Mutual Relationship of Strategic Stances and Formulation Methods, and Their Impacts on Performance in Public Local Transit Agencies

Abstract

This study is a continuation of previous work that emphasizes an alignment between the internal management (strategy formulation) of public organizations and their environment (strategic stance). As public organizations formulate strategy through strategic planning or logical incrementalism, they relate to their external environments through the strategy stances of prospector or defender. Current research asserts that organizations with a prospector stance perform better when they adopt logical incrementalism, whereas organizations with a defender stance perform better when they formulate their strategy through formal strategic planning (FSP). Our study on the transit industry, however, could not find support to these assertions.

Getting strategic about strategic planning research

“…We cannot assume that findings about the impact of strategic planning and management are generalizable across the globe between different nations and kinds of organizations with different purposes. Johnsen's article, for example, demonstrates that some findings for transit agencies in the US (Pasha, Poister, and Edwards 2015) and municipalities in different areas of Great Britain (Andrews, Boyne, and Walker 2006) do not hold for municipalities in Norway. This article also contributes to the literature by further exploring the combined impact of strategic planning, strategy content, and stakeholder involvement on organizational performance in a different context.…”

Strategic Management in Finnish and Norwegian Government Agencies

“…Previous studies of strategy in agencies include several single-and multi-case national case studies (Wechsler and Backoff 1986;Ervin 1992;Boston and Pallot 1997;McHugh 1997;Roberts 2000;Llewellyn and Tappin 2003;Barzelay and Campbell 2003;Johanson 2009;Tama 2015aTama , 2015bTama , 2018, some international comparative case studies (Proeller 2007), a case study of strategy-making in two EU agencies (Ongaro and Ferlie 2019), and some large-N studies of local and central agencies mainly from North America (Chun and Rainey 2005;Elbanna et al 2016;Pasha et al 2018;Carrigan 2018).…”

“…Though hardly surprising relative to the conventional wisdom in performance management, the documentation of these often taken-for-granted assumptions are important for justifying the integration of strategic planning with performance management, as in the New Zealand model, for example, which uses aims in strategic results areas (SRAs) and follows up with performance measures for key results areas (KRAs) (Boston and Pallot 1997). Pasha et al (2018) studied how local transit agencies aligned their strategy formulation to their environment by their strategic stances. In their analysis of this classical strategy problem, they did not, however, find support for the common propositions that prospectors using logical incrementalism and defenders conducting formal strategic planning perform better.…”

The Effects of Diverse Feedback Dynamics on Performance Improvement: A Typology of Performance Feedback Signals

“…Control theory in business management and psychology indicates that managerial action is based on goal attainment, and feedback plays a crucial role in setting certain goals (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2002). Public management studies also underscore a similar notion: Public organizations pay attention to goal setting and prioritizing strategies during their decision-making processes, and managerial actions take place during feedback processes (Favero et al, 2016;Hong, 2019;Pasha et al, 2018;van Buuren & Gerrits, 2008).…”

“…Therefore, performance feedback is valuable performance information within routine performance systems. Public officials only use performance feedback, however, when it becomes a crucial motivating factor for decision-makers to improve organizational performance (Askim et al, 2008; Gerrish, 2016; Kroll, 2013; Moynihan, 2008; Moynihan & Landuyt, 2009; Moynihan & Pandey, 2010; Pasha et al, 2018). More importantly, previous studies in the public management arena have not fully and systematically demonstrated how public officials respond to such performance feedback.…”