Abstract
Although experimented within public organisations for over 30 years, strategic planning and management still raise a number of questions and doubts as to their ability to improve public performance. The purpose of this article is to look into the strategy formulation processes in the public sector and the type of strategic approach that best matches the characteristics of this sector. It sets out to do so by first drawing up a theoretical analysis grid, based on the three main approaches to strategy in the public sector. This is followed by an exploratory case study that brings to light a complex strategic process that combines and alternates rational, collaborative and political decision-making logics, and a planned and incremental development.
Points for practitioners
This research highlights the need to combine different logics and approaches in the strategic control of public organisations: a rational logic, a political logic and a collaborative logic. It underlines, in particular, the importance for public managers to build skills in the development and management of inter-organisational networks and interpersonal relationships. The ability to create interactions between a variety of stakeholders, both internal and external, to mobilise and channel collective intelligence towards the definition and implementation of public projects and policies is a key component of the strategic management of public organisations.
Introduction
According to Poister (2010), the need for strategy and strategic management in the public sector has never been more pressing and legitimate than in recent years. Growing financial and social pressures are forcing public organisations to rethink the way in which they operate and to structure their actions according to clearly defined objectives and priorities. Yet, while strategic management today appears to be a practice that has gained a broad foothold within a large number of public organisations (Williams and Lewis, 2008), uncertainties remain about its ability to improve public performance (Andrews et al., 2009) and generate changes (Pina et al., 2011). Poister et al. (2010) also point to the absence of studies showing clear evidence of the positive influence of strategic planning on the performance of public organisations. It is also important not to overlook the decoupling between strategic planning, on the one hand, and operational and budgetary management, on the other. This observation prompts us to question the very legitimacy of strategy in the public sector and the type of approach that should be applied to it.
Can this lack of results be explained, as some would have it, by an excessive focus on the planning stages at the expense of actions that monitor and manage change (Boyne et al., 2004)? More fundamentally, the question arises as to whether a planned change that is formalised and proactive is truly compatible with the characteristics of public organisations, their sector and the decision-making processes that characterise them. Finally, and without challenging the notion of strategy, should it not evolve towards new policy frameworks (Williams and Lewis, 2008), hybrid models combining planned and emergent change and capable of involving multiple stakeholders in the co-construction of public strategies?
These questions prompt us to examine: (1) the strategy formulation and implementation processes in the public sector; (2) its nature, which remains, according to Johanson (2009), a poorly explored topic; and (3) the links and interdependencies between the different phases of the strategic management process. Is strategy formulation in the public sector based on: formal, rational and deductive processes; or, conversely, policy approaches tinged with compromise, negotiation and power games, leading to incremental changes of limited scope; or, again, a mixed design, combining long-term strategic intent and ‘as we go along’ strategy-building?
To provide some answers, we start with a survey and analysis of the different approaches to strategy, but also new approaches to the theoretical concepts and frameworks. This is followed by an exploratory study based on a case study and an intervention research-type methodology. By opting for an exploratory approach, the aim is to study in detail and to generate knowledge on the strategic processes at work in a public organisation. A discussion of the strategy formulation and implementation processes in the observed sector is then proposed, followed by a recap and comparison with the theory.
Different theoretical approaches to strategy formulation and implementation in the public sector
For a long time, rational planning and a political approach to public strategies and policies were the two main strategy formulation models used in the public sector (Andrews et al., 2009; Elbanna, 2006). Yet, current practices within public organisations and studies conducted by a number of authors (Bryson et al., 2010) suggest the emergence of a collaborative design of public policy that combines elements of both aforementioned approaches but with innovative elements. Each approach, presented and discussed in the following, gives rise to different designs and different representations of a number of factors, such as the meaning and uniqueness of the decision-making process, the role of the public players, the organisation, the degree of control, and the nature of the change.
