introduction for strategic planning research paper

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Improving strategic planning: the crucial role of enhancing relationships between management levels.

1. Introduction

2. strategic planning, change, and management levels, 2.1. improvement and disruption, 2.2. resistance to change and retention, 2.3. management levels, 3. research setting, empirical setting and context, 4. methods and data collection, 4.1. qualitative approach, 4.2. results (qualitative data), 5. quantitative approach, 5.1. data procedure, 5.2. results (quantitative data), 6. discussion and conclusions, 7. recommendations, 8. theoretical and practical implications, 9. limitations and future research implications, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Aceituno, Alicia, Andrea Bernal, Jorge Pérez-Corrales, César Fernández-de-las-Peñas, Domingo Palacios-Ceña, and Javier Güeita-Rodríguez. 2022. The impact of digital physical therapy during COVID-19 lockdown in children with developmental disorders: A qualitative study. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy 26: 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsawafi, Ahmed, Fred Lemke, and Ying Yang. 2021. The impacts of internal quality management relations on the triple bottom line: A dynamic capability perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 232: 107927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amabile, Teresa. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review 40: 39–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amrollahi, Alireza, and Bruce Rowlands. 2018. OSPM: A design methodology for open strategic planning. Information & Management 55: 667–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anzengruber, Johanna, Martin Goetz, Herbert Nold, and Marco Woelfle. 2017. Effectiveness of managerial capabilities at different hierarchical levels. Journal of Managerial Psychology 32: 134–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arji, Goli, Hassein Ahmadi, Pejman Avazpoor, and Morteza Hemmat. 2023. Identifying resilience strategies for disruption management in the healthcare supply chain during COVID-19 by digital innovations: A systematic literature review. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 38: 101199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balogun, Julia, and Gerry Johnson. 2004. Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal 47: 523–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bjorck, Martin, Mark Koelemay, Tilo Kölbel, Timothy Lees, S. Acosta, F. Bastos Goncalves, J. J. Kolkman, J. H. Lefevre, G. Menyhei, G. Oderich, and et al. 2017. Editor’s Choice—Management of the Diseases of Mesenteric Arteries and Veins: Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society of Vascular Surgery (ESVS). European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 53: 460–510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bolivar, Manuel, Cristina Muñoz, and Laura Munõz. 2020. Characterising smart initiatives’ planning in smart cities: An empirical analysis in Spanish smart cities. Paper presented at 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, online, September 23–25; pp. 585–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bonn, Ingrid, and Chris Christodoulou. 1996. From Strategic Planning to Strategic Management. Long Range Planning 29: 543–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Book, Laura, Anthony Gatling, and Jungsun Kim. 2019. The effects of leadership satisfaction on employee engagement, loyalty, and retention in the hospitality industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 18: 368–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bossink, Bart, and Jan-Nico Blauw. 2002. Strategic ambitions as drivers of improvement at DaimlerChrysler. Measuring Business Excellence 6: 5–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boyne, George, Julian Gould-Williams, Jennifer Law, and Richard M. Walker. 2002. Plans, Performance Information and Accountability: The Case of Best Value. Public Administration 80: 691–710. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bryant, Fred, and Paul Yarnold. 1995. Principal Components Analysis and Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis . Edited by Laurence Grimm and Paul Yarnold. Reading and Understanding Multivariate Analysis . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 99–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buckingham, Marcus. 2022. Designing work that love people. Harvard Business Review 100: 66–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnes, Bernard. 2015. Understanding resistance to change—Building on Coch and French. Journal of Change Management 15: 92–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cachón-Rodríguez, Gabriel, Alicia Blanco-González, Camilo Prado-Román, and Cristina Del-Castillo-Feito. 2022. How sustainable human resources management helps in the evaluation and planning of employee loyalty and retention: Can social capital make a difference? Evaluation and Program Planning 95: 102171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cachón-Rodríguez, Gabriel, Camilo Prado-Román, and Alicia Blanco-González. 2021. The relationship between corporate identity and university loyalty: The moderating effect of brand identification in managing an institutional crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 29: 265–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Gilad, and Paul Bliese. 2002. The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 549–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Claus, Lisbeth. 2019. HR disruption—Time already to reinvent talent management. BRQ Business Research Quarterly 22: 207–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cortina, Jose. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cronbach, Lee Joseph. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Del Val, Manuel, and Clara Fuentes. 2003. Resistance to change: A literature review and empirical study. Management Decision 41: 148–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dempsey, Sarah, and Matthew Sanders. 2010. Meaningful work? Nonprofit marketization and work/life imbalance in popular autobiographies of social entrepreneurship. Organization 17: 437–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diefenbach, Thomas, and Jonh Silince. 2011. Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization. Organization Studies 32: 1515–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dzung, Thuy, and Fang Lo. 2023. How does top management team diversity influence firm performance? A causal complexity analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 186: 122162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elbanna, Ammany, and Mike Newman. 2022. The bright side and the dark side of top management support in Digital Transformation—A hermeneutical reading. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 175: 121411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Engberg, Robert, Sven Horte, and Magnus Lundback. 2015. Strategy implementation and organizational levels: Resourcing for innovation as a case. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 2: 157–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Erwin, Dennis, and Andrew Garman. 2010. Resistance to organizational change: Linking research and practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31: 39–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ezzamel, Mahmoud, Hugh Willmott, and Frank Worthington. 2001. Power, Control and Resistance in ‘The Factory That Time Forgot’. Journal of Management Study 38: 1053. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farrell, Catherine, and Jonathan Morris. 2013. Managing the neo-bureaucratic organization: Lessons from the UK’s prosaic sector International. Journal of Human Resource Management 24: 1376–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fleming, Peter, and Aandré Spicer. 2008. Beyond power and resistance. Management Communication Quarterly 21: 301–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fleming, Peter, and Granham Sewell. 2002. Looking for the good soldier, Svejk: Alternative modalities of resistance in the contemporary workplace. Sociology 36: 857–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Floyd, Steven, Torsten Schmid, and Bill Wooldridge. 2008. The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management 34: 1190–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Foster, William, Jonh Hassar, Jonh Morris, and Julie Cox. 2019. The changing nature of managerial work: The effects of corporate restructuring on management jobs and careers. Human Relations 72: 473–504. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gallo, Peter, Eva Benkova, and Beáta Mihalcova. 2019. The Effects of Using Strategic Planning as a Managerial Tool: A Case of Industrial Companies. Polish Journal of Management Studies 20: 145–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• George, Bert. 2017. Does strategic planning ‘work’ in public organizations? Insights from Flemish municipalities. Public Money & Management 37: 527–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• George, Bert, Richard Walker, and Joost Monster. 2019. Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review 79: 810–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giannoccaro, Ilaria. 2018. Centralized vs. decentralized supply chains: The importance of decision maker’s cognitive ability and resistance to change. Industrial Marketing Management 73: 59–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glaister, Keith, and Richard Falshaw. 1999. Strategic Planning: Still going Strong? Long Range Planning 32: 107–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Chao, and Charllotte Ren. 2011. Middle managers’ strategic role in the corporate entrepreneurial process: Attention-based effects. Journal of management 37: 1586–610. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guyadeen, Dave, Daniel Henstra, Shivani Kaup, and Grace Wright. 2023. Evaluating the quality of municipal strategic plans. Evaluation and Program Planning 96: 102186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hellberg, Rolland, and Eivind Fauskanger. 2022. Learning of quality improvement theory—Experiences with reflective learning from a student perspective. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma . ahead-of-print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hermano, Victor, and Natalia Martín-Cruz. 2016. The role of top management involvement in firms performing projects: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Business Research 69: 3447–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hersperger, Anna, Eduardo Oliveira, Sofia Pagliarin, Gaetan Palka, Peter, and Janine Bolliger. 2018. Urban land-use change: The role of strategic spatial planning. Global Environmental Change 51: 32–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hober, Bjoern, and Mario Schaarschimt. 2021. Internal idea contests: Work environment perceptions and the moderating role of power distance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 6: 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hortovanyi, Lilla, Roland Szabo, and P. Fuzes. 2021. Extension of the strategic renewal journey framework: The changing role of middle management. Technology in Society 65: 101540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jehn, Karen, Gregory Northcraft, and Margaret Neale. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 741–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Don, Vinod Kumar, and Uma Kumar. 2012. Relationship between quality management practices and innovation. Journal Operational Management 30: 295–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krier, Laura. 2022. A framework for shared leadership: A perspective on strategic planning for academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 62: 899–930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Langley, Ann, and Malvina Klag. 2014. Critical junctures in strategic planning: Understanding failure to enable success. Organizational Dynamics 43: 274–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, David, Michael Mc Guire, and J. Kim. 2017. Collaboration, strategic plans, and government performance: The case of efforts to reduce homelessness. Public Management Review 20: 360–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leinwand, Paul, Blair Shepard, and M. Mani. 2022. Reinventing your leadership team. Harvard Business Review 100: 61–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, Jing, Richard Pike, and Roszaini Haniffa. 2008. Intellectual capital disclosure and corporate governance structure in UK firms. Accountability Business Research 38: 137–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lines, Brian, Kenneth Sullivan, Jake Smithwick, and Josh Mischung. 2015. Overcoming resistance to change in engineering and construction: Change management factors for owner organizations. Journal of Business Research 160: 113782. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loehlin, Jonh. 2004. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis , 4th ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marôco, João. 2021. Análise de Equações Estruturais, Fundamentos teóricos, Software & aplicações , 3rd ed. Pêro Pinheiro: ReportNumber, Lda. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mintzberg, Henry. 1994. Rethink Strategic Planning Part I: Pitfalls and Fallacies. Long Range Planning 27: 12–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muller, Monika, Christian Huber, and Martin Messner. 2019. Meaningful work at a distance: A case study in a hospital. European Management Journal 37: 719–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mumby, Dennis, Robyn Thomas, I. Marti, and David Seidl. 2017. Resistance Redux. Organization Study 38: 1157–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Munjuri, Mercy Gacheri, and Raquel Muthoni Maina. 2013. Workforce diversity management and employee performance in the banking sector in Kenya. DBA Africa Management Review 3: 1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murnighan, Keith, and Donald Conlon. 1991. The dynamics of intense workgroups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 165–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nadkarni, Sucheta, and Pamela Barr. 2008. Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: An integrated view. Strategic Management Journal 29: 1395–427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nunnally, Jum. 1994. Psychometric Theory , 3rd ed. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ou, Amy, Anne Tsui, Angelo Kinicki, David Waldman, Z. Xiao, and Linda Song. 2014. Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administration Science Quarterly 59: 34–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paulsen, Rolland. 2015. Non-work at work: Resistance or what? Organization 22: 351–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pearce, Jonh, Elizabeth Freeman, and Richard Robinson. 1987. Formal Strategic Planning and Financial Performance. Academy of Management Review 12: 658–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Posch, Arthur, and Garaus Cristian. 2020. Boon or Curse? A Contingent View on the Relationship between Strategic Planning and Organizational Ambidexterity. Long Range Planning 53: 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ranucci, Rebecca, and Shirley Wang. 2022. Resilience in Top Management Teams: Responding to crisis by focusing on the future. Long Range Planning 15: 102268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Razek, Mohamed, Hesham Basssioni, and Ahmed Mobarak. 2008. Causs of delay in building constructions projects in Egypt. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 134: 831–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rouhani, Saeed, and Mehdi Ghazanfari. 2012. Evaluation model of business intelligence for enterprise systems using fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications 39: 3764–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schabram, Kira, and Sally Maitlis. 2017. Negotiating the challenges of a calling: Emotion and enacted sensemaking in animal shelter work. Academy of Management Journal 60: 584–609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schuler, Benedikt, Kevin Orr, and Jeffrey Hughes. 2023. My colleagues (do not) think the same: Middle managers’ shared and separate realities in strategy implementation. Journal of Business Research 160: 113782. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shahab, Yasir, Collins Ntim, Chengang Ye, Farid Ullah, and Samuel Fosu. 2018. Environmental policy, environmental performance, and financial distress in China: Do top management team characteristics matter? Business Strategic Environment 27: 1635–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Steiner, George. 1980. Strategic Planning: What Every Manager Should Know. Strategic Management Journal 1: 191–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stensaker, Inger, Joyce Falkenberg, and Kjell Gronhaug. 2008. Implementation activities and organizational sensemaking. Journal of Applied Behavior Sciences 44: 162–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tarí, Juan, Jorge Pereira-Moliner, Eva Pertusa-Ortega, Maria López-Gamero, and José Molina-Azorín. 2017. Does quality management improve performance or vice versa? Evidence from the hotel industry. Service Business 11: 23–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Knippenberg, Daan, and Michaélla Schippers. 2007. Workgroup diversity. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 515–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vecchiato, Riccardo. 2012. Environmental uncertainty, foresight and strategic decision making: An integrated study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79: 436–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Junhua, Hao Song, Ting Fu, Molly Behan, Lei Jie, Yingxian He, and Qianggiang Shangguan. 2022. Crash prediction for freeway work zones in real time: A comparison between Convolutional Neural Network and Binary Logistic Regression model. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 11: 484–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Warrick, Donald. 2022. Revisiting resistance to change and how to manage it: What has been learned and what organizations need to do. Business Horizons 66: 433–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weston, Marla. 2020. Strategic planning in an age of uncertainty: Creating clarity in uncertain times. Nurse Leader 18: 54–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ybema, Sierk, and Martha Horvers. 2017. Resistance through compliance: The strategic and subversive potential of frontstage and backstage resistance. Organizational Study 38: 1233–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Gandrita, D.M. Improving Strategic Planning: The Crucial Role of Enhancing Relationships between Management Levels. Adm. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13100211

Gandrita DM. Improving Strategic Planning: The Crucial Role of Enhancing Relationships between Management Levels. Administrative Sciences . 2023; 13(10):211. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13100211

Gandrita, Daniel Mandel. 2023. "Improving Strategic Planning: The Crucial Role of Enhancing Relationships between Management Levels" Administrative Sciences 13, no. 10: 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13100211

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Introduction to Strategic Planning

54 Pages Posted: 17 Apr 2023

Alan S. Gutterman

Professional Website

Date Written: April 2, 2023

One of the distinctive characteristics of an emerging company is the significant level of “innovation” associated with its business model, with innovation being thought of as the process of successfully acquiring and implementing new ideas within a business company. Successful innovation increases the likelihood that a company will achieve the extraordinary growth and stakeholder value necessary for emerging status; however, not surprisingly, most new business ideas are never achieved. While the reason may be a lack of commitment or resources, another major obstacle to successful innovation is lack of planning. A substantial amount of literature exists on the importance of strategic planning, and it generally is accepted that implementing and maintaining formal planning processes at the appropriate time during the development of the company is an essential element in creating and maintaining competitive advantage. Strategic planning is a process of carefully and thoughtfully aligning the strengths of a company’s business to the opportunities that are available to the company in its chosen business environment. While strategic planning is both a science and an art, it is generally believed that in order for the planning process to be effective on a consistent basis the managers of the company must collect, screen and analyze information about the company’s business environment, identify and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the company and develop a clear mission for the company and a set of achievable goals and objectives that then become the basis for tactical and operational plans. Strategic planning is an important and essential process for every company regardless of the size of its business and the time and other resources that the company has available to invest in the developing, documenting, implementing and monitoring a strategic plan. The business environment and relevant technologies are constantly changing, and new risks and uncertainties will surface on a regular basis. This chapter provides an introduction to the strategic planning process.

Keywords: strategy, strategic planning, business plan

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Alan Gutterman (Contact Author)

Professional website ( email ).

HOME PAGE: http://www.alangutterman.com

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, entrepreneurship & management ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Social Entrepreneurship eJournal

Industry specific strategy & policy ejournal, strategy & organizational behavior ejournal, decision-making & management science ejournal, public sector strategy & organizational behavior ejournal, cognitive psychology ejournal, industrial & organizational psychology ejournal.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Strategic planning in the public sector.

• John Bryson John Bryson Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota
• , and  Lauren Hamilton Edwards Lauren Hamilton Edwards School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.128
• Published online: 24 May 2017

Strategic planning has become a fairly routine and common practice at all levels of government in the United States and elsewhere. It can be part of the broader practice of strategic management that links planning with implementation. Strategic planning can be applied to organizations, collaborations, functions (e.g., transportation or health), and to places ranging from local to national to transnational. Research results are somewhat mixed, but they generally show a positive relationship between strategic planning and improved organizational performance. Much has been learned about public-sector strategic planning over the past several decades but there is much that is not known.

There are a variety of approaches to strategic planning. Some are comprehensive process-oriented approaches (i.e., public-sector variants of the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, stakeholder management, and strategic management systems). Others are more narrowly focused process approaches that are in effect strategies (i.e., strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation). Finally, there are content-oriented approaches (i.e., portfolio analyses and competitive forces analysis).

