مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد مدیریت استراتژیک در بخش عمومی – تیلور و فرانسیس ۲۰۱۸

Strategic management (SM) is now prominent on the agenda in several public organizations, and is reportedly becoming increasingly relevant in practice due to new public management (NPM) changes (Hansen Rosenberg 2011; Weiss 2016). However, so far too little is known about the application of SM in practice and its possible consequences (Johnsen 2016). There is a small but growing research field (see e.g., Andrews and Van de Walle 2012; Boyone and Walker 2010; Elbanna, Rhys, and Pollanen 2016; Ferlie and Ongaro 2015; George and Desmidt 2016; George et al. 2016a; 2016b; Hansen Rosenberg and Ferlie 2014; 2016; Johnsen 2016; Lane 2008; Lane and 3 Wallis 2009; Poister 2010; Walker et al. 2010) that has highlighted the importance of studying strategy and strategic thinking in public organizations for the past decade. Several of these studies investigate the application of SM (see e.g., Bryson 2004; Drumaux and Goethals 2007; Ferlie 2003; Joyce 2000; Johnson and Scholes 2001; Koteen 1997), but few investigate how public organizations apply SM in practice (Bryson, Berry, and Yang 2010) and what tools are used (Hansen Rosenberg 2011; Williams and Lewis 2008) to realize a strategic intent. That is the focus of this paper. It is not easy to incorporate SM into the public sector (Elbanna, Rhys, and Pollanen 2016; Poister 2010; Weiss 2016) as the private sector theories that influence it are based on growth, profit, and competitive advantages, aspects not always well suited to the public sector (Ferlie and Ongaro 2015; Höglund 2015; Lane and Wallis 2009). This is despite the last decades of NPM reforms in the public sector (Ferlie and Ongaro 2015; Hansen Rosenberg and Ferlie 2016), which introduced private and business-like elements (Ferlie et al. 1996). Moreover, prior research (see e.g., Bevan and Hood 2006; Diefenbach 2009; Hood and Peters 2004; Lapsley 2008; Smith 1995) noted that NPM generated several unintended consequences, such as (too) strong a focus on internal efficiency at the expense of external efficiency and short-term, output-oriented and measurable results at the expense of more long-term and outcome-oriented results, consequently hampering the application of SM. There are different theories in public sector SM (Ferlie and Ongaro 2015; Hansen Rosenberg and Ferlie 2016). However, so far most researchers have applied the Miles and Snow (1978) typology (e.g., Andrews et al. 2008; 2009a; 2009b) or the Porter (1980; 1985) typology and the related model of five forces (Hansen Rosenberg and Ferlie 2016; Johansson 2009), while others have explored the possibilities of the resource-based view (RBV) (e.g., Bryson, Ackermann, and Eden 2007; Hansen Rosenberg and Ferlie 2016; Johansson 2009). Work has also been done on the processes of strategic planning (see e.g., Elbanna, Rhys, and Pollanen 2016; George and Desmidt 2016; George et al. 2016a; 2016b), as well as applications of actor network theory (Bryson, Cosby, and Bryson 2009). Only a few so far have taken an activity-based approach focusing on the micro processes of strategizing (Jarzabkowski and Fenton 2006; Jarzabkowski and Sillince 2007) and strategy-as-practice (s-as-p) (George and Desmidt 2014; Hansen Rosenberg 2011; van Wessel, van Buuren, and van Woerkum 2011). Even fewer studies address the application of SM in relation to what tools are used in strategy making, (Jarzabkowski and Kaplan 2015) and so far, to our knowledge none of them focus on the public sector except for Hansen Rosenberg (2011) and Williams and Lewis (2008).