The rational approach
The rational approach draws its sources to a large extent from the school of design embodied in particular by Christensen et al. (1973) and from the normative approach to strategy developed by Ansoff (1987). It is based on the principles of the absolute rationality of decisions and the economic optimisation of choices, and adopts a mainly methodological and procedural view of strategic management. According to this approach, strategy is the result of an intellectual methodology of reflection and design, and is organised in a sequential, structured process that guarantees objectivity, rationality and thus the effectiveness of the strategic choices. Compliance with these different steps and the use of analytical tools and optimisation methods ensure the optimality and performance of strategic choices. Here, strategy formulation consists primarily of a scientific approach involving analysis, planning and programming.
This approach ties in with a certain number of principles and assumptions, namely:
the environment can be understood, analysed and anticipated in its evolution; the change is intentional and the future of the organisation can be programmed; the organisations take the form of hierarchies, homogeneous groups that share and accept the same goals and that act as a whole in their implementation; the organisation identifies with its leaders, and its members with agents; analysis and reflection take place before any action; and the managers play a central role as planners and decision-makers.
A rational approach is associated with the idea of a deliberate and programmatic change controlled using a strategy formalised in the shape of objectives and action plans (Whittington, 1993). For a long time, the rational approach favoured the strategic formulation and planning phase, identifying at the same time with the latter. 1 More recently, the concepts of strategic management and performance management have stressed the importance of support and monitoring actions, as well as the need to bring on board more political, cultural and organisational factors. However, most of the models and approaches of the strategy continue to ignore the political and conflictual nature of public decision-making processes (Bryson et al., 2010) and thus provide only little information and knowledge on how public managers handle or should handle the political pressure and the pluralistic nature of their environment.
Despite its mixed results and its poor capacity to guide public decisions (Bunning, 1992), the rational approach has had a strong influence on the modernisation efforts and managerial reforms undertaken over the past 30 years. This is the case of Planning Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) in the US and the Rationalisation des Choix Budgétaires (RCB) in France in the 1960s, but also of the drives to modernise public administration rolled out over the past 20 years, particularly through New Public Management (NPM). Examples include the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) in the US, the Local Government Modernisation Agenda (LGMA) England and the Loi Organique relative aux Lois de Finances (LOLF) in France; reforms that, in their overall approach, impose the definition of strategic objectives and plans, as well as the establishment of a performance- and results-driven management. This approach can also be found in the first strategic management models developed specifically for the public sector in the early 1990s (Backoff and Nutt, 1992; Bryson, 1988).
The political approach to public strategy
The political approach can be defined in response or in opposition to the principles and assumptions of the rational planning model. Instead of an absolute and economic rationality of policymakers, this approach is governed by a rationality that is constrained or limited by the intellectual ability and cognitive biases particular to each individual. The individual and collective cognitive considerations serve as filters that generate differences in the assessment of the organisation and its environment. The limited amount of information available to be analysed by individuals thus prevents any exhaustive analysis of all the problems and the potential solutions (Simon, 1983). Besides these criticisms, supporters of the political approach in the public sector challenge the idea of the single and omniscient player that underlies the rational approach (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984). Strategic homogeneity is thus undermined by the existence, within the organisation and its environment, of multiple local rationalities with their own objectives and interests, thus pursuing personal strategies. In this case, the logics of conflict and battle of interests guide and structure the dynamics of decision-making in an organisational environment (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992). These conflicts concern: (1) the priority issues; (2) the objectives pursued and their method of delivery; and (3) the allocation of resources (Elbanna, 2006). The strategy formulation process usually follows a bottom-up approach here: strategic issues emerge, driven by coalitions of players; due to lobbying and pressure from public officials, these key issues will gain sufficient weight to get their attention and to be included on the political agenda; this leads to the development of solutions in the form of public policies. Strategies and public policies thus result from a continual process of bargaining and negotiation, generating disparate and changing coalitions. In this context, the change is emergent, discontinuous, unstructured and incremental. Decisions on actions to be adopted are taken in a fragmented and disjointed manner depending on the degree of consensus that they nurture, or not, according to a logic of economic optimisation (Cyert and March, 1970; Lindblom, 1968). The public policy formulation processes are thus largely unpredictable and difficult to control (Braybrooke and Lindblom, 1963) and lead to marginal improvements, small-scale changes and continual adjustments.