The research on public-sector strategic planning has pursued a number of themes. The first concerns what strategic planning “is” theoretically and practically. The approaches mentioned above may be thought of as generic—their ostensive aspect—but they must be applied contingently and sensitively in practice—their performative aspect. Scholars vary in whether they conceptualize strategic planning in a generic or performative way. A second theme concerns attempts to understand whether and how strategic planning “works.” Not surprisingly, how strategic planning is conceptualized and operationalized affects the answers. A third theme focuses on outcomes of strategic planning. The outcomes studied typically have been performance-related, such as efficiency and effectiveness, but some studies focus on intermediate outcomes, such as participation and learning, and a small number focus on a broader range of public values, such as transparency or equity. A final theme looks at what contributes to strategic planning success. Factors related to success include effective leadership, organizational capacity and resources, and participation, among others.

A substantial research agenda remains. Public-sector strategic planning is not a single thing, but many things, and can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. Useful findings have come from each of these different conceptualizations through use of a variety of methodologies. This more open approach to research should continue. Given the increasing ubiquity of strategic planning across the globe, the additional insights this research approach can yield into exactly what works best, in which situations, and why, is likely to be helpful for advancing public purposes.

• strategic planning
• strategic spatial planning
• strategic management
• performance management
• public organizations

Introduction

In the most widely used text in the field, strategic planning is defined as “a deliberative, disciplined effort to produce decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization or other entity [such as a collaboration, function, or community or region] is, what it does, and why it does it” (Bryson, 2011 , pp. 7–8). Defined in this manner, strategic planning consists of a set or family of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices meant to help decision makers and other stakeholders address what is truly important for their organizations and/or places. Additionally, approaches to strategic planning vary in their purposes; formality; temporal horizon; comprehensiveness; organizational, inter-organizational and/or geographic focus; emphasis on data and analysis; extent of participation; locus of decision-making; connection to implementation; and so on. Successful use of strategic planning is thus dependent on which approach is used, for what purposes, and in what context (Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ).

Strategic planning can be part of the broader practice of strategic management that links planning with implementation (Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; Talbot, 2010 ). It can be applied to organizations, collaborations, functions (e.g., transportation or health) and places ranging from local to national and international (Albrechts & Balducci, 2013 ). Note, however, that organizational, community, function-oriented, or place-based strategies have numerous sources besides explicit planning (Bryson, 2011 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ). This entry focuses solely on planning.

Over the past 40 years in the United States, strategic planning by governments and public agencies has become increasingly widespread. All federal agencies have been required since 1993 to engage in strategic planning as a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 ( https://www.performance.gov/ ). Surveys over the years have indicated that an increasingly large percentage of governments at the state and local levels currently use strategic planning (Poister & Streib, 2005 ; Jimenez, 2013 ). Strategic planning is also increasingly common around the globe, including in non-English-speaking countries and those with an administrative law culture, such as Italy and France (e.g., Joyce & Drumaux, 2014 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ; Balducci, Fedeli, & Pasqui, 2011 ; Albrechts, Balducci, & Hillier, 2016 ).

Yet, why strategic planning has become an increasingly standard practice is unclear. Understanding the reasons why it is used in different contexts is thus an important topic for future research, in part because those reasons are likely to affect the results of using it. Possible explanations include faddishness (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006 ), coercion (Radin, 2006 ; Tama, 2015 ), normative mimesis (DiMaggio & Powell 1983 ; Tama, 2015 ), or prior relationships and experience with potential strategic planning participants (Percoco, 2016 ). On the other hand, strategic planning also may be adopted because users think it will help them figure out what their organizations should be doing, how, and why. In other words, strategic planning in some circumstances may provide a way of sense-making, or knowing, helpful to decision makers (Bryson, Crosby, & Bryson, 2009 ), especially within the framework of what is called the New Public Management (NPM).

NPM is a reform narrative that has explicitly or implicitly guided much government reform in the United States, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent elsewhere (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011 ). NPM involves a significant break with (or at least a shifting of emphasis from) prior eras when government agencies were more typically organized as large, public Weberian bureaucracies in charge of direct service delivery and accountable exclusively, or at least principally, to their political masters. In contrast, NPM emphasizes: public choice; the applicability of principal-agent models to controlling government agencies, managers and those with whom they contract; the importance of customer service and focusing on results or outcomes; managers having more discretion in how they go about achieving results; and less reliance on rules and regulations.

In this context, and given the increased discretion managers and often agencies are supposed to have, strategic planning and strategic management are likely to be far more useful (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ; Hansen & Ferlie, 2016 ). On the other hand, NPM reforms also may conflict with more traditional bureaucratic controls that have been an important part of accountability requirements in a democracy (Kettl, 2013 ). For example, in one study Moynihan ( 2006 , p. 77) finds that US state governments “emphasized strategic planning and performance measurement, but were less successful in implementing reforms that would enhance managerial authority, undermining the logic that promised performance improvements.” NPM, in other words, can be yet another “tide of reform” that is layered on top of previous tides of government reform, and the interactions among these reforms are often conflictual, hard to assess, and can and do undermine agency effectiveness (Light, 1998 ).

This entry is organized into the following sections. First, we discuss the meaning of the adjective strategic in front of planning, in contrast to other adjectives such as long-range, program or project, or action planning. Second, we discuss briefly the applicability of strategic planning to organizations, collaborations, cross-boundary functions, and places. Third, we discuss how the various approaches to strategic planning have been conceptualized and what research shows, if anything, regarding their use and effectiveness. Fourth, we look at important themes in the research and implications for future research. Finally, we offer a set of conclusions.

What Makes Public-Sector Planning Strategic ?

The roots of public-sector strategic planning are originally mostly military and tied to statecraft (Freedman, 2013 ). Starting in the 1960s, however, most of the development of the concepts, procedures, tools and practices of strategic planning has occurred in the for-profit sector. Public-sector strategic planning got a serious start in the US in the 1980s (e.g., Eadie, 1983 ). This history has been documented by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009 ) and Ferlie and Ongaro ( 2015 ).

Public-sector strategic planning is a subset of planning, but what exactly makes it strategic ? All or most of the following features are typically used to characterize public-sector planning as strategic (e.g., Kaufman & Jacobs, 1987 ; Poister & Streib, 1999 ; Christensen, 1999 ; Conroy & Berke, 2004 ; Chakraborty et al., 2011 ; Albrechts & Balducci, 2013 ; Bryson & Slotterback, 2016 , pp. 121–122):

Close attention to context and to thinking strategically about how to tailor the strategic planning approach to the context, even as a purpose of the planning typically is to change the context in some important way.

Careful thinking about purposes and goals, including attention to situational requirements (e.g., political, legal, administrative, ethical, and environmental requirements).

An initial focus on a broad agenda and later moving to a more selective action focus.

An emphasis on systems thinking; that is, working to understand the dynamics of the overall system being planned for as it functions—or ideally should function—across space and time, including the interrelationships among constituent subsystems.

Careful attention to stakeholders, in effect making strategic planning an approach to practical politics; typically multiple levels of government and multiple sectors are explicitly or implicitly involved in the process of strategy formulation and implementation.

A focus on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; and a focus on competitive and collaborative advantages.

A focus on thinking about potential futures and then making decisions in light of their future consequences; in other words, joining temporal with spatial systemic thinking.

Careful attention to implementation; strategy that cannot be operationalized effectively is hardly strategic.

A clear realization that strategies are both deliberately set in advance and emergent in practice.

In short, a desire to stabilize what should be stabilized, while maintaining appropriate flexibility in terms of goals, policies, strategies, and processes to manage complexity, take advantage of important opportunities, and advance public purposes, resilience and sustainability in the face of an uncertain future.

The list is extensive and approaches vary in how well they attend to each item in both theory and practice. The underlying hypothesis guiding research and much practice is that strategic planning by public-sector organizations will lead to better performance by these organizations. Two issues, however, become immediately obvious: first, how does one operationally assess the “strategic-ness” of the planning, and second, what effects do different levels of “strategic-ness” have on results of various kinds? Unfortunately, the empirical research on public-sector strategic planning in general, and especially its connection with implementation, is remarkably thin, given how widespread the use of strategic planning is (Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; George & Desmidt, 2014 ). That said, the few studies that have explored these issues have generally, though not always, found a positive causal effect of strategic planning on implementation success.

Applicability to Organizations, Collaborations, Functions, and Places

At its most basic, strategic planning involves three things: deliberations around important issues of ends and means, decisions, and actions. 1 The various approaches to strategic planning help make the process reasonably orderly, increase the likelihood that what is important is actually recognized and addressed, and typically allow more people to participate in the process. When the process is applied to an organization as a whole on an ongoing basis, or at least to significant parts of it, usually it is necessary to construct a strategic management system, or what is often called a performance management system (see the section “Ways in Which Strategic Planning Has Been Conceptualized” ). The system allows the various parts of the process to be integrated in appropriate ways, and engages the organization in strategic management, not just strategic planning.

When applied to a function or collaboration that crosses organizational boundaries, or to a community, cross-organizational sponsorship of some sort is usually necessary. Working groups or task forces probably will need to be organized at various times to deal with specific strategic issues or to oversee the implementation of specific strategies. Special efforts will be needed to engage traditionally underrepresented groups (Innes & Booher, 2010 ). Because so many more people and groups will need to be involved, and because implementation will have to rely more on consent than authority, the process is likely to be much more time-consuming and iterative than strategic planning applied to an organization. On the other hand, more time spent on exploring issues and reaching agreement may be made up later through speedy implementation (Innes, 1996 ; Bovaird, 2007 ; Innes & Booher, 2010 ). Strategic planning in an organization typically involves a mixture of lateral collaboration and vertical hierarchy. In interorganizational collaborations, lateral collaborative processes overshadow hierarchy, yet attention to the hierarchical structures and power differences that exist within the collaboration and in its participating organizations will be vital in developing and implementing a strategic plan (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2015 ).

In addition, when a community is involved, special efforts will be necessary to make sure that resulting strategic plans are compatible with the community’s spatial comprehensive plan, along with the various devices used to implement it, such as capital improvements programs, spatial subdivision controls, a zoning ordinance, and official maps (Bryson & Slotterback, 2016 ). City planners can play a crucial mediating role in linking the broadly inclusive visioning and goal-setting processes of strategic planning with the ongoing formal decision-making mechanisms of cities and regions (Legacy, 2012 ; Quick, 2015 ).

Ways in Which Strategic Planning Has Been Conceptualized

Because planning must attend to context in order to be strategic, approaches to strategic planning may be represented as generic in form but in practice are likely to be highly contingent (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 , p. 123). Generic approaches to strategic planning may emphasize process or content. A key contingency is whether the approach is being applied at the organizational or subunit level, to a boundary-crossing function or collaboration, or to a community or place. We briefly review prominent approaches below, drawing from Bryson ( 2002 , 2015 ) and Ferlie and Ongaro ( 2015 ).

Comprehensive Process Approaches

Process approaches may be characterized as comprehensive or partial in what they consider. We treat more comprehensive process approaches first, including those influenced by the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, stakeholder management, and strategic management systems approaches. Next, we consider more partial process approaches that are, in effect, strategies. These include strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation. Finally, we consider two content approaches, namely, portfolio and competitive forces analyses.

The Harvard Policy Model. The Harvard Policy Model, with suitable adaptions, has had a strong influence on the most widely used generic processes in the public sector. The Harvard model seeks the best fit between a firm or strategic business unit (SBU) and its environment (Andrews, 1980 ; Bower, Bartlett, Christensen, & Pearson, 1991 ). This is achieved via an analysis of the focal unit’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; and the values of senior management and the social obligations of the firm. Planning is separate from and precedes implementation. The model assumes there is a senior management group that is in charge and able to implement its decisions. The model does not offer specific advice on how to develop strategies.

The model can be applied in public-sector organizations, especially at the program or departmental levels, but typically a number of adaptations are necessary. First, a broader range of stakeholders must be considered, often including elected policy boards. Second a portfolio approach of some kind is often needed to allow strategic decision making for a portfolio of agencies or programs. A strategic issues management approach is needed because much public work is typically quite political, and articulating and addressing issues are at the heart of much political decision making. When applied to a collaboration or place, strategic planning should be paired with portfolio, issues management, and stakeholder management approaches, given the absence of hierarchical authority and shared-power nature of these contexts.

Public-sector adaptions of the Harvard model all draw on a roughly similar sequence of activities, while recognizing that following some sort of strict order is often not feasible, necessary, or even desirable (e.g., Nutt & Backoff, 1992 ; Bryson, 2011 ). These activities include:

Preparing for strategic planning by determining what elements should be included and a timeline. Stakeholder analysis is also valuable at this point to identify who should be involved in the process.

Creating, clarifying, or updating organizational mission, vision, values, and goals and clarifying any applicable legal statutes or mandates.

Assessing external and internal environments by analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

Identifying and analyzing issues facing the organization, based on upcoming challenges and/or changes coming to the organization.

Identifying potential strategies for effectively addressing the issues.

Assessing the feasibility of strategies using reasonable criteria.

Developing and implementing plans and related desirable changes.

Evaluating, monitoring, and updating the plan continually as new information becomes available.

Reassessing strategies and the strategic planning process.

A handful of researchers has tested the assumption that pursuing all or most of these activities will lead to strategy implementation success. For example, in one of the most complete tests to date, Elbanna, Andrews, and Pollanen ( 2016 ), in a study of 188 Canadian government organizations across federal, provincial, and local levels, found that formal strategic planning had a strong positive effect on strategy implementation, that the quality of managerial involvement in the process mediates the effect in a positive way, and that formal strategic planning can be especially beneficial in the face of stakeholder uncertainty. Other studies that have operationalized strategic planning in roughly analogous ways have find roughly analogous positive effects of more formal planning on outcomes (e.g. Walker et al., 2010 ; Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2012 ; Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ). These findings are at odds with arguments put forward by Mintzberg 1994 ), Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009 ) that formal strategic planning is likely to hinder strategy formulation and implementation in business organizations. This may be because “effective control in the public sector may be best exercised ex ante , that is, through formal planning, instead of ex post through organizational performance measurement” (Elbanna et al., 2016 , p. 1035).

Furthermore, the findings are also at odds with the conventional wisdom that rational approaches are untenable in the public sector because of the technical problems of acquiring necessary data and information, and because of the political problems raised by competing stakeholders, including issues between the planners and those being planned for. Boyne, Gould-Williams, Law, and Walker ( 2004 ), however, found that in a recent attempt by UK local authorities to introduce a new planning system, the statistical results suggest that the problems of rational planning are largely technical (meaning lack of resources and expertise) rather than political. The link between rationality and politics thus clearly merits additional attention.

Logical incrementalism . Quinn ( 1980 ) was critical of formal strategic planning when taken to extremes of analysis and centralization; when it failed to take politics, power, and relationships into account; and when it failed to appreciate how incrementalism is important for learning and building consensus. In contrast, he emphasized the importance of incrementalism but only in support of overall organizational purposes. The idea of incrementalism guided by a set of overall organizational purposes (even as it may lead to changing the purposes) provides the link between formal strategic planning and logical incrementalism. In other words, Quinn sees formal strategic planning and logical incrementalism as desirable complements and not as inherently antagonistic. They are antagonistic only if strategic planning is taken to extremes, or if incrementalism ceases to be logical, meaning it no longer occurs within a broader framework of purposes.

Logical incrementalism is an approach that, in effect, fuses strategy formulation and implementation, and thus strategic planning and strategic management. The strengths of the approach are its ability to handle complexity and change, its emphasis on minor as well as major decisions, its attention to informal as well as formal processes, and its political realism. Beyond that, incremental changes in degree can add up over time into changes in kind. The major weakness of the approach is that it does not guarantee that the various loosely linked decisions will add up to fulfillment of organizational purposes.

Logical incrementalism is applicable to public organizations, as long as it is possible to establish some overarching set of strategic objectives to be served by the approach. Public organizations can (and likely often do) pursue some sort of strategic planning to establish broad purposes and logical incrementalism to reach their goals. Indeed, one study found that organizations that do strategic planning improve—but do so even more when they pair it with logical incrementalism (Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ).

At the community level, there is a close relationship between logical incrementalism and collaboration. Indeed, collaborative goals and arrangements typically emerge in an incremental fashion as organizations individually and collectively explore their self-interests and possible collaborative advantages, establish collaborative relationships, and manage changes incrementally within a collaborative framework (Huxham & Vangen, 2005 ; Innes & Booher, 2010 ).

