Context matters: A Bayesian analysis of how organizational environments shape the strategic management of sustainable development

Abstract

Public administration scholars have argued the need for a ‘general theory’ linking strategic management to the context in which public organizations operate. Understanding the interplay between organizational contexts and strategic management responses to urban sprawl and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions remains an underexplored avenue for empirical advancement of this goal. Using 2015 survey data, we employ a novel Bayesian item response theory (IRT) approach to test how land use policy comprehensiveness, organizational capacities, leadership turnover, and environmental complexities affect the strategic management of smart growth policy in local governments. We find that public organizations harness political, administrative, and community capacities in varied combinations to better achieve their policy objectives, but these influences may not be complementary. Also, policy comprehensiveness generally relates to more strategic activity, while municipal executive turnover offers opportunities and threats to some smart growth strategies. Implications of this research are discussed.

Elucidating the Linkages Between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Local Government Sustainability Performance

“…For example, local governments make varying policy commitments to curtail sprawling growth, preserve a quality of life and opportunities for future citizens, address social inequality, or remediate environmental damage (Deslatte & Swann, 2016; Fiorino, 2018; Portney, 2013). The processes for implementing and monitoring these policy commitments may or may not materialize through strategic planning processes (Deslatte & Swann, 2017), which sometimes identify performance indicators and depend on existing or new performance management systems (Krause, Hawkins, Park, & Feiock, 2019). However, only the largest and highest-capacity cities tend to engage in sustainability performance management (Niemann & Hoppe, 2018).…”

“…In the realm of sustainability, hostility toward policy goals can have a dampening effect on policy innovations, such as when Tea Party groups during the 2010 U.S. congressional elections began targeting cities which had committed to climate protection (Krause, Yi, & Feiock, 2016). Wang and colleagues (2012) found citizen and stakeholder engagement strategies were positively related to organizational capacities, whereas Deslatte and Swann (2017) found political capacity positively influenced strategic planning for smart growth. But they also found that a perceived lack of stakeholder support within the business community may fuel management efforts to secure fiscal resources through grants or issuing debt (Deslatte & Swann, 2017).…”

“…Wang and colleagues (2012) found citizen and stakeholder engagement strategies were positively related to organizational capacities, whereas Deslatte and Swann (2017) found political capacity positively influenced strategic planning for smart growth. But they also found that a perceived lack of stakeholder support within the business community may fuel management efforts to secure fiscal resources through grants or issuing debt (Deslatte & Swann, 2017). Thus, although hostility could motivate entrepreneurial activity, we generally expect a more supportive stakeholder environment to fuel EO in sustainability.…”

“…We examine these technical and financial capacities in tandem. “Administrative capacity” is defined as the extent to which financial and technical resources are available to sustain progress toward the achievement organizational goals (Deslatte & Swann, 2017). This includes the extent to which organizations have staffing, procurement processes, contracting availability, and dedicated financial resources for sustainability.…”

Pushing Too Hard? Unattainable Organizational Goals and Frontline Employee Turnover

“…We also consider the role of the organization’s performance context in shaping how frontline employees are likely to interpret and respond to the unattainable performance goals. Contingency theory is a core component of modern management scholarship (Donaldson, 1987; Hofer, 1975; Prescott, 1986) and is increasingly being integrated into public management scholarship as researchers strive to consider the contextual factors that can condition the effect of management on organizational outcomes (e.g., Boyne, James, John, & Petrovsky, 2011; Deslatte & Swann, 2017; Ryu & Lee, 2013; Stazyk & Goerdel, 2011; Zambrano-Gutiérrez, Rutherford, & Nicholson-Crotty, 2017). Drawing from the work of Sitkin et al (2011), we suggest that organizational performance will moderate how unattainable goals affect collective turnover among a public service organization’s frontline employees.…”