The political management of public organisations and the resulting time constraints are factors that serve to foster ambiguity and produce ill-defined strategies that do not call for much commitment from their authors and that are mostly clandestine. This suggests that the existence of strategic practices in the public sector is triggered more by a quest for social legitimacy and phenomena of mimetic or coercive isomorphism than by a real need in terms of the planning and steering of change. Here, the environmental and organisational characteristics of public organisations, along with the nature of their missions, determine the contradictory decision-making and implementation processes of the principles, and the logics guiding the formal and analytical systems of strategic management (Bryson, 2004b). Interesting though it may be, the political approach remains descriptive and mainly resembles a decision-making model. Moreover, it gives no explanation as to the organised and large-scale changes experimented with by some public organisations (Sminia and Van Nistelrooij, 2006).
Collaborative strategic governance and management
In recent years, the collaborative approach to public strategies and policies has emerged as one of the main and thriving focuses of research within the public management current (Bryson et al., 2010). Intra- and inter-organisational collaboration means the sharing and distribution of resources, information and skills by organisations and individuals from different sectors and areas to implement actions on a partnership basis and to collectively achieve results that no organisation can obtain on a separate basis (Agranoff, 2006). This approach to strategy in the public sector borrows a number of concepts, ideas and principles from theoretical currents such as stakeholder management, the analysis of social networks and collective strategies. Here, the formulation of the strategy is seen as a complex phenomenon consisting of interactions and exchanges that are established between groups or networks of interdependent players, leading to the co-production of solutions and collective strategies. Collaborative strategic management can thus be defined as the organised and structured process through which inter-organisational and multiplayer groups, both public and private, develop, implement and evaluate collective strategies.
This approach to strategy has been legitimised by the increasing use by governments and public institutions of collaborative and participatory modes of action organised around networks of multiple and diverse stakeholders from both the public and private sectors. It is particularly popular for the management of relatively complex social and environmental issues (Selsky and Parker, 2005). The legitimacy and relevance of the collaborative approach result from: (1) the reduction of public budgets and resources; (2) the complexification of public issues and social problems; (3) the need to involve civil society; and (4) the dispersion of resources and expertise between multiple public and private organisations. This pooling of ideas, resources, knowledge, perspectives and visions leads to the production of collaborative benefits (Robertson and Choi, 2012).
The network concept plays a central role in the collaborative approach. Networks can be defined as articulations, as stable, horizontal and vertical arrangements of public and private actors interacting according to cooperative relations, which contribute to the achievement of the public purpose (Provan and Milward, 2001). Coordination within these multi-stakeholder arrangements is based mainly on flexible social and relational mechanisms such as trust, shared values, implicit standards, collaboration and consultation, thus distancing itself from rational bureaucratic mechanisms based on control, hierarchy and chains of command. Inter-organisational flows of exchanges are considered to encourage innovation through the pooling of different visions, experiences and perspectives, leading to learning phenomena and, ultimately, to the development of social capital. According to Robertson and Choi (2012), two mechanisms structure and support decision-making in networks: an interactive and deliberative dialogue; and consensus-building. Within them, the strategies are co-produced through interactions and exchanges taking place between the different components, without any previously defined formalised plans. Strategy formulation is seen here as a phenomenon of mutual learning, shared experimentation and innovation, supported by general principles, global values and orientations in the form of a strategic vision. These structural elements will go on to provide a frame of reference and rules guiding the collaborative processes.