Stakeholder management. Freeman ( 1984 ) states that strategy can be understood as an organization’s mode of relating to or building bridges to its stakeholders. Stakeholder may be defined as any individual, group, or organization that is affected by, or that can affect, the future of the organization. Freeman argues, as do others who emphasize the importance of attending to stakeholders, that a strategy will only be effective if it satisfies the needs of multiple groups (Gomes, Liddle, & Gomes, 2010 ; Walker, Andrews, Boyne, Meier, & O’Toole, 2010 ; Ackermann & Eden, 2011 ). Because many interest groups have stakes in public organizations, functions, and communities, and because the approach incorporates economic, political, and social concerns, it is applicable to the public sector. In addition, some forms of stakeholder engagement such as citizen participation are often mandated in government decision-making process (Brody, Godschalk, & Burby, 2003 ; Buckwalter, 2014 ). Successful use of the model assumes that key decision makers can achieve reasonable agreement about who the key stakeholders are and what the response to their claims should be.

The strengths of the stakeholder model are its recognition of the many claims—both complementary and competing—placed on organizations by insiders and outsiders and its awareness of the need to satisfy at least the key stakeholders if the organization is to survive. Because of its attention to stakeholders, the approach can be particularly useful in planning for cross-boundary functions, such as transportation (Neskova & Guo, 2012 ; Poister, Thomas, & Berryman, 2013 ; Deyle & Wiedenman, 2014 ) and planning for places (Brody et al., 2003 ; Edelenbos & Klijn, 2005 ).

The primary weakness of the model is that genuine collaboration is difficult to achieve, as found by Vigar in transportation planning in England ( 2006 ). Another study of spatial planning in India found an additional difficulty in broadening stakeholder engagement beyond elite participants (Vidyarthi, Hoch, & Basmajian, 2013 ). Another challenge is the absence of criteria with which to judge competing claims and the need for more advice on developing strategies to deal with divergent stakeholder interests.

Strategic management systems . These are approaches that allow public leaders and managers to strategize about, and coordinate, important decisions across levels and functions within an organization, and across organizations (Talbot, 2010 ; Clarke & Fuller, 2010 ). Strategic planning is a necessary component (Poister & Streib, 1999 ). Strategic management systems vary along several dimensions: the comprehensiveness of decision areas included, the formal rationality of the planning and decision processes, and the tightness of control exercised over implementation of the decisions, as well as how the strategy process itself will be tailored to the organization and managed. The strength of these systems is their attempt to coordinate the various elements of an organization’s strategy across levels and functions. In doing so, they can help integrate better what NPM reforms have often fragmented (Christensen & Laegreid, 2007 ). Their weakness is that excessive comprehensiveness, prescription, and control can drive out attention to mission, strategy, and innovation, and can exceed the ability of participants to comprehend the system and the information it produces (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2009 ).

Strategic management systems are potentially applicable to public organizations (and to a lesser extent, communities), because regardless of the nature of the particular organization, managers must coordinate at least some decision making across levels and functions and concentrate on whether the organization is implementing its strategies and accomplishing its mission. Some public organizations—such as hospitals, police and fire departments, and the military—often make use of relatively comprehensive formal strategic planning and implementation systems. The US federal government is moving toward a reasonably comprehensive formal system (Moynihan, 2013 ). Early assessments of the routines built into the new system show they increase performance information use and learning (Moynihan & Kroll, 2016 ). Most government organizations, however, typically use less comprehensive, less formal, and more decentralized systems (Poister & Streib, 2005 ). These systems, as well as those for collaborations and places, typically focus on a few goals and issues, rely on a decision process in which politics plays a major role, and control something other than program outcomes (e.g. budget expenditures, contracting processes, etc.) (Bryson, 2011 , pp. 323–341).

Unfortunately, there are remarkably few scholarly assessments of the strategic planning component of any strategic management systems. One of the best is Hendrick ( 2003 ), a study of Milwaukee’s strategic planning system. She found that departments with more comprehensive, formal, and rational processes had better performance, a result generally in line with other studies. The role of politics in these systems, however, cannot be ignored. Gilmour and Lewis ( 2006 ), for example, found that assessments of the efforts of US government departments that included their strategic planning were used to reward “conservative” programs and punish “liberal” ones in the George W. Bush administration.

The applicability of strategic management systems to the community level is problematic, given the shared-power nature of these domains. In a comparative case study, for example, Loh ( 2012 ) found four ways in which a community planning process can fail. These include disconnects between: residents’ true desires and stated plan goals; plan goals and implementation steps; implementation steps and actual legal devices needed for implementation; and enforcement tied to these devices.

Partial Process Approaches

Considered here are three partial process approaches. Each is, in effect, a kind of strategy. These include: strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation.

Strategic negotiations . Strategy is often viewed as a partial resolution of organizational issues through a highly political process. Pettigrew ( 1973 ) and Mintzberg and Waters ( 1985 ) helped pioneer this process approach, but its roots go back to public sector accounts of strategizing (Allison, 1971 ). Negotiations are increasingly a part of governance through a variety of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial processes (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005 ; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015 ). These processes include empowered community visioning processes that create political mandates, negotiated rule-making, and environmental dispute resolution processes.

The strength of the approach is that it acknowledges that power is shared in many public situations and that cooperation and negotiation are required in order to reach agreements. The main weakness is that though the process can facilitate agreements, questions can and often do arise about the technical quality, process legitimacy, and democratic responsibility of results (Page, Stone, Bryson, & Crosby, 2015 ). Interestingly, Innes ( 1996 ) and Innes and Booher ( 2010 ) finds that while the negotiation processes can look messy, they quite often result in extremely rational, politically acceptable, and implementable solutions.

Strategic issues management. A major shortcoming of the Harvard model was a missing step between the SWOT analysis and strategy formulation. This was remedied with the addition of the step of identifying strategic issues as part of the strategic planning process, as well as less comprehensive annual reviews. This approach is especially important for public organizations, in particular those with continually or rapidly changing environments, since the agendas of these organizations consist of issues that should be managed strategically (Ackermann & Eden, 2011 ). In addition, many organizations have developed strategic issue management processes separate from annual strategic planning processes. Many important issues emerge too quickly to be handled as part of an annual or less frequent process. The approach also applies to functions, collaborations, or communities, as long as some group, organization, or coalition is able to engage in the process and to manage the issue.

The strength of the approach is its ability to recognize and analyze key issues quickly. The main weakness is that in general the approach offers no specific advice on exactly how to frame the issues other than to precede their identification with a situational analysis of some sort. Nutt and Backoff ( 1992 , 1993 ) and Bryson, Cunningham, & Lokkesmoe ( 2002 ) have gone the furthest in remedying this defect within the context of public strategic planning. Fairhurst ( 2011 ) and Gray, Purdy, and Ansani ( 2015 ), among others, provide useful advice outside of that context.

Strategic planning as a framework for innovation. In contrast with a strategic management system approach that can decrease innovation, other approaches use strategic planning as a chance to innovate and provide creative solutions for upcoming challenges (Osborne & Brown, 2012 ). These approaches rely on many of the same components discussed above but differ in that they emphasize fostering innovation and creating a more entrepreneurial culture within the organization. This approach can be difficult to use in some public organizations, particularly those with fewer resources to test approaches or room to make potentially costly mistakes. Furthermore, public organizations are often operating in highly visible and accountable contexts making any mistakes or learning opportunities more visible and problematic.

While there is a growing body of scholarly work on innovation in public organizations, there is little research on the connection between strategic planning and innovation. An exception is Andrews et al. ( 2012 , p. 155), who found that “organizations that emphasize a strategy of innovation get an even higher payoff when they fit this strategy to a process characterized by flexibility and negotiation with powerful stakeholders” (i.e., logical incrementalism). Another exception is Borins ( 2014 , pp. 73–93), who in a large-scale study of successful public-sector innovations, found a strong reliance on strategic planning (what he calls “comprehensive planning”) by the innovators, rather than “groping along,” which is Behn’s ( 1988 ) term for a manager-focused version of logical incrementalism. The relationship was contingent, however, on who the innovators were and whether new technology was involved. If the innovators were managers, planning was favored; if the innovators were frontline staff, groping along was preferred. If new technology was involved, groping along was used more frequently.

Content Approaches

The process approaches assist planners with ways of doing strategic planning but offer little advice as to what needs to be in strategies and plans. Strategic content approaches help by providing a way to determine the content of strategies that best fit the internal and external conditions facing an organization. We consider two: portfolio approaches and competitive analysis.

Portfolio approaches. These approaches conceptualize strategic planning as a way of helping manage a portfolio of entities (e.g., departments, programs, projects, budget items) in a strategic way. The portfolio arrays the entities against dimensions deemed strategically significant (e.g., the desirability of doing something against the capacity to do it). The resulting array helps clarify decisions about what to do. The strength of the approach is that it helps organizations make sense of and manage the various entities for which it is, or might be, responsible. The weaknesses of the approach include the difficulty of deciding on the dimensions, arraying entities against dimensions, understanding how to fit the approach into a broader strategic planning process, and managing the politics of winners and losers. While many public organizations at least implicitly make use of portfolio approaches, we know of no studies evaluating use of the approach in a public-sector strategic planning context.

Competitive analysis. Another approach uses competitive analysis to determine some of what should be in a strategic plan. The language may be difficult for public sector organizations, since they may not see themselves as competing for customers. However, many public or quasi-public organizations are clearly in competitive environments. For example, many services in most countries have to compete at least in some ways with businesses for customers. Vining ( 2011 ) adapted Porter’s ( 1998 ) private sector five forces model for the public sector by adding political and economic considerations that are more appropriate for any public sector organization. Vining hypothesizes that organizational autonomy—which is necessary to have some control over strategy—depends on a modified set of Porter’s five forces. Vining’s adaptations include: the power of agency sponsors/customers, power of suppliers, threat of substitute products, political influence, and the intensity of rivalry between agencies. Autonomy is hypothesized to impact organizational performance but can also help organizations determine what strategies are best suited to their internal and external conditions. To the best of our knowledge, the usefulness of the model has not been tested.

In sum, there are a variety of approaches to strategic planning. In other words, it is not a single thing but rather a set of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices. These presumably need to be applied contingently in particular settings in order to produce useful outcomes. Indeed, hybrid applications that blend approaches are often or even typically found (Bryson, 2011 ; Favoreu, Carassus, Gardey, & Maurel, 2015 ).

Prominent Research Themes and Implications for Future Research

In this section, we look at a number of themes that have animated research on public-sector strategic planning. We also consider implications for future research.

What is Public-Sector Strategic Planning?

How strategic planning is defined makes a difference in how it is studied and what the results of those studies are likely to be. As noted above, there are a variety of approaches to strategic planning and there is a reasonably clear set of criteria for determining whether an approach is strategic or not. The various approaches may be viewed as generic—their ostensive aspect—but must be applied contingently in context—their performative aspect (Feldman & Pentland, 2008 , pp. 302–303). This interpretation is consistent with much of the contemporary literature in public administration and urban and regional planning. The view is at odds, however, with some of the work in the business management literature associated primarily with Mintzberg ( 1994 ) and Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009 , pp. 49–84), who by definition limits strategic planning to a formalized, rigid, highly analytic, staff-driven exercise (i.e. an ostensive view). In other words, scholars in public administration and planning take a far more flexible view of what strategic planning is, based largely on studying what people do when they say they are doing strategic planning (i.e., how strategic planning is performed).

Does Strategic Planning “Work,” and How Does It Work?

Assessments of whether and how well strategic planning “works” depend on how it is defined and studied. 2 An important methodological distinction is between what Mohr ( 1982 ) calls variance studies and process studies (see also Van de Ven, 2007 ). In variance studies, public-sector strategic planning is essentially treated as a routine or practice that is a fixed object, not as a generative system comprising many interacting and changeable parts. Variance studies typically assume that strategic planning is an intermediary , to use Latour’s ( 2005 , p. 58) term, meaning the planning itself is essentially invariant and merely the transporter of a cause from inputs to outputs. Inputs, in other words, are assumed to predict outputs fairly well as long as the “transporter” is transporting.

Studies of strategic planning in government do report mixed results. Roberts ( 2000 ) and Radin ( 2006 ) are among public management scholars who have questioned the effectiveness of strategic planning in government, particularly mandated strategic planning in the US federal government. In both studies, the authors viewed strategic planning as essentially an invariant intermediary. On the other hand, the majority of variance studies of public strategic planning that have used linear regression methodologies, have found positive (though not necessarily large) effects (e.g., Borins, 1998 , 2014 ; Boyne & Gould-Williams, 2003 ; Andrews, Boyne, & Walker, 2006 ; Meier, et al., 2007 ; Andrews et al., 2012 ; Elbanna et al., 2016 ).

Structural equation modeling, which has been underused, could be helpful. This type of analysis would allow researchers to determine whether or not strategic planning improves intermediate outcomes such as, for example, communication and conflict management strategies and whether or not intermediate outcomes improve performance (e.g., Bryson & Bromiley, 1993 ). It would also allow researchers to analyze how much of the impact is direct or indirect.

Process studies, in contrast, generally assume that the key to understanding the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of strategic planning may lie in seeing it as a complex process approach to knowing and acting (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ). In the process, organizational (or multiorganizational) stakeholders engage with one another in a series of associations and performances over time to explore and ultimately agree on and implement answers to a series of Socratic questions. These include: What should we be doing? How should we do it? What purposes or goals would be served by doing it? And how can we be sure we are doing what we agreed we ought to do, and that we are achieving the effects we want?

Few studies have taken this approach. Exceptions include Wheeland ( 2004 ) and Bryson, Crosby, and Bryson ( 2009 ). The latter authors traced strategic planning as a complex cognitive, behavioral, social, and political practice in which thinking, acting, learning, and knowing matter and with which some associations are reinforced, others are created, and still others are dropped in the process of formulating and implementing strategies and plans. They showed that terms such as process steps; planners; stakeholder analyses; strategic plans; and mission, vision, goals, strategies, actions, and performance indicators are all relevant to any study of strategic planning in practice but not as rigidly defined terms. In short, these authors sought to understand how these terms are performed and what that meant for understanding strategic planning as a way of knowing that is consequential for organizational performance.

Our view is that the field will be advanced by pursuing a variety of variance and process studies. Variance studies can show in the aggregate what works and what does not. Detailed process studies, and especially comparative, longitudinal case studies, can help show how it works. In particular, much more knowledge is needed about what the actual process design features and social mechanisms are that lead to strategic planning success (or not) (Mayntz, 2004 ; Bryson, 2010 ). Barzelay and Campbell ( 2003 ), Barzelay and Jacobsen ( 2009 ) are among the few studies to actually focus on the importance of design features and social mechanisms for strategic planning.

What are the Outcomes of Strategic Planning?

Most studies of public-sector strategic planning have focused on performance outcomes, especially target achievement, efficiency, and effectiveness. In terms of these outcomes, strategic planning generally seems to have a beneficial effect. Some students have found that perceptions of improved performance are linked to strategic planning (e.g., Boyne & Gould-Williams, 2003 ; Poister & Streib, 2005 ; Ugboro, Obeng, & Spann, 2010 ). Others have avoided common source bias and perceptions of performance by connecting secondary performance measures with survey data (e.g., Andrews et al., 2009 ; Walker, Andrews, Boyne, Meier, & O’Toole, 2010 ; Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ; Elbanna, Andrews, & Pollanen, 2016 ). The findings have been mixed, but generally support a positive strategic planning-performance link.

However, as laid out by Poister, Pitts, and Edwards ( 2010 ), the link between strategic planning and performance needs further investigation. As noted, research indicates that strategic planning generally, though not always, leads to better performance. The mixed findings are likely due to a number of factors. First, performance in the public sector is notoriously hard to operationalize. This task can be very difficult in municipal and state governments, where departments and agencies have different purposes and different measures of performance. Obviously, many different types of performance should be taken into account beyond fiscal measures (Poister, 2003 ).

Second, a theoretical link between strategic planning and performance has not been well established. Poister, Edwards, and Pasha ( 2013 ) use goal setting theory originated by Locke and Latham (see Latham, 2004 ). However, this theoretical link needs more fleshing out, which leads to a third observation: there are likely to be a variety of direct and indirect links between strategic planning and performance.

Some studies have emphasized the importance of intermediate outcomes, such as participation (see earlier citations), visioning (e.g., Helling, 1998 ), situated learning (e.g., Vigar, 2006 ), and communication and conflict management strategies (e.g., Bryson & Bromiley, 1993 ). Very few studies have focused on equity, social justice, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, or the broader array of public values (Cook & Harrison, 2015 ; Beck Jorgensen & Bozeman, 2007 ). Clearly, attending to a range of outcomes and how they are produced would be very helpful.

What Contributes to Strategic Planning Success?

