fit. Public Productivity
& Management Review, 20, 139-157.
Wechsler, B., & Backoff, R. W. (1986). Policy making and administration in state agencies: Strategic
management approaches. Public Administration Review, 46, 321-327.
Wheeland, C. M. (1993). Citywide strategic planning: An evaluation of Rock Hill’s “Empowering the Vision.”
Public Administration Review, 53, 65-72.
Bios
Theodore H. Poister is a professor of public management and policy in theAndrew Young School of Policy
Studies at Georgia State University. His research focuses on strategic planning and management, performance
measurement, and stakeholder feedback in the public sector.
David W. Pitts is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Administration and Policy at American
University in Washington, D.C. His research focuses on public management, human capital management,
and workforce diversity.
Lauren Hamilton Edwards is a graduate student in the Ph.D. program in public policy at Georgia State
University. Her research interests focus on managing public organizations, performance measurement, and
gender issues in the public sector.
arp.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Strat mgt research public sector

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Strat mgt research public sector

Similar to Strat mgt research public sector (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Strat mgt research public sector