Collaborative strategic management and network governance reflect an operational and managerial approach to the network concept by questioning, respectively: (1) the collaborative mechanisms and instruments; and (2) the organisational forms or governance structures, as well as the management and leadership styles (Agranoff and McGuire, 2003; Sullivan et al., 2012) supporting the operation of inter-organisational collaborative forms. Two key ideas emerge from this managerial design of networks: collaborative processes can be steered in an organised and deliberate way; and public institutions and players occupy a leading but more peripheral role in these management processes (serving as the facilitators and managers of the interactions). As such, network governance sets out to organise collective action by facilitating the coordination of the interactions of dialogue and experimentation (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2000), as well as of the processes that lead to the learning and development of shared knowledge.
Collaborative strategic management appears to be a more integrated and comprehensive approach, making it possible to manage, but also to organise, the collaboration at the different stages of the development and implementation of partnership strategies. Process models have thus been developed, comprising the major stages of the classical strategic management approach (Bryson et al., 2006; Clarke and Fuller, 2011). The upstream and downstream phases reflect the specificities of collaborative strategic management. Thus, the analysis, selection and mobilisation of the stakeholders are key and differentiating phases of the approach, resulting in the increasing development of analytical tools and techniques (Bryson, 2004a; Holman et al., 2007). Implementation relies, in turn, on emergent and planned actions, performed individually and collectively. The collaborative approach induces a transformation of the role of the public managers and officials, whose action becomes more peripheral and less interventionist. According to Klijn and Koppenjan (2000) and McGuire (2006), the public player, with its resources and legitimacy, takes on a central role as the pivotal player or organisation responsible for creating, organising and steering interactions within and between organisations, geared towards achieving public goals.
Ultimately, our theoretical analysis makes it possible to distinguish three approaches to the formulation and implementation of strategies in the public sector. Each shows marked differences on a number of key dimensions (see Appendix Table A1). These approaches and their components are used in our empirical study as an analytical guide and interpretive framework in order to understand and study in depth the strategic processes used by an organisation that has embarked on a change project.
An empirical study into strategy formulation and implementation in the local public context
Using a longitudinal case study in the French context, we assess the relevance of the three theoretical approaches described above. In the following, we have therefore presented the methodology applied, the case studied, the results obtained and their discussion, including a recap of our theoretical analysis grid.
The methodology applied
Our empirical study, which follows an exploratory and descriptive logic, sets out to further investigate and characterise the strategic processes at work within a public organisation. It does so through an analysis of its different dimensions (goals, methodology, role(s) of managers, etc.) and steps (diagnosis, formulation, evaluation). We thus aim to inform and enrich the different dimensions of the grid defined in the first part of the article and to characterise the dominant logic or logics underlying the strategic approach of the organisation studied.
To cross-reference theoretical and empirical readings of strategic management in the public sector, we have drawn on a local public organisation, in this case, a Departmental Fire and Rescue Service (SDIS). This service, attached to a General Council, is responsible for managing the emergency services, for property and people, at a departmental level. The SDIS in question is a large establishment compared to the hundred or so SDISs in operation across France, and is one of the five in the first category. It carries out almost 100,000 responses per year, with more than 1000 professional firefighters, 2000 volunteer firefighters and nearly 500 administrative, technical and health staff. It has around 40 Fire and Rescue Centres (CISs), serving as operational response units within the territorial scope of the department.
With its agreement, we conducted intervention research for 24 months. Our study is based on a thorough analysis of organisational practices, and on cooperation between the researcher and the players concerned. Specifically, it makes it possible to concretely observe and build a reality on the basis of a change project (David, 2012). In our case, this project consists of defining and implementing a strategic project within the establishment. The goals are political as they contain the priority ambitions and goals of the authority, but also operational in that they formalise the main actions and activities to be rolled out in future. This process was initiated by this SDIS in 2011 with a view to defining and activating the establishment project over the period 2012–2014. It is being rolled out on an ongoing basis with the intention of producing a new establishment project over the period 2015–2018.