Research indicates that organizations can face significant barriers before and during strategic planning that can potentially outweigh any benefits. First, public sector organizations need to build the necessary capacity to do strategic planning. The skills and resources to do strategic planning in the public sector should match the complexity of the processes and practices involved (Streib & Poister, 1990 ). Necessary resources include, for example, financial capacity (Boyne, Gould-Williams, Law, & Walker, 2004 ; Wheeland, 2004 ), knowledge about strategic planning (Hendrick, 2003 ), and the capability to gather and analyze data and to judge between potential solutions (Streib & Poister, 1990 ).

Additionally, leadership of different kinds is needed in order to engage in effective strategic planning. Process sponsors have the authority, power, and resources to initiate and sustain the process. Process champions are needed to help manage the day-to-day process (Bryson, 2011 ). Transformational practices by sponsors and champions, as well as the groups they engage appears to help energize participants, enhance public service motivation, increase mission valence, and encourage performance information use (e.g., Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2013 ), all of which are important for strategic planning.

Broad participation generally can also improve the process, as well as the resulting plan by giving various stakeholders a sense of ownership and commitment. We know that different perspectives can enrich any analyses and the eventual implementation of the plan (Burby, 2003 ; Bryson, 2011 ). Several studies demonstrate that citizens can help throughout the process by educating government staff about issues and with decision making about solutions (Blair, 2004 ). Including citizens has the additional benefit of reducing citizen cynicism about government (Kissler et al., 1998 ). Likewise, employees from all levels of the organization may need to be included in strategic planning for their input and knowledge about their respective areas of the organization (Wheeland, 2004 ; Donald, Lyons, & Tribbey, 2001 ). That said, we also know that there is great variation in how stakeholders are included, and at least two studies show that participation of key stakeholders (internal and external) often remains shallow and elitist (Vigar, 2006 ; Vidyarthi et al., 2013 ). Moreover, inclusion and broad stakeholder participation may not always make sense (Thomas, 1995 ). There do not seem to be any strategic planning studies indicating when it might be advisable not to include stakeholders in public-sector strategic planning, but one hopes such studies will be forthcoming.

Finally, integration with other strategic management practices can improve strategic planning. Poister ( 2010 ) writes that integrating strategic planning and performance management more closely will likely improve performance and decision making about planning. For example, Kissler et al. ( 1998 ) found that this link improved the strategic plan for the US state of Ohio because planners had a better idea of where the state stood in terms of social and financial performance. Plan implementation also improved because plan progress was linked to measurable outcomes making it easier to monitor progress. However, performance is not the only area for integration. It is also known that strategic planning should be integrated with budgeting, human resource management, and information technology management, although exactly how is unclear. One survey of local government practices in the United States found that many governments do some integration between strategic planning and other resource management practices but are not very sophisticated in how they do it (Poister & Streib, 2005 ). That said, there is evidence that strategic planning can help inform budgetary and human capital allocation (Berry & Wechsler, 1995 , 2010).

Conclusions and an Agenda for Future Research

Strategic planning in the public sector increasingly has been institutionalized as a common practice at all levels of government in the United States and several other countries. There is also reasonable agreement on what it means to be strategic when it comes to planning. There is also reasonably good evidence that public-sector strategic planning generally helps produce desirable outcomes and good research that provides the beginnings of an understanding of why and how that is so.

It is important to realize, however, that public-sector strategic planning is a set of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices that must be applied sensitively and contingently in specific situations if the presumed benefits of strategic planning are to be realized. In other words, there are a variety of generic approaches to strategic planning, the boundaries between them are not necessarily clear, and strategic planning in practice typically is a hybrid. In addition, it is unclear how best to conceptualize context and match processes to context in order to produce desirable outcomes. For example, should context be viewed as a backdrop for action or as actually constitutive of action (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 , pp. 121–165)?

These observations lead to a fairly robust research agenda for the field. A list of important questions includes at least the following (see also Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; George & Desmidt, 2014 ):

What are the important dimensions of internal and external context that make a difference for strategic planning, and which approaches are likely to work best, given the context? In what ways do internal and external stability or change in these dimensions make a difference? Of particular interest, what are or should be the links between public-sector strategic planning and politics, partisan and otherwise?

What difference does it make whether strategic planning is applied to organizations, subunits of organizations, cross-boundary functions, collaborations, or places?

How should the approach to strategic planning vary depending on the policy field in which it is applied and kind of issue being addressed? For example, what difference does it make if the policy area is education, health, public safety, transportation, or something else (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015 )? What difference does it make if the issues are simple, complicated, complex, or wicked (Patton, 2011 )?

What kinds of resources (e.g., leadership, facilitation, staffing, technical support, political support, and competencies and skills) are needed for strategic planning to be effective?

What are the ways in which participation by internal and external stakeholders make a difference? In other words, in which circumstances do which kinds of participation, by which kinds of stakeholders, and for which purposes make a difference?

What difference do the various artifacts (e.g., mission, vision, and goal statements; strategic plans; background studies; performance measurements; evaluations) related to strategic planning make?

What are or should be the connections both theoretically and practically between the various approaches to strategic planning and the other elements of strategic management systems, such as budgeting, human resources management, information technology, performance measurement, and implementation?

Finally, research questions should be pursued through research methodologies that conceptualize strategic planning in a variety of ways. As noted, public-sector strategic planning is not a single entity. Useful findings about strategic planning have come via multiple methodologies, including cross-sectional and longitudinal quantitative research, qualitative single and comparative case studies, and content analyses of plans. These studies have conceptualized strategic planning in a variety of ways, including as questions with Likert-scale answers, and as processes, practices, artifacts, and ways of knowing. The variety in methodologies is useful, as each helps reveal different things about strategic planning. Given the ubiquity of public-sector strategic planning, additional insights into exactly what works best, in which situations, and why, are likely to be helpful for advancing public purposes.

• Ackermann, F. , & Eden, C. (2011). Making strategy: Mapping out strategic success . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Albrechts, L. , & Balducci, A. (2013). Practicing strategic planning: In search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plans. disP—The Planning Review , 49 (3), 16–27.
• Albrechts, L. , Balducci, A. , & Hillier, J. (Eds.). (2016). Situated practices of strategic planning . New York: Routledge.
• Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis . Boston: Little, Brown.
• Andrews, K. (1980). The concept of corporate strategy (Rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.
• Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , Law, J. , & Walker, R. M. (2009). Strategy formulation, strategy content, and performance. Public Management Review , 11 (1), 1–22.
• Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , Law, J. , & Walker, R. M. (2012). Strategic management and public service performance . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , & Walker, R. M. (2006). Strategy content and organizational performance: An empirical analysis. Public Administration Review , 66 (1), 52–63.
• Balducci, A. , Fedeli, V. , & Pasqui, G. (2011). Strategic planning for contemporary urban regions . Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
• 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: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions , 22 (2), 319–334.
• Beck Jorgensen, T. , & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration and Society, 39 (3), 354–381.
• Behn, R. D. (1988). Management by groping along. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 7 (4), 643–663.
• Berry, F. S. , & Wechsler, B. (1995). State agencies’ experience with strategic planning: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Review , 54 (4), 322–330.
• Bingham, L. B. , Nabatchi, T. , & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review , 65 (5), 547–558.
• Blair, R. (2004). Public participation and community development: The role of strategic planning. Public Administration Quarterly , 28 (1–2), 102–147.
• Borins, S. (1998). Lessons from the new public management in commonwealth nations. International Public Management Journal , 1 (1), 37–58.
• Borins, S. (2014). The persistence of innovation in government . Washington, DC: Brookings.
• Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review , 67 (5), 846–860.
• Bower, J. , Barlett, C. , Chrisensen, C. , & Pearson, J. (1991). Business policy: Texts and cases . Homewood, IL: Irwin.
• Boyne, G. A. , & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2003). Planning and performance in public organizations. Public Management Review , 5 (1), 115–132.
• Boyne, G. A. , Gould-Williams, J. S. , Law, J. , & Walker, R. M. (2004). Problems of rational planning in public organizations. Administration and Society , 36 (3), 328–350.
• Brody, S. D. , Godschalk, D. R. , & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association , 69 (3), 245–264.
• Bryson, J. M. (2002). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit purposes. In N. Smelser (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 15, 145–115, 151). Oxford: Pergamon.
• Bryson, J. M. (2010). The future of public and nonprofit strategic planning in the United States. Public Administration Review , 70 (s1), s255–s267.
• Bryson, J. M. (2011). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bryson, J. M. (2015). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2d ed., pp. 515–521). Oxford: Elsevier.
• Bryson, J. M. , Berry, F. S. , & Yang, K. (2010). The state of strategic management research: A selective literature review and set of future directions. American Review of Public Administration , 40 (5), 495–521.
• Bryson, J. M. , & Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major projects. Strategic Management Journal , 14 (5), 319–337.
• Bryson, J. M. , Cunningham, G. L. , & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men Project of Hennepin County, Minnesota, Public Administration Review , 62 (5), 568–584.
• Bryson, J. M. , Crosby, B. C. , & Bryson, J. K. (2009). Understanding strategic planning and the formulation and implementation of strategic plans as a way of knowing: The contributions of actor-network theory. International Public Management Journal , 12 (2), 172–207.
• Bryson, J. M. , Crosby, B. C. , & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaboration—needed and challenging. Public Administration Review , 75 (5), 647–663.
• Bryson, J. M. , & Roering, W. D. (1987). Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector. Journal of the American Planning Association , 53 (1), 9–22.
• Bryson, J. M. , & Slotterback, C. S. (2016). Strategic spatial planning in the USA. In L. Albrechts , A. Balducci , & J. Hillier (Eds.), Situated practices of strategic planning . New York: Routledge.
• Buckwalter, N. D. (2014). The potential for public empowerment through government-organized participation. Public Administration Review , 74 (5), 573–584.
• Burby, R. J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association , 69 (1), 33–49.
• Chakraborty, A. , Kaza, N. , Knaap, G. , & Deal, B. (2011). Robust plans and contingent plans. Journal of the American Planning Association , 77 (3), 251–266.
• Christensen, K. S. (1999). Cities and complexity . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Christensen, T. , & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review , 67 (6), 1059–1066.
• Clarke, A. , & Fuller, M. (2010). Collaborative strategic management: Strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics , 94 (1), 85–101.
• Conroy, M. M. , & Berke, P. R. (2004). What makes a good sustainable development plan? An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development. Environment and Planning A , 36 (8), 1381–1396.
• Cook, M. , & Harrison, T. M. (2015). Using public value thinking for government IT planning and decision making: A case study. Information Polity , 20 (2–3), 183–197.
• Deyle, R. , & Wiedenman, R. E. (2014). Collaborative planning by metropolitan planning organizations: A test of a causal theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 34 (3), 257–275.
• DiMaggio P. J. , & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review , 48 (2), 147–160.
• 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 (2), 176–193.
• Eadie, D. C. (1983). Putting a powerful tool to practical us: The application of strategic planning in the public sector. Public Administration Review , 43 (5), 447–452.
• Edelenbos, J. , & Klijn, E.-H. (2005). Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: A comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 16 , 417–446.
• Elbanna, S. , Andrews, R. , & Pollanen, R. (2016). Strategic planning and implementation success in public service organizations. Public Management Review , 18 (7), 1017–1042.
• Emerson, K. , & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes. Public Performance and Management Review , 38 (4), 717–747.
• Fairhurst, G. T. (2011). The power of framing . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Favoreu, C. , Carassus, D. , Gardey, D , & Maurel, C. (2015). Performance management in the local public sector in France: An administrative rather than a political model. International Review of Administrative Sciences , 81 (4), 672–693.
• Feldman, M. S. , & Pentland, B. T. (2008). Routine dynamics. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization . London: SAGE.
• Ferlie, E. , & Ongaro, E. (2015). Strategic management in public sector organizations: Concepts, schools, and contemporary issues . New York: Routledge.
• Freedman, L. (2013). Strategy: A history . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Boston: Pittman Publishing.
• Friend, J. , & Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: The strategic choice approach (3d ed.). Oxford: Heinemann.
• George, B. , & Desmidt, S. (2014). A state of research on strategic management in the public sector. In P. Joyce & A. Drumaux (Eds.), Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives (pp. 151–172). New York: Routledge.
• Gilmour, J. B. , & Lewis, D. E. (2006). Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size. Journal of Public Administration and Theory , 16 (2), 169–186.
• Gomes, R. C. , Liddle, J. , & Gomes, L. O. M. (2010). A five-sided model of stakeholder influence: A cross-national analysis of decision making in local government. Public Management Review , 12 (5), 701–724.
• Gray, B. , Purdy, J. M. , & Ansani, S. S. (2015). From interactions to institutions: Microprocesses of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Academy of Management Review , 40 (1), 115–148.
• Hansen, J. R. , & Ferlie, E. (2016). Applying strategic management theories in public sector organizations: Developing a typology. Public Management Review , 18 (1), 1–19.
• Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Evaluating the results of Atlanta’s Vision 2020 project. Journal of the American Planning Association , 64 (3), 335–349.
• Hendrick, R. (2003). Strategic planning environment, process, and performance in public agencies: A comparative study of departments in Milwaukee. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 13 (4), 491–519.
• Huxham, C. , & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate . New York: Routledge.
• Ingman, D. , Kersten, J. , & Brymer, T. (2002). Strategic planning that uses an integrated approach. Public Management , 84 (4), 16–18.
• Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association , 62 (4), 460–472.
• Innes, J. E. , & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality . New York: Routledge.
• Jimenez, B. S. (2013). Strategic planning and the fiscal performance of city governments during the great recession. American Review of Public Administration , 43 (5), 581–601.
• Joyce, P. , & Drumaux, A. (Eds.). (2014). Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives . New York: Routledge.
• Kaufman, J. L. , & Jacobs, H. M. (1987). A planning perspective on strategic planning. Journal of American Planning Association , 53 (1), 23–33.
• Kettl, D. J. (2013). Politics of the administrative process (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
• Kissler, G. R. , Fore, K. N. , Jacobson, W. S. , & Kittredge, W. P. (1998). State strategic planning: Suggestions from the Oregon experience. Public Administration Review , 58 (4), 353–359.
• Latham, G. P. (2004). The motivational benefits of goal-setting. Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005) , 18 (4), 126–129.
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Legacy, C. (2012). Achieving legitimacy through deliberative plan-making processes—Lessons for metropolitan strategic planning. Planning Theory and Practice , 13 (1), 71–87.
• Light, P. C. (1998). Tides of reform . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Loh, C. G. (2012). Four potential disconnects in the community planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 31 (1), 33–47.
• Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 34 (2). 237–259.
• McKinnon, R. (2010). An ageing workforce and strategic human resource management: Staffing challenges for social security administrations the ageing of social security administration workforces. International Social Security Review , 63 (3–4), 91–113.
• Meier, K. J. , O’Toole, L. J. Jr. , Boyne, G. A. , & Walker, R. M. (2007). Strategic management and the performance of public organizations. Testing venerable ideas against recent theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 17 (1), 357–377.
• Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review , 72 (1), 107–114.
• Mintzberg, H. , Ahlstrand, B. , & Lampel, J. (2009). Strategy safari (2d ed.). Philadelphia: Trans-Atlantic Publications.
• Mintzberg, H. , & Water, J. (1985). On strategies: Deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal , 6 , 257–272.
• Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform . Public Administration Review , 66 (1), 77–89.
• Moynihan, D. P. (2013). The new federal performance management system : Implementing the Government Performance Modernization Act . Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
• Moynihan, D. P. , & Kroll, A. (2016). Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act. Public Administration Review , 76 (2), 314–323.
• Moynihan, D. P. , Pandey, S. K. , & Wright, B. E. (2013). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Empirical evidence of its effects. In Y. K. Dwivedi , M. A. Shareef , S. K. Pandey , & V. Kumar (Eds.), Public administration reformation: Market demand from public organizations (pp. 87–104). New York: Routledge.
• Neshkova, M. I. , & Guo, H. (2012). Public participation and organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 22 , 267–288.
• Nutt, P. C. , & Backoff, R. W. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector organizations: A handbook for leaders . San Francisco: 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 (2), 209–231.
• Osborne, S. P. , & Brown, L. (2012). Managing public-sector innovation (2d ed.). London: Routledge.
• Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation. New York: Guildford.
• Percoco, M. (2016). Strategic planning and institutional collective action in Italian cities. Public Management Review , 18 (1), 139–158.
• Page, S. B. , Stone, M. M. , Bryson, J. M. , & Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: A theory and challenges of assessment. Public Administration , 93 (3), 715–732.
• Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making . London: Tavistock.
• Pfeffer, J. , & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Poister, T. H. (2005). Strategic planning and management in state departments of public transportation. International Journal of Public Administration , 28 (13–14), 1035–1056.
• Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review , 70 (s1), s246–s254.
• Poister, T. H. , Edwards, L. H. , & Pasha, O. (2013). The impact of strategic planning on organizational outcomes. Public Performance and Management Review , 36 (4), 585–615.
• Poister, T. H. , Pitts, D. , & Edwards, L. H. (2010). Strategic management research in the public sector: Synthesis, assessment, and future directions. American Review of Public Administration , 40 (4), 522–545.
• Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (1994). Municipal management tools from 1976–1993: An overview and update. Public Productivity and Management Review , 18 (2), 115–125.
• Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (1999). Strategic management in the public sector: Concepts, models, and processes. Public Productivity and Management Review , 22 (3), 308–325.
• Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government: Status after two decades. Public Administration Review , 65 (1), 45–56.
• Poister, T. H. , Thomas, J. C. , & Berryman, A. F. (2013). Reaching out to stakeholders; The Georgia DOT 360-degree assessment model. Public Performance and Management Review , 37 (2), 301–328.
• Pollitt, C. , & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis; New public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Porter, M. (1998). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance . New York: Free Press.
• Quick, Kathryn S. (2015). Locating and building collective leadership and impact. leadership .
• Quinn, J. B. (1978). Strategic change: “Logical incremenaltism.” Sloan Management Review , 20 (1), 7–21.
• Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism . Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
• Quinn, J. B. (1982). Managing strategies incrementally. International Journal of Management Science , 10 (6), 613–627.
• Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Roberts, N. (2000). The synoptic model of strategic planning and the GPRA: Lacking a good fit with the political context. Public Productivity and Management Review , 23 (3), 297–311.
• Sandfort, J. , & Moulton, S. (2015). Effective implementation in practice: Integrating public policy and management . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Streib, G. , & Poister, T. H. (1990). Strategic planning in U.S. cities: Patterns of use, perceptions of effectiveness, and an assessment of strategic capacity. American Review of Public Administration , 20 (1), 29–44.
• Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of performance; organizational and service improvement in the public domain. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Tama, J. (2015). The politics of strategy: Why government agencies conduct major strategic reviews. Journal of Public Policy , 37 (1), 27–54.
• Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in decision making: New skills and strategies for public managers . San Francisco: John Wiley.
• Ugboro, I. O. , Obeng, K. , & Spann, O. (2010). Strategic planning as an effective tool of strategic management in public sector organizations: Evidence from public transit organizations. Administration and Society , 43 (1), 87–123.
• Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Vidyarthi, S. , Hoch, C. , & Basmajian, C. (2013). Making sense of India’s spatial plan-making practice: Enduring approach or emergent variations. Planning Theory and Practice , 14 (1), 57–74.
• Vigar, G. (2006). Deliberation, participation, and learning in the development of regional strategies: Transport policy making in North East England. Planning Theory and Practice , 7 (3), 267–287.
• Vining, A. R. (2011). Public agency external analysis using a modified “five forces” framework. International Public Management Journal , 14 (1), 63–105.
• Walker, R. M. , Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , Meier, K. J. , & O’Toole, L. J. (2010). Wakeup call: Strategic management, network alarms, and performance. Public Administration Review , 70 (5), 731–741.
• Wheeland, C. M. (1993). Citywide strategic planning: An evaluation of Rock Hill’s empowering vision. Public Administration Review , 53 (1), 65–72.
• Wheeland, C. M. (2004). Empowering the vision: Community-wide strategic planning in Rock Hill, South Carolina . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