This intervention research aims to develop an approach of mobilising theoretical knowledge in order to change an organisational system showing signs of malfunction. Indeed, the implementation of this strategic project is designed: to clarify public policy orientations; to unite all agents around shared values and objectives; to structure the organisation and to ensure the coherence of activities; to allow all managers to have management tools; and to continue to ensure that the SDIS is underpinned by a logic of performance. Our role, then, is to support the authority, as an independent expert, not only by formalising, but also by integrating, the changes brought about to the context. As specified by Martinet (1990: 21), we seek ‘not so much to explain how, but to understand enough to give players increased means to change it in a more effective, efficient and lucid manner’. The intervention research, therefore, aims to produce knowledge that can be useful not only for the so-called players in the field, but also for Management Sciences (Perez, 2008), in this instance, on the issue of strategy formulation and development in the public sector.
To that end, after reviewing the organisation and its modes of operation, we first participated in the steering committee set up to implement the strategic project for this SDIS. Its brief was to propose and monitor the implementation of the various stages of the project. It also reported on progress to the administrative and political leadership of the institution. We then participated in the various upstream brainstorming sessions and downstream presentations. Finally, we also supported the different working groups within the framework of the project.
The presentation of the case study
To present this case study, we first describe the internal and external context of this authority before discussing the nature of the strategic management tools used. Finally, we present the methods of implementation of the proposed strategic transformation.
Proactive internal players in strategic management faced with significant internal and external challenges
Like all French local authorities, the SDISs are subject to strong budgetary pressures, even if they are indirect in that they are primarily funded by the municipalities and the General Council to which they are attached. Beyond the increase in financial and budgetary constraints, the SDISs are subject to strong internal organisational pressures. Indeed, with Law No. 96-369 of 3 May 1996, the SDISs went from a communal to a departmental organisation, the main aim being to streamline the use of their resources. The roles, responsibilities and operations of the CIS, which were almost autonomous at the time, underwent far-reaching changes, becoming dependent not only on territorial groupings (as structures of regroupings for each intra-departmental territory of the CIS), but also on functional groups (as departmental structures supporting the CIS).
In this new context, SDISs are thus required to cope with significant organisational dysfunctions. Indeed, the increase in the distance, geographical and technical, between the players, in particular, the agents and the leaders, gives rise to relational and informational problems. The larger size of the new organisations mobilised also triggers problems with the management of transversality or accountability for the actions to be undertaken. In addition, with the increasing financial constraints, the SDISs are forced to make decisions and make trade-offs on the resources to be committed and the activities to be undertaken. To address a number of these existing dysfunctions, the SDIS in question decided to take into account these current environmental changes, but also to anticipate future ones, by defining and implementing its establishment plan.
‘Classic’ strategic management tools, but in synergy
To define and implement its establishment project, this SDIS mobilised various strategic tools. The formalisation of the strategy was first carried out after a strategic diagnosis, where the organisational strengths and weaknesses were analysed, as well as the threats and opportunities of its environment. Following this analysis, the key ambitions of the authority were defined for the coming years. They covered the problems facing the response of firefighters, for example, in terms of the demand and operational performance. They also covered organisational issues concerning all players, whether operational, administrative or political, for example, in terms of the optimisation of the organisation and relationships between players. On this occasion, the values underpinning the establishment were also determined. Collective and individual commitment, loyalty, respect for rules, the culture of effort, solidarity, listening, and cohesion thus provide a number of values that structure the charter produced. Then, beyond these diagnostic tools and strategic formalisation, other measures were used, concerning strategic steering and strategic implementation. The mobilised steering tools thus covered planning, accountability and evaluation logics.
Regarding the strategic planning tools, the SDIS defined related policies and objectives allowing for the achievement of the previously defined strategic goals. To create the link with the operational, these policies were broken down and objectified into missions and action/activity, as part of an arborescent strategic segmentation. Initial roadmaps could thus be drawn up for each public policy and service, indicating the chosen timetable and the level of priority of the actions/activities to be undertaken. The second tools used, for their part, followed a logic relating to the accountability of the players concerned so that the planned policies could be implemented. For this, the SDIS determined the structures and players responsible for the steering and/or implementation of the planned policies, missions and actions/activities. The roadmaps, modified based on the overall resources available, could then be produced. As the responsibilities are specified for each structure, it is expected that projects for each service, as well as job descriptions for each agent, will be developed by taking into account the actions and activities undertaken. In addition, this SDIS also made a change to these methods of operation, evidenced not only by the overhaul of its organisational structure – by adapting it to the strategic ambitions and renewing its management dialogue between the various actors (political and administrative levels; superiors and subordinates) – but also by a reorganisation of its managerial bodies.
In the light of the evaluation tools, the SDIS thus launched a process to determine indicators in relation to policies, missions and actions/activities. They concerned the consumption of resources, the progress of actions and the results obtained or the effects generated within the territory. Once pooled and put into relation with the planned objectives, they made it possible to produce balanced scorecards, that is, taking into account the different dimensions of public performance (Bouckaert and Politt, 2004), adapted to each decision-making level. It is interesting to note that these evaluation tools were those least deployed by the end of our intervention research. Cultural reasons related to the weak dissemination of an evaluation culture and techniques related to the shortcomings of the information system mainly explain this time lag between the planned timetable and that actually achieved.
Inclusive and participatory methods of implementation
Over and beyond the strategic management tools used, this intervention research can be described through its methods of implementation. The type of players involved, the nature of the change undertaken and the steering methodologies used are all methods that allowed the deployment of this establishment project.
First, as far as the first point is concerned, the players involved were different depending on the phases of the approach. The project was launched mainly by the administrative management team, the elected president of the SDIS having validated the proposal made. Leadership therefore tended to be administrative, with elected officials supporting the approach and being informed of its progress at various intervals. During the strategic diagnosis and planning phases, the management team, formed by the departmental manager and the deputy managers (around a dozen people), were involved in the production of strategic goals and related policies and missions, as well as their objectives. Operational actors, having been informed of the initial work, were mobilised, in turn, through the setting up of thematic working groups according to the public policies, representing the entire establishment. Sixty people were thus brought on board to formalise the operational actions and activities of the establishment, along with their objectives. Several exchanges were organised between the management team and operational working groups to finalise the strategic segmentation by cross-referencing the top-down proposals for goals, policies and missions and the bottom-up proposals for actions and activities. After 12 months of work on these issues, the functional and territorial groupings were informed of the results achieved.
The second method of implementation of the establishment project was related to the nature of the change rolled out. This was first characterised by its global nature. Indeed, all the groups, both functional and territorial, were concerned. All the players, both political and administrative, were also affected at one time or another in the process, with varying degrees of leverage. The change, then, was marked by its progressive nature. Indeed, the different phases planned and shared at the outset were spread out over a relatively long period to take account of both the complexity of the elements produced, in particular, by acting on the transversal relations between players, and the shift in operating habits of a planned and transparent management. When embarking on difficult stages, experimentation was inevitable, through activating some of the people and departments concerned and then drawing conclusions for a large-scale deployment. The change can also be defined by its proactive nature. Indeed, the players, including operational managers, often served as drivers during the process, realising the added value of the change made in the light of previous methods of operation. Finally, this change can be characterised by its high degree of formalisation. In fact, after using spreadsheets at the outset, a software platform for the management of public policies and structures was implemented. It allowed for the formalisation of the establishment project and its dissemination to various players, contributors and users of the platform.
Finally, the methods of implementation of this establishment project can be characterised by the steering instrument. Particular attention was paid to the existence and open composition of the steering committee in order to ensure the monitoring and porting of this approach. The SDIS also put together an initial timetable for the approach and informed the various players concerned of their action on the basis of the planned phases. Finally, referents were appointed in each management area to ensure the liaison between the steering committee and all the managers involved in the process.