1. The next three paragraphs are drawn from Bryson ( 2011 ).

2. This section draws heavily on Bryson, Crosby, and Bryson ( 2009 ).

Related Articles

• The New Public Management and Public Management Studies
• Bureaucracy to Post-Bureaucracy: The Consequences of Political Failures

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 16 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

A strategic management process: the role of decision-making style and organisational performance

Journal of Work-Applied Management

ISSN : 2205-2062

Article publication date: 16 February 2023

Issue publication date: 24 April 2023

The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework for integrating strategic thinking factors, organisational performance and the decision-making process.

Design/methodology/approach

The methodology involves a synthesis of literature and proposes a framework that explores the relationship between strategic thinking enabling factors, organisational performance and the moderating effect of decision-making styles.

The framework includes strategic thinking enabling factors (systems perspective, focused intent, intelligent opportunism, thinking in time and hypothesis-driven analysis), organisational performance and the moderating effect of decision-making styles (intuitive and rational).

Research limitations/implications

This research results in a conceptual model only; it remains to be tested in actual practice. The expanded conceptual framework can serve as a basis for future empirical research and provide insights to practitioners into how to strengthen policy development in a strategic planning process.

Originality/value

A paradigm shift in the literature proves that strategic management and decision-making styles are vital in determining organisational performance. This paper highlights the importance of decision-making styles and develops a framework for strategic management by analysing the existing strategic management literature.

• Strategic management
• Intuitive decision-making
• Rational decision-making
• Strategic thinking process
• Organisational performance

Sinnaiah, T. , Adam, S. and Mahadi, B. (2023), "A strategic management process: the role of decision-making style and organisational performance", Journal of Work-Applied Management , Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2022-0074

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Tamilarasu Sinnaiah, Sabrinah Adam and Batiah Mahadi

Published in Journal of Work-Applied Management . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

Managers are appointed to achieve the organisation's objectives and goals. As these objectives gradually increase with competition, managers must become strategic thinkers with excellent decision-making skills. The strategy towards the organisational outcome highlighted in this section has been widely debated among academic scholars and practitioners. Organisational strategies are essential in sustaining an organisation's competitive advantage to face a complex and uncertain future.

Effective strategic management frameworks enable managers to focus on the complex issues that must be prioritised to hasten decision-making processes ( Dlamini et al. , 2020 ). Whilst enabling managers important to make the decisions needed to direct the organisational effort towards overcoming specific issues ( Wang et al. , 2021 ). The organisation's effectiveness in addressing critical issues with solutions that best fit the current environmental factors will ensure the vitality and image of the organisation. Strategic management is pertinent to manage the organisation in a continuous, systematic manner.

The first segment of strategic management is the effective action programs chosen to reach these goals and objectives.

The second segment is the resource allocation pattern that relates the organisation to its environment.

Moreover, strategic management is defined as translating the thinking process into an action plan that benefits the organisation to sustain its competitive advantages. Strategy also can be categorised as strategic thinking and strategic planning. Strategy is also the commitment of the top-level management to attaining outcomes aligned with the organisation's strategic objectives. Strategy can be realised when there is consistent outcomes or patterns over the years. Therefore, strategy is planning for the future or determining patterns based on consistent outcomes. Organisations must develop plans and also evolve patterns derived from previous organisational outcomes. These phases can be explained as intended strategy and realised strategy.

The effectiveness of the strategies employed can indicate the organisation's performance in achieving its objectives and goals. Organisations need to measure the outcome of the strategies employed by having measurable objectives that will enhance the employees' commitment towards achieving the goals. Conversely, organisational learning and financial measures such as organisational profitability can also benchmark organisational performance. The responsiveness of organisational performance has a direct relationship and is influenced by management efforts to emphasise leadership within the organisational structure. This is done by observing the support and strategies utilised by managers to achieve the objectives and goals. This paper aims to enhance an understanding of strategic management processes involving decision-making styles towards organisational performance. First, this paper highlights strategic management's operational and theoretical approach towards organisational performance. Moreover, this study enhances the result of previous literature on strategic enablers by explaining the effort involving decision-making to strengthen the organisational structure, particularly the decision-making styles (intuitive and rational), that moderates the relationship between the strategic thinking process and organisational performances ( Ritter, 2014 ).

Academic scholars and practitioners have highlighted the importance of strategic management in measuring organisational performance in terms of innovation, entrepreneurship, technology, knowledge, economics, healthcare and organisational performance ( Adam et al ., 2018 , 2020 ; Alosani et al. , 2020 ). Conversely, there is a knowledge gap on the effective judgement practices of strategic management enablers and organisational performance during decision-making ( Abuhjeeleh et al ., 2018 ; Acciarini et al. , 2021 ; Elrehail et al ., 2020 ; Nguyen, 2020 ). This paper analyses the relationship between strategic management and organisational performance and suggests a framework to elucidate the relationship variables such as moderators, rational and intuitive decision-making styles.

2. Literature review

Strategic management is applying strategic decisions towards the organisational vision to achieve strategic competitiveness and sustain competitive advantages ( Alosani et al. , 2020 ; Rodrigues and Franco, 2019 ). Strategic management is a cognitive impairment of structuring the internal capabilities to fulfil external demands and involves plans, patterns, positions, perspectives and plots ( Mintzberg et al ., 2020 ). Strategic management is the managerial discourse involving a framework of the decision-making process, which highlights how the strategy process is formulated in organisations, acknowledging the cognitive management structure of the organisations. Additionally, the organisation's members need to respond effectually to the decisions made by the management and cooperate to ensure that the organisational vision is reached, given that this will affect the organisational adaptability, legitimacy and performance ( Johnsen, 2015 ). Organisations must be aware of the uncertain environments that can influence their welfare.

Consequently, the strategic management process can be reflected in two directions: strategic planning and strategic thinking. Strategic planning emphasises formulating strategies or disciplined efforts to produce strategic decisions to achieve the organisation's objectives ( Bryson, 2018 ). Strategic planning also can be reflected as a system that enhances the decision-making process among the members of an organisation. The strategic management process needs to be fulfilling for the organisation to sustain its competitive advantages. Moreover, strategic thinking is creative, disruptive, future-focused and experimental and often contradicts traditional notions of strategic planning ( Liedtka, 2000 ). Strategic planning is the principal element of the strategic management process involving resource management, implementation, control and evaluation of strategies ( Poister et al ., 2010 ). Strategic planning focuses on formalising existing strategies and employing creativity to enhance perspectives ( Mintzberg et al ., 2020 ). The uncertainties of environments and conflicting perspectives can be evaluated and addressed using strategic thinking as a part of the organisational decision-making process ( Chin et al ., 2018 ). Studies by Goldman et al . (2015) indicated that organisational members are not actively involved during the strategic decision-making process, leading to the decline in the organisation's performance.

The importance of the strategic decision-making process towards organisational performance was emphasised by Steptoe‐Warren et al. (2011) . The research suggested that evaluating, identifying and validating the process will enhance the strategic thinking process to positively impact performance ( Norzailan et al ., 2016 ). Moreover, strategic thinking plays a vital role in analysing the external factors influencing the process. If the organisational members take it lightly, it will lead to perception deficiencies ( Kızıloglu and Serinkan, 2015 ). Additionally, the study highlighted that strategic planning occurs after strategic thinking ( Alatailat et al ., 2019 ; Bonn, 2001 ; Mintzberg, 1994 ). Consequently, this study will focus on strategic thinking as the fundamental phase in the strategic management process.

A conceptual framework that highlights the management principles among the business process in delivering effective solutions for problems is shown in Figure 1 .

3. Strategic management

Strategic management is defined as a framework for achieving success, and it is pivotal for organisations to achieve their objectives and continuously perform better ( Elliott et al ., 2020 ). Additionally, strategic management is a continuous process of looking for a better action plan to ensure the organisation's competitiveness.

3.1 Strategic thinking

The most challenging issue an organisation faces is awareness of the strategic vision and missions, available resources and identifying opportunities for growth within the organisation ( Bryson, 2018 ). Therefore, strategic thinking is a vital element in the chain of processes, which must be carried out effectively and systematically ( Sahay, 2019 ). Nevertheless, organisations need to be aware that strategic thinking can fail miserly if the decision-makers do not realise the strategic enablers or the factors responsible for the effective strategic thinking process. Strategic enablers influence the thoughts and decision process of the organisational members ( Goldman et al ., 2015 ). Therefore, strategic enablers will lead the organisation's members towards idea growth and personal development, while strategic thinkers expedite the organisational performances ( Alatailat et al ., 2019 ).

Individuals involved in the organisational structure utilise their experiences and thought processes in managing conflicts to enhance strategic thinking ( Alaarj et al ., 2016 ). Strategy managers or thinkers recognise the relationship between business responsibilities and departments and organisations and their business stakeholders ( Cabral et al. , 2019 ). This relationship is known as “system thinking”, where an organisation explores the structure reflected in the action and environment that causes the incident. Additionally, the direction or the organisational destiny is a type of strategic intent utilised to help achieve the business objectives. This occurs when all the employees can concentrate on their purpose until it is achievable.

Strategic intent is pertinent in increasing competitive advantages and improving organisational performance ( Chen et al ., 2015 ). Intelligent firms must be considered before becoming competitive to ensure the organisation can create intelligent opportunities to lead the business emerging strategies towards their vision ( Alaarj et al ., 2016 ). Conversely, the organisation should integrate previous events with the current situation to achieve and align with the organisation's objectives. This is vital for organisations to connect to the past and present environment to envision the firms and prepare for any internal or external challenges in their business ( Abubakar et al ., 2019 ). A hypothesis-driven analysis is the core element in the strategic thinking process to gather relevant information regarding the business. Therefore, the challenges faced must be transformed into a hypothesis-driven analysis to understand better the measures needed to be taken by the stakeholders to improve the organisational performances.

3.2 Decision-making style

The role of managers within an organisation must be elucidated to help enhance the decision-making process to create competitive advantages for the organisation ( Dionisio, 2017 ). Moreover, Porter (1990) emphasised the differences between competitive strategy and competitors. Decision-making styles also play a vital role in formalising the strategic decision procedure and can be defined as a habitual or formal response pattern taken by managers when there is an incident ( Kulcsár et al ., 2020 ). According to Acciarini et al. (2021) , decision-making styles are directly related to cognitive styles involved in the strategic thinking process. Decision-making style, which can be both at individual and team levels, can be classified into intuition and rationality ( Dayan and Di Benedetto, 2011 ; Dayan and Elbanna, 2011 ; Giermindl et al ., 2022 ; Luan et al ., 2019 ; Sukhov et al ., 2021 ). Therefore, the author highlighted that cognitive styles could be divided into two different categories: “feeling as information evaluators”, where managers actively gather information intuitively, and “thinking as information evaluators”, where managers systematically collect information ( Behling et al ., 1980 ). Alternatively, decision-making styles can be considered intuitive and rational information gathering and evaluating styles ( Calabretta et al ., 2017 ).

The intuitive decision-making style can be defined as the episodes of uncertainty patterns of action imposed by managers or the decision-makers based on the current situation. In addition, intuitive decision-makers must be aware of current issues and relate the relationship between cognitive schemes with holistic thinking to resolve problems ( Calabretta et al ., 2017 ). It is also believed that the intuitive decision-making process can be influenced by a sudden awareness of information ( Zhu et al ., 2017 ). Decision-makers can determine solutions without fully understanding or realising the extent of information available. Studies agree that the intuitive decision-making process can occur when unsorted information is restructured into an organised pattern of action that transforms into a conscious solution ( Zander et al ., 2016 ). Furthermore, the intuition organisations performance is enhanced when decision-makers utilise the intuition decision-making style when there is no access or relevant analytical data to support them in making strategic decisions that align with the organisation's objectives ( Temprano-García et al ., 2018 ). Conversely, intuition decision-making also contributes positively to the organisations performance when the issues are resolved quickly despite limited resources or knowledge on the current issues.

Studies by Sauter (1999) emphasised that intuition decision-making or illumination is a sudden awareness of information where the decision-makers are unaware of fundamental facts or information. The author also highlighted several ways to establish the intuitive decision-making process. First, detection is an intuition where decision-makers think of several different situations rather than focusing on the current issue ( Kolbe et al. , 2020 ). Working on current strategic issues will enable managers to comprehend related information to help solve the issue by connecting facts or elements that previously did not relate to each other ( Temprano-García et al ., 2018 ). Another form of intuition is evaluation, where the solution appears as an available option creating a sense of certainty or vague feelings towards the analytical data ( Hodgetts et al ., 2017 ).

Conversely, the intuition decision-making process can also be hypothesised as an explicit and implicit decision-making style ( Tabesh and Vera, 2020 ), where explicit decision utilises feelings or emotion and implicit decisions refer to the experience of the relevant situation ( Bhat  et al ., 2021 ; Remmers et al ., 2016 ). Moreover, intuitive decision-making styles also utilise the subconscious processing of verbalised and nonverbalised facts or information ( Tabesh and Vera, 2020 ). A recent study suggests that intuitive decision-making aided managers in enhancing the strategic decision towards the organisation's performance ( Francioni and Clark, 2020 ).

Rational decision-making involves several solutions that will be analysed based on the issues and the relevance of this information towards the current problem before implementing the final decision ( Temprano-García et al ., 2018 ). The structured information consisting of conscious thinking must be evaluated critically ( Acciarini et al. , 2021 ). In addition, the rational decision-making process will enhance the effectiveness of the decision by structuring the decision criteria by highlighting and evaluating the alternatives individually ( Fitzgerald et al ., 2017 ). The decision-makers or the managers who utilise rational decision-making styles are more likely to be vigilant and organised about available information during decision-making ( Zhu et al ., 2021 ).

3.3 Organisational performance

For five decades, organisational performance has been widely researched by academic scholars and business practitioners ( Adam et al ., 2018 ). Organisational performance has been analysed in terms of normative and descriptive explanations in strategic planning research for continuous improvement in managing organisational performance ( Buddika et al ., 2016 ). Organisational performance can be explained by describing how things happen without judging good or bad. Alternatively, the organisational performance also can be elucidated by an evaluation in terms of performance against a benchmarked alternative or standard or by a descriptive statement explaining how the situation occurs without judgement ( Camilleri, 2021 ). Even though most research is done on the continuous improvements of organisational performance, practitioners still have many arguments and discussions on the terminology and conceptual bases to determine organisational performance ( Sarraf and Nejad, 2020 ).

Organisational performance can be reflected based on the results of the organisation's common objectives, given that the methods implemented are coherently used. Consequently, the performance processes' flow or the input resources can be critically analysed ( Tsai et al ., 2020 ). The effectiveness of organisational performance is influenced by the process implemented and can be measured by the achievements. Furthermore, organisational performance is defined as analysing the series of improvements to achieve organisational objectives. Generally, various factors can be associated with organisational performance, such as organisational structures, conflict, cross-cultural and social influences ( Sinnaiah et al. , 2023 ).

Performance measurement is a systematic series to identify the effectiveness and efficiency of people's behaviour to perform to their utmost abilities. Adam et al . (2018) described performance measurement as a unit, department or business process. Therefore, it is conceptualised that there is a structural relationship between organisational performance and performance measurement. Moreover, performance measurement requires substantive and relevant restructuring of input resources and processes to be aligned with the current system to increase productivity level or performance. Failure to analyse the performance measures will weaken the organisational strength and drain the organisation's efforts ( Alosani et al. , 2020 ). Thus, strategic thinking can be a highly effective performance measure for organisations.

4. Propositions

4.1 strategic thinking process and performance.

Strategic thinking is a structured assessment of analysing and synthesising information, intensively assessing the current situation and initiating new ideas or best available options to achieve strategic objectives ( Dhir and Dhir, 2020 ). An organisation's success depends on strategic thinking as it will enhance a decision-maker's skills, abilities and knowledge and help sustain competitiveness in uncertain environments ( Dhir et al ., 2021 ). Consequently, the process of strategic thinking is crucial for any organisation to successfully achieve and survive in the market for a more extended period. Decision-makers need to be effective and cognisant of the business opportunities that arise from innovating new ideas to enhance the strategic portfolio of organisations ( Bryson et al ., 2018 ).

Strategic thinking process will positively influence organisational performance.

4.2 Rational decision-making style, strategic thinking process and performance

In evaluating an organisation's performance and the uncertainties of the environment that influences the complexities in achieving positive growth for the organisation successfully, managers must have decision-making skills that utilise strategic thinking processes. Moreover, managers must be responsible for making fast and effective solutions by analysing, evaluating and prioritising available information to overcome strategic issues and obtain positive results ( Acciarini et al. , 2021 ). According to Calabretta et al . (2017) , there is a positive correlation between the strategic thinking process and decision-making style. Decision-making styles have the same structure as strategic thinking, which involves different levels, such as organisation or individuals.

Rational decision-making will moderate the relationship between the strategic thinking process and organisational performance.

4.3 Intuitive decision-making style, strategic thinking process and performance

Several studies highlight the roles of the strategic thinking process among managers within the boundaries of our cognitive capacities ( Kaufmann et al ., 2017 ) and postulate that mental flexibility can influence it ( Barlach and Plonski, 2021 ). Studies also emphasise that managers or decision-makers often utilise intuition during challenging situations, which is expected compared to the rational way of analysing the issues ( Kaufmann et al ., 2017 ). This intuition process can be a two-fold construct consisting of experience-based and emotionally affected situations. Additionally, this can involve a complex process of information affected by new cues towards previous experiences stored in their memory and transform it into subconscious action in the decision-making process ( Stanczyk et al ., 2015 ). Based on the study done by Simon (1976) , academic scholars and practitioners emphasised that managers are highly keen on inner feelings or gut feelings involving strategic decisions when faced with competitive issues ( Al-Jaifi and Al-Rassas, 2019 ; Bozhinov et al ., 2021 ; Palaniappan, 2017 ). The decision-making process utilising intuition uses available information, which might not have been available in the past, to quicken the process of decision-making. It is also important to realise that decision-making depends on the issues faced by the organisations, and not all issues require a rational decision-making style. For specific issues, managers might only need relevant information, deliberation and formal procedures to derive effective solutions for the organisation compared to instances where the managers are not bounded by any set of procedures or rules to solve the issue.

Therefore, strategic thinking is a process of synthesis, and based on intuitive decision-making style, where the outcome is an integrated perspective of the enterprise, managers can utilise intuition decision-making style to arrive at a solution with complete freedom and flexibility towards the organisational performance. The decision-makers attempt to be involved in the decision-making process while being aware of the current issues and having a sense of relationship among the cognitive schemas with the approach of holistic thinking to determine the solution to the problem ( Khemka and Hickson, 2021 ). It is clear that the intuitive decision-making process would include the issues faced by the organisation in analysing the issues and synthesis ( Zhu et al ., 2017 ) although all the processes occur under the sense of relationship or perception. It is also believed that the intuitive decision-making process could be influenced by the decision-makers upon the sudden awareness of information ( Peng et al ., 2020 ), whereby the decision-makers could propose a solution without the understanding or realisation of why the facts are present.

Intuitive decision-making will moderate the relationship between the strategic thinking process and organisational performance.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This paper reviews strategic management involving the strategic thinking process, organisational performance and decision-making styles with extant empirical work transforming into propositions, with the ultimate goal being to integrate the strategic management process into a systematised and approachable process that needs a fast response. Strategic management plays a vital role in aligning the standard repertoire of an organisation's strategic thinking. Moreover, managers must realise that strategic thinking has a unique process that depends on the situation. The thinking process should be aligned with the specific scenarios to ensure the best solution can be implemented. To sustain competitive advantage, managers should be effectively involved in the strategic thinking process to positively impact their organisations ( Bryson et al ., 2018 ).

The importance of strategic thinking enablers (systems perspective, focused intent, intelligent opportunism, thinking in time and hypothesis-driven analysis) was emphasised in the strategic thinking process and organisational performance. The systems perspective exposes the importance of organisations understanding the relationship between functions and departments internally and externally. Furthermore, organisations need to consider the functional, business and organisation strategies towards a highly competitive environment ( Buddika et al ., 2016 ). Consequently, these systems perspectives will help organisations manage interactions effectively across all departments to enhance productivity. Focus on intent will guide the organisations towards achieving strategic objectives and resisting eccentricity ( Bromiley and Rau, 2015 ). Focus intent will positively aid organisations to be more competitive in the long run as the managers realise the sense of discovery in managing strategic objectives. Therefore, it will improve the performance and consciously push the organisation towards innovation by eliminating limitations and becoming high achievers. Conversely, intelligent opportunism will enhance the strategic objectives by creating new opportunities to be more competitive although the strategies do not align with the current vision of the organisation. This is where intelligent opportunism will play an essential role at the managerial level of the organisation to effectively communicate and measure organisational performances ( Camilleri, 2021 ).

Emerging strategies will boost the organisation's motivation and productivity and should be carefully evaluated from time to time as the future of the organisations might be projected based on the past performance. Therefore, the importance of swift thinking permits the strategic managers to purposefully analyse the mission and vision of the organisation over time. The right action at the right time will help the organisations sustain competitively and save the organisations from self-destruction by limiting the positive changes made to help improve the organisation's performance ( Adam et al ., 2018 ).

Maintaining the balance between thinking creation and cognitive processing ( Calabretta et al ., 2017 ) and enhancing organisational performance (education, financial, creative, innovation, e-commerce and quality) is a challenge faced when creating effective management strategies ( Adam et al ., 2018 ; Al-Jaifi and Al-Rassas, 2019 ; Alharbi et al ., 2019 ; Arvis et al ., 2018 ). In addition, based on previous theoretical perspectives, most of the research scenarios will be based on the governance mechanisms of management and the policy development impacts on organisational performance ( Abubakar et al ., 2019 ). Therefore, based on extensive empirical and conceptual research, strategic thinking processes positively contribute to measuring organisational performance. Based on previous research, this study infers that cognitive development plays an effective role in the segregation of control between strategic thinking, which serves as a barrier to becoming more competitive and innovative in the long run ( Adam et al ., 2018 ). In addition, this happens among employees and directly impacts the quality of the organisational harmonies, such as mutual respect, trust and welfare of the employees. A cognitive processing environment is the use of intuition and rationality in decision-making with equal importance. The managers utilise intuition decision-making styles to resolve unrelated information received. During the strategic thinking process, the managers will receive unsorted information without processed knowledge which will be later organised into sorted knowledge using intuition styles ( Zander et al ., 2016 ). However, the rational decision-making style focuses more on the analytical procedure to conclude an issue the organisation faces. This helps the managers build confidence in the solution by eliminating uncertainty during decision-making ( Zhu et al ., 2021 ). Moreover, managers will only accept solutions with clear and less ambiguous information (rational) compared to managers utilising a more subconscious style (intuition) when formulating solutions. Consequently, there will be conflict in the decision-making process within the organisations.

According to Boamah et al. (2022) , the effectiveness of decision-making styles can differ according to the situation and the dependents. Alternatively, both decision-making styles were highlighted as an alternative way of generating a problem–solution approach within organisations ( Kolbe et al. , 2020 ; Stanczyk et al ., 2015 ). This study argues that both decision-making styles have equal importance in resolving problem–solution approaches and can be a harmonious process to achieve an effective performance measure. This argument is supported by Acciarini et al. (2021) , Tabesh and Vera (2020) . Therefore, this study concludes that both decision-making styles (rational and intuition) positively impact the strategic thinking process and organisational performance. Based on the framework in Figure 1 , the proposed framework highlights the missing sections of cognitive processing among businesses when delivering effective solutions for a complex problem. Organisations have only emphasised human capital and treated it as a scarce resource that will determine the organisation's performance. This study proposed that future strategic management researchers should explore the thinking process literature's core principles to investigate policy development further. Future research should transform these academic initiatives into empirical research by implementing this proposed model.

Conceptual framework

Competing interests: The authors reported no competing interests.

Abubakar , A.M. , Elrehail , H. , Alatailat , M.A. and Elçi , A. ( 2019 ), “ Knowledge management, decision-making style and organizational performance ”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge , Vol.  4 No.  2 , pp.  104 - 114 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.07.003

Abuhjeeleh , M. , Elrehail , H. and Harazneh , I. ( 2018 ), “ The experiential image of North Cyprus destination as perceived by German tourists ”, Journal for Global Business Advancement , Vol.  11 No.  5 , pp.  630 - 649 .

Adam , A. , Lindahl , G. and Leiringer , R. ( 2020 ), “ The dynamic capabilities of public construction clients in the healthcare sector ”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , Vol.  13 No.  1 , pp. 153 - 171 .

Adam , S. , Mahadi , B. and Rahman , A.P.A. ( 2018 ), “ The effect of enterpreneurial orientation towards organizational performance of E-business in Malaysia ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management Practices , Vol.  1 No.  2 , pp. 12 - 21 .

Acciarini , C. , Brunetta , F. and Boccardelli , P. ( 2021 ), “ Cognitive biases and decision-making strategies in times of change: a systematic literature review ”, Management Decision , Vol.  59 No.  3 , pp. 638 - 652 .

Al-Jaifi , H.A. and Al-Rassas , A.H. ( 2019 ), “ The financing decision puzzle of technology-based firms: evidence from Malaysia ”, International Journal of Business and Globalisation , Vol.  22 No.  2 , pp.  225 - 239 .

Alaarj , S. , Abidin-Mohamed , Z. and Bustamam , U.S.B.A. ( 2016 ), “ Mediating role of trust on the effects of knowledge management capabilities on organizational performance ”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , Vol.  235 , pp.  729 - 738 .

Alatailat , M. , Elrehail , H. and Emeagwali , O.L. ( 2019 ), “ High performance work practices, organizational performance and strategic thinking ”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis , Vol.  27 No.  3 , pp. 370 - 395 .

Alharbi , M. , Dowling , P.J. and Bhatti , M.I. ( 2019 ), “ Strategic planning practices in the telecommunications industry: evidence from Saudi Arabia ”, Review of International Business and Strategy , Vol.  29 No.  4 , pp. 269 - 285 .

Alosani , M.S. , Yusoff , R. and Al-Dhaafri , H. ( 2020 ), “ The effect of innovation and strategic planning on enhancing organizational performance of Dubai Police ”, Innovation and Management Review , Vol.  17 No.  1 , pp. 2 - 24 .

Arvis , J.-F. , Ojala , L. , Wiederer , C. , Shepherd , B. , Raj , A. , Dairabayeva , K. and Kiiski , T. ( 2018 ), Connecting to Compete 2018: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy , World Bank , Washington, DC .

Bamel , N. , Dhir , S. and Sushil , S. ( 2019 ), “ Inter-partner dynamics and joint venture competitiveness: a fuzzy TISM approach ”, Benchmarking: An International Journal , Vol.  26 No.  1 , pp. 97 - 116 .

Barlach , L. and Plonski , G.A. ( 2021 ), “ The Einstellung effect, mental rigidity and decision-making in startup accelerators ”, Innovation and Management Review , Vol.  18 No.  3 , pp. 276 - 291 .

Behling , O. , Gifford , W.E. and Tolliver , J.M. ( 1980 ), “ Effects of grouping information on decision making under risk ”, Decision Sciences , Vol.  11 No.  2 , pp.  272 - 283 .

Bellé , N. , Cantarelli , P. and Belardinelli , P. ( 2018 ), “ Prospect theory goes public: experimental evidence on cognitive biases in public policy and management decisions ”, Public Administration Review , Vol.  78 No.  6 , pp.  828 - 840 .

Bhat , A. , Mahajan , V. and Wolfe , N. ( 2021 ), “ Implicit bias in stroke care: a recurring old problem in the rising incidence of young stroke ”, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience , Vol.  85 , pp.  27 - 35 .

Boamah , F.A. , Zhang , J. , Wen , D. , Sherani , M. , Hayat , A. and Horbanenko , O. ( 2022 ), “ Enablers of knowledge management: practical research-based in the construction industry ”, International Journal of Innovation Science , Vol.  14 No.  1 , pp. 121 - 137 .

Bonn , I. ( 2001 ), “ Developing strategic thinking as a core competency ”, Management Decision , Vol.  39 No.  1 , pp. 63 - 71 .

Bozhinov , V. , Joecks , J. and Scharfenkamp , K. ( 2021 ), “ Gender spillovers from supervisory boards to management boards ”, Managerial and Decision Economics , Vol.  42 No.  5 , pp.  1317 - 1331 .

Bromiley , P. and Rau , D. ( 2015 ), “ Operations management and the resource based view: another view ”, Journal of Operations Management , Vol.  41 No.  1 , pp. 95 - 106 .

Bruine de Bruin , W. , Parker , A.M. and Fischhoff , B. ( 2020 ), “ Decision-making competence: more than intelligence? ”, Current Directions in Psychological Science , Vol.  29 No.  2 , pp.  186 - 192 .

Bryson , J.M. ( 2018 ), Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement , John Wiley & Sons , Hoboken, NJ .

Bryson , J.M. , Edwards , L.H. and Van Slyke , D.M. ( 2018 ), “ Getting strategic about strategic planning research ”, Public Management Review , Routledge , Vol.  20 , pp.  317 - 339 .

Buddika , S.I. , Palitha , J.N. and Peter , G.N. ( 2016 ), “ Operationalising performance measurement dimensions for the Australasian nonprofit healthcare sector ”, The TQM Journal , Emerald Group Publishing , Vol.  28 , pp.  954 - 973 .

Cabral , S. , Mahoney , J.T. , McGahan , A.M. and Potoski , M. ( 2019 ), “ Value creation and value appropriation in public and nonprofit organizations ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol.  40 No.  4 , pp. 465 - 475 .

Calabretta , G. , Gemser , G. and Wijnberg , N.M. ( 2017 ), “ The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: a paradox perspective ”, Organization Studies , Vol.  38 Nos 3-4 , pp.  365 - 401 .

Camilleri , M.A. ( 2021 ), “ Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in higher education ”, Management in Education , Vol.  35 No.  1 , pp. 10 - 21 .