The results: a collaborative strategic management
While the literature in the first part of the article highlighted three possible approaches to strategy formulation in the public sector, there is no doubt that this strategic project is more of a collaborative strategic management. 2
Fundamental dimensions guided by knowledge, transversality and learning
The strategic project implemented by the SDIS seems to favour dimensions guided by knowledge, transversality and learning. Indeed, the strategy was first experienced by stakeholders as a practice to produce know-how and knowledge that relate both to everyday reality and future projects. The strategic project then allowed players to better understand the existing actions and operational activities before being able to project themselves into the future based on their priorities and resources.
Then, in this case, thinking and strategic implementation allowed for the management of the interactions between the various stakeholders in the organisation, both internal and external. Transversality and global relationships were then taken into account so that the usual operations are largely influenced by vertical and hierarchical logics. These exchanges were based both on an instrumental approach, mobilising rational planning and organisational tools, and a symbolic approach, in particular, by allowing an exchange on the values of the organisation. The change is both cultural and behavioural, and technical and instrumental.
Finally, the deployed strategic project represented a decision-making tool thanks to the feedback on the knowledge of the reality of actions. Indeed, the evaluation issues, among others, made it possible to collectively improve knowledge of the results and impacts of the actions and activities undertaken. Learning is possible by allowing for not only the allocation of resources or the revision of priorities (Batac and Carassus, 2009), but also, more generally, the steering of the authority.
A formalised but evolving and dynamic content
Over and beyond its size, the implementation of this strategic project can be characterised by its supported and written content. In fact, the instruments, planning and operationalisation of the strategy were guided by a high degree of formalisation (see Appendix Table A1). For example, Gantt-type schedules allowed for the temporal representation of the planned actions. The fact remains that this formalised content was not static, but evolving and dynamic. Indeed, while the overall policy directions remained stable over the long term, the operational content could be changed according to the internal and external context. For example, the implementation of a new regulation on working time in Europe forced the SDIS not only to change the priority of certain actions, often by moving them in time, but also to add and to delete others.
A shared, iterative and engaging process
The strategic project deployed by this SDIS can, then, be characterised by its shared, iterative and engaging process. Indeed, special attention was given to the nature of the change process. By opening it to the key internal players, not just members of ‘central’ management, based on collegial participation, both vertical and horizontal, and both top-down and bottom-up, approaches could be mobilised. Thus, for example, the renewal of the internal management dialogue between management bodies (poles, department, groups and services) relied heavily on a vertical hierarchical relationship. Yet, at the same time, project-based management around main strategic actions also enabled the development of transversal relations in the organisation and the decompartmentalisation of structures.
Summary and discussion of the results: collaborative strategic management at the crossroads of the political and the rational, the planned and the emergent
Given its size, the strategic management deployed appears, at first sight, to be halfway between a rational steering and a political approach to the organisation. The interplay of the players that is possible in an organic, vaguely formalised approach to strategic management is thus limited and allows for the production of shared knowledge, taking into account the cross-cutting relationships and collective learning. Given its content, the strategic management deployed stands at the meeting point of formal steering and consideration for organisational and environmental realities. Rational, programmed, objectified and exploited planning then combines with dynamic, reactive and scalable modes of action, as shown by the elements in bold in Appendix Table A1.
The practice of the strategy, as demonstrated by our case study, is thus a complex process that combines and alternates between rational, collaborative and political decision-making logics, as well as planned and incremental development (Shove et al., 2007). The collaborative approach, then, appears to combine the advantages of the rational and political approaches while minimising their weaknesses. It represents a mixed approach in the sense that the strategy is built around both emerging and planned processes. The emergence is reflected by the fact that public policies are built over time in line with the interactions and exchanges nurtured between the various stakeholders. This approach recognises and incorporates the political nature of the environment of the public organisations and decision-making processes. The deliberate dimension of the strategy is expressed through systems to support and steer networks of players and the structuring of their thinking and proposals around concepts and objects (objectives, vision, missions) defined by public officials. Our case thus demonstrates the relevance of the flexible design of the strategy, in the sense of it being: (1) based on interactive dialogues and structuring elements (missions, strategic priorities, vision); and (2) enabling the emergence and implementation of strategies and actions ‘along the way’ (Clarke and Fuller, 2011).