Chen , Y.-M. , Liu , H.-H. , Ni , Y.-T. and Wu , M.-F. ( 2015 ), “ A rational normative model of international expansion: strategic intent perspective, market positions, and founder CEOs/family-successor CEOs ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol.  68 No.  7 , pp.  1539 - 1543 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.048

Chin , T. , Rowley , C. , Redding , G. and Wang , S. ( 2018 ), “ Chinese strategic thinking on competitive conflict: insights from Yin-Yang harmony cognition ”, International Journal of Conflict Management , Vol.  29 No.  5 , pp. 683 - 704 .

Dayan , M. and Di Benedetto , C.A. ( 2011 ), “ Team intuition as a continuum construct and new product creativity: the role of environmental turbulence, team experience, and stress ”, Research Policy , Vol.  40 No.  2 , pp.  276 - 286 .

Dayan , M. and Elbanna , S. ( 2011 ), “ Antecedents of team intuition and its impact on the success of new product development projects ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol.  28 s1 , pp.  159 - 174 .

Deslatte , A. ( 2020 ), “ Positivity and negativity dominance in citizen assessments of intergovernmental sustainability performance ”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , Vol.  30 No.  4 , pp.  563 - 578 .

Dhir , S. and Dhir , S. ( 2020 ), “ Modeling of strategic thinking enablers: a modified total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) and MICMAC approach ”, International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management , Vol.  11 No.  1 , pp.  175 - 188 .

Dhir , S. and Dutta , T. ( 2020 ), “ Linking supervisor-support, person-job fit and person-organization fit to company value ”, Journal of Indian Business Research , Vol.  12 No.  4 , pp. 549 - 561 .

Dhir , S. , Rajan , R. , Ongsakul , V. , Owusu , R.A. and Ahmed , Z.U. ( 2021 ), “ Critical success factors determining performance of cross-border acquisition: evidence from the African telecom market ”, Thunderbird International Business Review , Vol.  63 No.  1 , pp.  43 - 61 .

Dionisio , M.A. ( 2017 ), “ Strategic thinking: the role in successful management ”, Journal of Management Research , Vol.  9 No.  4 , pp.  44 - 57 .

Dlamini , N. , Mazenda , A. , Masiya , T. and Nhede , N.T. ( 2020 ), “ Challenges to strategic planning in public institutions: a study of the Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services, South Africa ”, International Journal of Public Leadership , Vol.  16 No.  1 , pp. 109 - 124 .

Elliott , G. , Day , M. and Lichtenstein , S. ( 2020 ), “ Strategic planning activity, middle manager divergent thinking, external stakeholder salience, and organizational performance: a study of English and Welsh police forces ”, Public Management Review , Taylor & Francis , Vol.  22 , pp.  1581 - 1602 .

Elrehail , H. , Harazneh , I. , Abuhjeeleh , M. , Alzghoul , A. , Alnajdawi , S. and Ibrahim , H.M.H. ( 2020 ), “ Employee satisfaction, human resource management practices and competitive advantage ”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics , Vol.  29 No.  2 , pp.  125 - 149 , doi: 10.1108/EJMBE-01-2019-0001 .

Fitzgerald , D.R. , Mohammed , S. and Kremer , G.O. ( 2017 ), “ Differences in the way we decide: the effect of decision style diversity on process conflict in design teams ”, Personality and Individual Differences , Vol.  104 , pp.  339 - 344 .

Francioni , B. and Clark , K.D. ( 2020 ), “ The mediating role of speed in the global sourcing decision process ”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management , Vol.  26 No.  2 , 100609 .

George , B. ( 2021 ), “ Successful strategic plan implementation in public organizations: connecting people, process, and plan (3Ps) ”, Public Administration Review , Vol.  81 No.  4 , pp. 793 - 798 .

Giermindl , L.M. , Strich , F. , Christ , O. , Leicht-Deobald , U. and Redzepi , A. ( 2022 ), “ The dark sides of people analytics: reviewing the perils for organisations and employees ”, European Journal of Information Systems , Vol.  31 No.  3 , pp.  410 - 435 .

Goldman , E.F. , Scott , A.R. and Follman , J.M. ( 2015 ), “ Organizational practices to develop strategic thinking ”, Journal of Strategy and Management , Vol.  8 No.  2 , pp. 155 - 175 .

Hamidullah , M.F. , Riccucci , N.M. and Lee , I.P. ( 2021 ), “ Citizens' perceptions of closing the gender pay gap: an experimental study ”, Public Management Review , Vol.  23 No.  7 , pp.  1032 - 1055 .

Hodgetts , H.M. , Vachon , F. , Chamberland , C. and Tremblay , S. ( 2017 ), “ See No evil: cognitive challenges of security surveillance and monitoring ”, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition , Vol.  6 No.  3 , pp.  230 - 243 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.05.001

Hodgkinson , G.P. and Sadler-Smith , E. ( 2018 ), “ The dynamics of intuition and analysis in managerial and organizational decision making ”, Academy of Management Perspectives , Vol.  32 No.  4 , pp.  473 - 492 .

Johnsen , Å. ( 2015 ), “ Strategic management thinking and practice in the public sector: a strategic planning for all seasons? ”, Financial Accountability and Management , Vol.  31 No.  3 , pp.  243 - 268 .

Kaufmann , L. , Wagner , C.M. and Carter , C.R. ( 2017 ), “ Individual modes and patterns of rational and intuitive decision-making by purchasing managers ”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management , Vol.  23 No.  2 , pp.  82 - 93 .

Khemka , I. and Hickson , L. ( 2021 ), “ Strategy-based interventions for effective interpersonal decision making ”, Decision Making by Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities , Springer , pp.  519 - 540 .

Kızıloglu , M. and Serinkan , C. ( 2015 ), “ Perception of strategical management in textile sector ”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , Vol.  207 , pp.  306 - 314 .

Kolbe , L.M. , Bossink , B. and de Man , A.-P. ( 2020 ), “ Contingent use of rational, intuitive and political decision-making in R&D ”, Management Decision , Vol.  58 No.  6 , pp. 997 - 1020 .

Kulcsár , V. , Dobrean , A. and Gati , I. ( 2020 ), “ Challenges and difficulties in career decision making: their causes, and their effects on the process and the decision ”, Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol.  116 , 103346 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103346

Liedtka , J. ( 2000 ), “ Strategic planning as a contributor to strategic change: a generative model ”, European Management Journal , Elsevier , Vol.  18 , pp.  195 - 206 .

Luan , S. , Reb , J. and Gigerenzer , G. ( 2019 ), “ Ecological rationality: fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision making under uncertainty ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol.  62 No.  6 , pp.  1735 - 1759 .

Mintzberg , H. ( 1994 ), “ The fall and rise of strategic planning ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol.  72 No.  1 , pp. 107 - 114 .

Mintzberg , H. , Ahlstrand , B. and Lampel , J.B. ( 2020 ), Strategy Safari , Pearson , London .

Nagtegaal , R. , Tummers , L. , Noordegraaf , M. and Bekkers , V. ( 2020 ), “ Designing to debias: measuring and reducing public managers' anchoring bias ”, Public Administration Review , Vol.  80 No.  4 , pp.  565 - 576 .

Nguyen , T.-M. ( 2020 ), “ Do extrinsic motivation and organisational culture additively strengthen intrinsic motivation in online knowledge sharing? ”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems , Vol.  50 No.  1 , pp.  75 - 93 , doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-02-2019-0019 .

Norzailan , Z. , Yusof , S.M. and Othman , R. ( 2016 ), “ Developing strategic leadership competencies ”, Journal of Advanced Management Science , Vol.  4 No.  1 , pp. 66 - 71 .

Palaniappan , G. ( 2017 ), “ Determinants of corporate financial performance relating to board characteristics of corporate governance in Indian manufacturing industry: an empirical study ”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics , Vol.  26 No.  1 , pp. 67 - 85 .

Parker , A.M. , Bruine de Bruin , W. , Fischhoff , B. and Weller , J. ( 2018 ), “ Robustness of decision-making competence: evidence from two measures and an 11-year longitudinal study ”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , Vol.  31 No.  3 , pp.  380 - 391 .

Peng , J. , Ren , L. , Yang , N. , Zhao , L. , Fang , P. and Shao , Y. ( 2020 ), “ The network structure of decision-making competence in Chinese adults ”, Frontiers in Psychology , Vol.  11 , p. 2411 .

Poister , T.H. , Pitts , D.W. and Hamilton Edwards , L. ( 2010 ), “ Strategic management research in the public sector: a review, synthesis, and future directions ”, The American Review of Public Administration , SAGE Publications Sage CA , Los Angeles, CA , Vol.  40 , pp.  522 - 545 .

Porter , M.E. ( 1990 ), “ The competitive advantage of nations ”, Harvard Business Review , Cambridge, Massachusetts , Vol.  68 , pp.  73 - 93 .

Remmers , C. , Topolinski , S. and Koole , S.L. ( 2016 ), “ Why being mindful may have more benefits than you realize: mindfulness improves both explicit and implicit mood regulation ”, Mindfulness , Vol.  7 No.  4 , pp.  829 - 837 .

Ritter , S.M. ( 2014 ), “ Creativity—the unconscious foundations of the incubation period ”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience , Vol.  8 No.  1 , pp. 1 - 10 .

Rodrigues and Franco ( 2019 ), “ The corporate sustainability strategy in organisations: a systematic review and future directions ”, Sustainability , Vol.  11 No.  22 , p. 6214 .

Sahay , A. ( 2019 ), “ Strategic thinking: my encounter ”, IBA Journal of Management and Leadership , Vol.  10 No.  2 , pp.  7 - 14 .

Sarraf , F. and Nejad , S.H. ( 2020 ), “ Improving performance evaluation based on balanced scorecard with grey relational analysis and data envelopment analysis approaches: case study in water and wastewater companies ”, Evaluation and Program Planning , Vol.  79 , 101762 .

Sauter , V.L. ( 1999 ), “ Intuitive decision-making ”, Communications of the ACM , Vol.  42 No.  6 , pp. 109 - 115 .

Simon , H.A. ( 1976 ), “ From substantive to procedural rationality ”, 25 Years of Economic Theory , Springer , Boston, MA , pp. 65 - 86 .

Sinnaiah , T. , Adam , S. and Mahadi , B. ( 2023 ), “ Conflict resolution styles and organisational performance: the mediating role of cultural factor ”, IJARBSS , Vol.  13 No.  1 , pp. 1027 - 1037 .

Stanczyk , A. , Foerstl , K. , Busse , C. and Blome , C. ( 2015 ), “ Global sourcing decision-making processes: politics, intuition, and procedural rationality ”, Journal of Business Logistics , Vol.  36 No.  2 , pp.  160 - 181 .

Steptoe‐Warren , G. , Howat , D. and Hume , I. ( 2011 ), “ Strategic thinking and decision making: literature review ”, Journal of Strategy and Management , Vol.  4 No.  3 , pp. 238 - 250 .

Sukhov , A. , Sihvonen , A. , Netz , J. , Magnusson , P. and Olsson , L.E. ( 2021 ), “ How experts screen ideas: the complex interplay of intuition, analysis and sensemaking ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol.  38 No.  2 , pp.  248 - 270 .

Supramaniam , S. and Singaravelloo , K. ( 2020 ), “ Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction and organisational performance in the Malaysian public administration ”, Institutions and Economies , Vol.  12 No.  1 , pp. 77 - 98 .

Tabesh , P. and Vera , D.M. ( 2020 ), “ Top managers' improvisational decision-making in crisis: a paradox perspective ”, Management Decision , Vol.  58 No.  10 , pp.  2235 - 2256 , doi: 10.1108/MD-08-2020-1060 .

Temprano-García , V. , Rodríguez-Escudero , A.I. and Rodríguez-Pinto , J. ( 2018 ), “ Brand deletion: how the decision-making approach affects deletion success ”, BRQ Business Research Quarterly , Vol.  21 No.  2 , pp.  69 - 83 .

Tsai , F.M. , Bui , T.-D. , Tseng , M.-L. , Wu , K.-J. and Chiu , A.S. ( 2020 ), “ A performance assessment approach for integrated solid waste management using a sustainable balanced scorecard approach ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  251 , 119740 .

Wang , T. , Wu , J. , Gu , J. and Hu , L. ( 2021 ), “ Impact of open innovation on organizational performance in different conflict management styles: based on resource dependence theory ”, International Journal of Conflict Management , Vol.  32 No.  2 , pp. 199 - 222 .

Zander , T. , Horr , N.K. , Bolte , A. and Volz , K.G. ( 2016 ), “ Intuitive decision making as a gradual process: investigating semantic intuition-based and priming-based decisions with fMRI ”, Brain and Behavior , Vol.  6 No.  1 , e00420 .

Zhu , Y. , Ritter , S.M. , Müller , B.C. and Dijksterhuis , A. ( 2017 ), “ Creativity: intuitive processing outperforms deliberative processing in creative idea selection ”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , Vol.  73 , pp.  180 - 188 .

Zhu , X.S. , Wolfson , M.A. , Dalal , D.K. and Mathieu , J.E. ( 2021 ), “ Team decision making: the dynamic effects of team decision style composition and performance via decision strategy ”, Journal of Management , Vol.  47 No.  5 , pp.  1281 - 1304 .

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the administration of Azman Hashim International Business School, Block T08, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, for providing the facilities and the PhD Scholar room during this research.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

How To Write A Strategic Plan In 6 Steps + Examples

Gone are the days of rigid, 5 or 10-year planning cycles that don't leave room for flexibility and innovation. To stay ahead of the curve, you need a dynamic and execution-ready strategic plan that can guide your business through the ever-evolving landscape.

In this article, we'll show you how to write a strategic plan in 6 simple steps . By the end, you'll have a comprehensive, actionable strategic plan that will help you align your organization on the path to success.

💡Pro tip : Use our customizable, free Strategic Planning Template that includes all the key elements of a strategic plan to streamline your strategic planning process.

Follow this guide step-by-step, or skip to the part you're most interested in:

• Pre-Planning Phase: Build The Foundation
• Key Elements of a Strategic Plan

How To Write A Strategic Plan In 6 Simple Steps

Develop an iterative strategic planning process, 3 strategic plan examples to get you started, how to achieve organizational alignment with your strategic plan.

• Quick Overview of Key Steps In Writing A Strategic Plan

Create An Execution-Ready Strategic Plan With Cascade 🚀

Before jumping into the planning phase, it's essential to lay the groundwork.

Pre-Planning Phase: Build The Foundation 

Your strategic planning process should start well before you write your strategic plan. The pre-planning phase is crucial for gathering the data and strategic insights necessary to create an effective plan.

1. Conduct Strategic Analysis

Strategic analysis is a crucial step before writing your strategic plan. It's like building a house – you wouldn't start constructing the walls without a strong foundation, and the same goes for strategic planning. It equips you with the knowledge and insights to create a strategic plan that is well-targeted, addresses your actual situation, and positions your organization for success.

Use a strategic framework like GAP analysis , SWOT analysis , Porter's Five Forces , Ansoff matrix , McKinsey 7S model , or GE matrix to structure your analysis sessions. Incorporating a risk matrix can also help align and decide on key strategic priorities.

Additionally, consider running a strategic planning workshop with your team. Co-creating the plan with stakeholders is a significant advantage, as it fosters a sense of ownership and increases the likelihood of successful strategy execution . According to McKinsey , initiatives where employees contribute to development are 3.4 times more likely to succeed .

2. Choose your strategic planning model

Before creating your strategic plan, decide on the structure you will use. There are hundreds of ways to structure a strategic plan. You've likely heard of famous strategic models such as OKRs and the Balanced Scorecard .

But beyond the well-known ones, there's also a myriad of other strategic planning models . However, many models that work well on paper often fail to meet organizational needs in practice.

Common issues with many models include:

• Complexity: People get lost in terminology rather than focusing on execution
• Scalability: They work well for small organizations but fail when extended across multiple teams
• Rigidity: They force unnecessary layers, hindering flexibility
• Lack of measurability: They state outcomes well but fail to help measure success
• Adaptability: They don’t adjust well to changing economic landscapes

Our goal is to provide a simpler, more effective way to write a strategic plan. The Cascade Strategy Model , refined over years of working with +20,000 teams, offers a proven approach to strategic planning that is adaptable, scalable, and effective for organizations of all sizes.

In the following sections, we'll explore the key elements and steps to write a strategic plan based on the Cascade Model.

Key Elements Of A Strategic Plan

The key elements of a strategic plan using the Cascade Model work together to create a clear and actionable roadmap for your organization.

Think of it as a step-by-step guide, where each element builds upon the previous one: 

• Vision: Where do you want to get to? 
• Values: How will you behave on the journey? 
• Focus Areas: What are going to be your strategic priorities? 
• Strategic objectives: What do you want to achieve? 
• Actions and projects: How are you going to achieve the objectives? 
• KPIs: How will you measure success?

These interconnected elements ensure everyone in your organization is aligned on your overall strategy . Above all, the Cascade Model is intended to be execution-ready—in other words, it has been proven to deliver success far beyond strategic planning.

To create a powerful strategic plan, follow this clear, step-by-step process using the Cascade Model.

💡 Pro Tip : If you want to follow along as we cover each step, you can use our Strategic Planning Template spreadsheet (Excel format), or, for the best experience, sign up for instant access to our free Strategic Planning Template in Cascade .

Your vision statement is your organization's anchor - it defines where you want to get to .

A good vision statement can help funnel your strategy towards long-term goals that matter the most to your organization, and everything you write in your plan from this point on will help you get closer to achieving your vision.

Trying to do too much at once is a surefire way to sink your strategic plan. By creating a clear and inspiring vision statement, you can avoid this trap and provide guidance and inspiration for your team.

For example, a bike manufacturing company might have a vision statement like, “To be the premier bike manufacturer in the Pacific Northwest.” This statement clearly articulates the organization's goals and is a powerful motivator for the team.

In short, don't start your strategic plan without a clear vision statement. It will keep your organization focused and help you navigate toward success.

📚 Recommended read: How to Write a Vision Statement (With Examples, Tips, and Formulas)

Alongside your organization’s vision, a well-crafted mission statement is essential. It succinctly defines your purpose, culture, goals, and values, serving as a foundation for your strategic plan. Ensure your mission statement is clear and aligns with your organization’s vision to drive cohesive and effective strategies.

Values are the enablers of your vision statement —they represent how your organization will behave as you work towards your strategic goals.

Make sure to integrate your organization's core values into everyday operations and interactions. In today's highly-competitive world, it's crucial to remain steadfast in your values and cultivate an organizational culture that's transparent and trustworthy.

Companies with the best company cultures consistently outperform competitors and their average market by up to 115.6%, as reported by Glassdoor . 

For example, a bike manufacturing company might have core values like:

• Accountability

These values reflect the organization's desire to become the leading bike manufacturer, while still being accountable to employees, customers, and shareholders.

👉 You can create and add your values, mission and vision statements directly in Cascade . This ensures your company's core principles remain top of mind for everyone.

📚When you're ready to start creating some company values, check out our guide, How To Create Company Values .

3. Focus Areas

Your focus areas are the strategic priorities that will keep your team on track and working toward the company's mission statement and vision. They represent the high-level areas that you need to focus on to achieve desired business outcomes.

In fact, companies with clearly defined priorities are more likely to achieve their objectives. According to a case study by the Harvard Business Review , teams that focus on a small number of key strategic initiatives are more likely to succeed than those that try to do too much. 

Rather than spreading your resources too thin over multiple focus areas, prioritize three to five. 

Following our manufacturing example above, some good focus areas include:

• Aggressive growth
• Producing the nation's best bikes
• Becoming a modern manufacturer
• Becoming a top place to work

Your focus areas should be tighter in scope than your vision statement, but broader than specific goals, time frames, or metrics. 

With a clear set of focus areas, your team will be better able to prioritize their work and stay focused on the most important things, which will ultimately lead to better business results.

👉 In Cascade, you can add focus areas while creating or importing an existing strategic plan from a spreadsheet.

With Cascade's Focus Area deep-dive functionality, you will be able to: 

• Review the health of your focus areas in one place
• Get a breakdown by plans, budgets, resources, and people behind each strategic priority
• See something at-risk? Drill down into each piece of work regardless of how many plans it's a part of

📚 Recommended read: Strategic Focus Areas: How to create them + Examples

4. Strategic Objectives

Strategic objectives are the specific and measurable outcomes you want to achieve . While they should align with your focus areas, they should be more detailed and have a clear deadline. 

According to the 2022 State of High Performing Teams report , there is a strong correlation between goals and success not only at the individual and team level but also at the organizational level. Here's what they found: 

• Employees who are unaware of their company's strategic goals are over three times more likely to work at a company experiencing a revenue decline than employees who are aware of the goals 
• Companies with shrinking revenues are almost twice as likely to have employees with unclear work expectations.

Jumping straight into actions without defining clear objectives is a common mistake that can lead to missed opportunities or misalignment between strategy and execution.

To avoid this pitfall, we recommend you add between three and six objectives to each focus area .

It's here that we need to start being a bit more specific for the first time in your strategic planning process. Let's take a look at an example of a well-written strategic objective:

• Continue top-line growth that outpaces the industry by 31st Dec 2023.

This is too specific to be a focus area. While it's still very high level, it indicates what the company wants to accomplish and includes a clear deadline. Both these aspects are critical to a good strategic objective.

Your strategic objectives are the heart and soul of your plan, and you need to ensure they are well-crafted. So, take the time to create well-planned objectives that will help you achieve your vision and lead your organization to success.

👉 Adding objectives in Cascade is intuitive, straightforward, and accessible. With one click, you'll open the objective sidebar and fill out the details. These can include a timeline, the objective's owner, collaborators, and how your objective will be measured (success criteria).

📚 Recommended read: What are Strategic Objectives? How to write them + Examples

5. Actions and projects

Once you've defined your strategic objectives, the next step is to identify the specific strategic initiatives or projects that will help you achieve those objectives . They are short-term goals or actionable steps you or your team members will take to accomplish objectives. They should leverage the company's resources and core competencies. 

Effective projects and actions in your strategic plan should: 

• Be specific 
• Contain a deadline
• Have an owner
• Align with at least one of your strategic objectives
• Provide clarity on how you or your team will achieve the strategic objective

Let's take a look at an example of a well-written project continuing with our bike manufacturing company using the strategic objective from above:

Strategic objective: Continue top-line growth that outpaces the industry by 31st Dec 2023.

Project: Expand into the fixed gear market by 31st December 2023.

This is more specific than the objective it links to, and it details what you will do to achieve the objective.

Actions and projects are where the rubber meets the road. They connect the organizational strategic goals with the actual capabilities of your people and the resources at their disposal. Defining projects is a vital reality check every strategic plan needs.

👉You can create actions and projects easily in Cascade! From the Objective sidebar, you can choose to add a project or action under your chosen objective. In the following steps, you can assign an owner and timeline to each action or project.

Plus, in Cascade, you can track the progress of each project or action in four different ways. You can do it manually, via milestones, checklists, or automatically by integrating with Jira and 1000+ other available integrations .

📚 Recommended read: What are Strategic Initiatives? How to Develop & Execute + Examples

6. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Measuring progress towards strategic objectives is essential to effective strategic control and business success. That's where Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) come in.

KPIs are measurable values that track progress toward achieving key business objectives . They help you stay on track and focused on your organization's strategic goals.

To get the most out of your KPIs, make sure you link them to a specific goal or objective. This way, you'll avoid creating KPIs that don't contribute to your objectives and distract you from focusing on what matters. 

Ideally, you will add both leading and lagging KPIs to each objective so you can get a more balanced view of how well you're progressing. Leading KPIs can indicate future performance, while lagging KPIs show how well you've done in the past.

Think of KPIs as a form of signpost in your organization. They provide critical insights that inform business leaders of their organization's progress toward key business objectives. Plus, they can help you identify opportunities faster and capitalize on flexibility.

👉 In Cascade , you can add measures while creating your objectives or add them afterward. Open the Objective sidebar and add your chosen measure.

When you create your Measure, you can choose how to track it. Using Cascade, you can track it manually or automatically. You can automate tracking via 1000+ integrations , including Excel spreadsheets and Google Sheets . This way, you can save time and ensure that your team has up-to-date information for faster and more confident decision-making.

📚 Recommended reads:

• 10 Popular KPI Software Tools To Connect & Visualize Your Data (2024 Guide)
• ‍ How To Track KPIs To Hit Your Business Goals

Developing an iterative strategic planning process is essential for staying adaptable and responsive to change. This approach involves continuously reviewing and refining your strategies to ensure they remain relevant in a dynamic business environment. Regularly assess your plan's effectiveness, gather stakeholder feedback, analyze performance data, and make necessary adjustments.

This cycle of strategic planning, execution, and evaluation helps identify areas for improvement, fosters innovation, and keeps your organization aligned with its long-term goals. By adopting an iterative strategic planning process, you can navigate challenges more effectively and maintain a competitive edge.

📚 Check out our article Develop An Iterative Strategic Planning Process to dive into this topic

Corporate Strategic Plan 

Following the steps outlined above, you should end up with a strategic plan that looks something like this:

This is a preview of a corporate strategic plan template that is pre-filled with examples. Here, you can use the template for free and begin filling it out to align with your organization's needs. Plus, it's suitable for organizations of all sizes and any industry. 

Once you fill in the template, you can also switch to the timeline view. You'll get a complete overview of how the different parts of your plan are distributed across the roadmap in a Gantt chart view.

This template will help you create a structured approach to the strategic planning process, focus on key strategic priorities, and drive accountability to achieve necessary business outcomes. 

👉 Get your free corporate strategic plan template here.

Coca-Cola Strategic Plan

Need a bit of extra inspiration with your plan? Check out this strategic plan example, inspired by Coca-Cola's business plan:

This strategic planning template is pre-filled with Coca-Cola's examples so you can inspire your strategic success on one of the most iconic brands on the planet. 

👉 Grab your free example of a Coca-Cola strategic plan here.

The Ramsay Health Care expansion strategy

Ramsay Health Care is a multinational healthcare provider with a strong presence in Australia, Europe, and Asia.

Almost all of its growth was organic and strategic. The company founded its headquarters in Sydney, Australia, but in the 21st century, it decided to expand globally through a primary strategy of making brownfield investments and acquisitions in key locations.

Ramsay's strategy was simple yet clever. By becoming a majority shareholder of the biggest local players, the company expanded organically in each region by leveraging and expanding their expertise.

Over the last two decades, Ramsay's global network has grown to 460 locations across 10 countries with over $13 billion in annual revenue.

📚 Recommended read: Strategy study: The Ramsay Health Care Growth Study

✨ Bonus resource: We've created a list of the most popular and free strategic plan templates in our library that will help you build a strategic plan based on the Cascade model explained in this article. You can use these templates to create a plan on a corporate, business unit, or team level.

We highlighted before that other strategic models often fail to scale strategic plans and goals across multiple teams and organizational levels. 

In an ideal world, you want to have a maximum of two layers of detail underneath each of your focus areas. This means you'll have a focus area, followed by a layer of objectives. Underneath the objectives, you'll have a layer of actions, projects (or strategic initiatives), and KPIs.

If you have a single team that's responsible for the strategy execution, this works well. However, how do you implement a strategy across multiple and cross-functional teams? And why is it important? 

According to LSA research of 410 companies across 8 industries, highly aligned companies grow revenue 58% faster and are 72% more profitable. And this is what Cascade can help you achieve. 

To achieve achieve organization-wide alignment with your strategic plan and impact the bottom line, there are two ways to approach it in Casade: through contributing objectives or shared objectives .

1. Contributing objectives

This approach involves adding contributing objectives that link to your main strategic objectives, like this:

For each contributing objective, you simply repeat the Objective → Action/Project → KPI structure as follows:

Here's how you can create contributing objectives in Cascade: 

Option A: Create contributing objectives within the same plan 

This means creating multiple contributing objectives within the same strategic plan that contribute to the main objective. 

However, be aware that if you have a lot of layers, your strategic plan can become cluttered, and people might have difficulty understanding how their daily efforts contribute to the strategic plan at the top level. 

For example, the people responsible for managing contributing objectives at the bottom of the plan ( functional / operational level ) will lose visibility on how are their objectives linked to the main focus areas and objectives (at a corporate / business level ). 

This approach is best suited to smaller organizations that only need to add a few layers of objectives to their plan.

Option B: Create contributing objectives from multiple strategic plans linking to the main objective

This approach creates a network of aligned strategic plans within your organization. Each plan contains a set of focus areas and one single layer of objectives, each with its own set of projects, actions, and KPIs. This concept looks like this:

This example illustrates an objective that is a main objective in the IT strategic plan , but also contributes to the main strategic plan's objective.

For example, let's say that your main business objective is to improve customer satisfaction by reducing product delivery time by 25% in the next quarter. This objective requires multiple operational teams within your organization to work together to achieve a shared objective. 

Each team will create its own objective in its plan to contribute to the main objective: 

• Logistics team: Reduce the shipment preparation time by 30%
• IT team: Implement new technology to reduce manual handling in the warehouse
• Production team: Increase production output by hour for 5%   

Here's how this example would look like within the Cascade platform:

Although each contributing objective was originally created in its own plan, you can see how each contributing objective relates to the main strategic objective and its status in real-time.

2. Shared objectives

In Cascade, shared objectives are the same objectives shared across different strategic plans.

For example, you can have an objective that is “Achieve sustainable operations” . This objective can be part of the Corporate Strategy Plan, but also part of the Operations Plan , Supply Chain Plan , Production Plan, etc. In short, this objective becomes a shared objective between multiple teams and strategic plans. 

This approach helps you to:

• Cascade your business strategy as deep as you want across a near-infinite number of people while maintaining strategic alignment throughout your organization .
• Create transparency and a much higher level of engagement in the strategy throughout your organization since objective owners are able to identify how their shared efforts contribute to the success of the main business objectives.

The more shared objectives you have across your organization, the more your teams will be aligned with the overarching business strategy. This is what we call " alignment health ”. 

Here's how you can see the shared objectives in the alignment map and analyze alignment health within Cascade:

You get a snapshot of how your corporate strategic plan is aligned with sub-plans from different business units or departments and the status of shared objectives. This helps you quickly identify misaligned strategic initiatives and act before it's too late.  Plus, cross-functional teams have better visibility of how their efforts contribute to shared objectives. 

So whether you choose contributing objectives or shared objectives, Cascade has the tools and features to help you achieve organization-wide alignment and boost your bottom line.

Quick Overview Of Key Steps In Writing A Strategic Plan

Here's a quick infographic to help you remember how everything connects and why each element is critical to effective strategic planning:

This simple answer to how to write a strategic plan avoids confusing jargon and has elements that the whole organization can both get behind and understand. 

💡Tip: Save this image or bookmark this article for your next strategic planning session.

If you're struggling to write an execution-ready strategic plan, the Cascade Strategy Model is the solution you've been looking for. With its clear, easy-to-understand terminology, and simple linkages between objectives, projects, and KPIs, you can create a plan that's both scalable and flexible.

But why is a flexible and execution-ready strategic plan so important? It's simple: without a clear and actionable plan, you'll never be able to achieve your business objectives. By using the Cascade Strategic Planning Model, you'll be able to create a plan that's both tangible and measurable, with KPIs that help you track progress towards your goals.

However, the real value of the Cascade framework lies in its flexibility . By creating links between main business objectives and your teams' objectives, you can easily scale your plan without losing focus. Plus, the model's structure of linked layers means that you can always adjust your strategy in response to new challenges to easily develop an iterative strategic planning process. 

So if you want to achieve results with your strategic plan, start using Cascade today. With its unique combination of flexibility and focus, it's the perfect tool for any organization looking to master strategy execution and succeed in today's fast-paced business world. 

Want to see Cascade in action? Get started for free or book a 1:1 demo with Cascade's in-house strategy expert.

This article is part one of our mini-series "How to Create a Strategy". This first article will give you a solid strategy model for your plan and get the strategic thinking going.

Think of it as the foundation for your new strategy. Subsequent parts of the series will show you how to create the content for your strategic plan.

Articles in our "How To Create a Strategy" series

• How To Write A Strategic Plan In 6 Steps + Examples (This article)
• How to Write a Good Vision Statement
• How To Create Company Values
• Creating Strategic Focus Areas
• How To Write Strategic Objectives
• How To Create Effective Projects
• How To Write KPIs + Ultimate Guide To Strategic Planning

More resources on strategic planning and strategy execution: 

• 6 Steps to Successful Strategy Execution
• 4-Step Strategy Reporting Process (With Template)
• Annual Planning: Plan Like a Pro In 5 Steps (+ Template) 
• 18 Free Strategic Plan Templates (Excel & Cascade) 2024
• The Right Way To Set Team Goals
• 23 Best Strategy Tools For Your Organization in 2024

Popular articles

Annual Planning: 5 Easy Steps To Plan Next Year (+Template)

11 Best Strategic Frameworks For Your Organization + Free eBook

Strategic Analysis Complete Guide: Definition, Tools & Examples

6 Steps To Successful Strategy Execution & Best Practices

Your toolkit for strategy success.