Our case study also shows that, and as stated by Feldman et al. (2006) or Bryson et al. (2010), in the public sector, the process is at least as important as the result of the process, represented here by the formalisation of objectives and the programming of action plans. Collaborative strategic practice, then, through the exchanges and interactions it generates, appears as a factor of motivation and involvement, as well as a vehicle for mutual learning and the mobilisation of dispersed collective intelligence. The transformation of individual or collective 3 behaviour and representations are the procedural impacts and benefits that must, then, be taken into account when evaluating the performance of strategic approaches in the public sector. Our observations also coincide with the analyses of Poister et al. (2010) and Clarke and Fuller (2011) of the multiple impacts in terms of skills and organisational capacities of public strategy approaches. In addition, this mainly intra-organisational collaboration prompts us to consider inter-organisational arrangements. 4 Finally, this shared and collaborative approach seems to be a response to the difficulty of deploying managerial innovations 5 that, by their ‘private’ connotation, raise many misgivings in public organisations (Favoreu et al., 2012).
Our findings highlight the changing role of public managers and officials, who are increasingly assuming functions implying the management and structuring of intra- and inter-organisational interactions and exchanges (McGuire, 2006). The objective is not to define or to programme public action unilaterally, but, to the contrary, to promote co-production and joint implementation of partnership solutions via internal networks. The decompartmentalisation of the players, and their interlinking, can be compared with the ‘boundary spanning’ actions of public managers highlighted by McGuire (2006).
The focus on the benefits associated with a collaborative strategic approach should not, however, obscure the difficulties and complexity of a partnership-based strategic approach (Robertson and Choi, 2012). Given the diversity of issues and visions to be taken on board by the members of the network, the search for consensus can be extremely costly in terms of the resources and time mobilised (Agranoff, 2006). The collaborative benefits need to be weighed up against the collaborative costs inherent to this approach.
Conclusion
As Bryson et al. (2010) point out, the study of actual practices of the strategy of public organisations is the most promising way of developing a realistic and robust theory of public strategic management. In the case studied, there is no standard approach, but practices that combine and alternate rational, political and participatory logics, as well as horizontal and vertical decision-making processes. The observed practices show that the strategy, as an organised process, comes up against a number of limitations and obstacles inherent to the culture and methods of operation of public organisations. The limits highlighted by the empirical study can be put down to the time and resources mobilised to implement collaborations between a variety of players with different representations and interests. Questions then arise as to the possibility not only of perpetuating and institutionalising this type of management, but also of maintaining the involvement of the different stakeholders. One solution might be, as advocated by Poister (2010), to couple strategic management to the management by performance already mobilised in many public organisations. However, the implementation of this type of management must also face up to cultural barriers and organisational routines that are difficult to overcome, such as partitioning, or the prevalence of the hierarchical logic, which tends to be contrary to the collaborative logic.
Furthermore, while this study makes it possible to analyse and characterise the nature of the strategic processes and to compare them with the theoretical approaches put forward by the literature, it is limited by its external validity and the absence of the generalisation of observations that can be drawn from a single monograph. One way of building on this research might be to extend it to other organisations, according to a logic of comparative, quantitative or qualitative analysis, and to study further: (1) the contextual and organisational factors influencing the adoption and dynamics of the development of public strategy approaches as a contingent concept advocated by Johnson et al. (2007); (2) the processes of formulating and governing multi-stakeholder strategic networks, especially through the analysis of the role and influence of the pivotal players, be they public or private; (3) the relationship (direct and indirect) between strategy and the performance of public actions and policies; and (4) the processes of hybridisation or the separate coexistence of traditional bureaucratic methods of operation with collaborative strategic approaches.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.