Expert answer:complete the assignment

Expert answer:To complete the Assignment, write a 100- to 150- word paraphrase with the citation and reference list in a Word document and submit it using the appropriate link. Please remember that the goal is to paraphrase (and there are many good examples in the article you picked to read) and not a summary. If you have any questions, please contact your Instructor.
the_future_of_public___nonprofit_strategic_planning.pdf

the_effect_of_law_enforcement.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

John M. Bryson
University of Minnesota
The Future of Public and Nonprofit Strategic Planning
in the United States
Strategic planning is now a ubiquitous practice in U.S.
governments and nonprofit organizations. The practice
has become widespread for many reasons, but the chief
one is the evidence that strategic planning typically
“works,” and often works extremely well. Improvements
in strategic planning practice are likely to come as it is
seen and researched in its full richness as a practice, or
set of practices. Several predictions are offered about the
future of strategic planning practice and research.
Guest editors’ note: In 1942, the University of Chicago
Press published a book edited by Leonard D. White titled
The Future of Government in the United States. Each
chapter in the book presents predictions concerning the
future of U.S. public administration. In this article, John
M. Bryson examines John Vieg’s predictions on the future
of government planning published in that book, comments
on whether Vieg’s predictions were correct, and then looks
to the future to examine public administration in 2020.
O
ver the last 25 years, strategic planning has
become a ubiquitous practice in U.S. governments and nonprofit organizations (e.g.,
Berman and West 1998; Berry and Wechsler 1995;
Brudney, Hebert, and White 1999; Poister and Streib
2005; Stone, Bigelow, and Crittenden 1999). While
there is a dearth of large-sample studies demonstrating its effectiveness one way or the other (Poister, Pitt,
and Edwards 2010), there are numerous in-depth
case studies indicating its usefulness at different levels
of government, in nonprofit organizations, and for
collaborations. Experience demonstrates that strategic
planning can be used successfully by
• Public agencies, departments, or major organizational divisions (e.g., Barzelay and Campbell 2003;
Bryson 2004a)
• General purpose governments, such as city,
county, state, or tribal governments (e.g., Hendrick
2003; Kissler et al. 1998)
• Nonprofit organizations providing what are essentially public services (e.g., Stone, Bigelow, and
Crittenden 1999; Vilà and Canales 2008)
• Purpose-driven interorganizational networks
(such as partnerships, collaborations, or alliances)
in the public and nonprofit sectors designed to
fulfill specific functions, such as transportation,
health, education, or emergency services (e.g.,
Burby 2003; Innes and Booher 2010; Nelson and
French 2002)
• Entire communities, urban or metropolitan
areas, regions, or states (e.g., Chrislip 2002; Wheeland 2004)
Part VI: The Past
as Prelude: Were
the Predictions of
Classic Scholars
Correct?
John M. Bryson is the McKnight
Presidential Professor of Planning and
Public Affairs in the Hubert H. Humphrey
School of Public Affairs at the University
of Minnesota. He works in the areas of
leadership, strategic management, and the
design of organizational and community
change processes.
E-mail: jmbryson@umn.edu
The benefits can be of many kinds, including,
• Promotion of strategic thinking, acting, and learning (e.g., understanding context, clarifying mission,
figuring out what strategies are best, negotiating
performance measures and standards, building
needed coalitions of support)
• Improved decision making (e.g., making decisions tied to organizational purposes and in light of
future strategic consequences)
• Enhanced organizational effectiveness, responsiveness, and resilience (e.g., meeting mandates, fulfilling mission, improved overall coordination and
integration, better performance control, satisfying
stakeholders according to their criteria, adapting to
environmental changes)
• Enhanced effectiveness of broader societal systems
(e.g., collaborating with others, often across sector
boundaries, to address broad public problems)
• Improved organizational legitimacy (e.g., based on
satisfying key stakeholders and creating real public
value at reasonable cost)
• Direct benefits for the people involved
(e.g., human and social capital building,
improved morale, fulfillment of job responsibilities, improved competency, enhanced job prospects, reduced anxiety)
Of course, there is absolutely no guarantee that any
of these potential benefits will accrue to individual
organizations or collaborations, but there is certainly
considerable evidence that many organizations have
The Future of Public and Nonprofit Strategic Planning S255
Strategic Planning and Strategic Management:
Definitions, Functions, and Approaches
As strategic planning became more widespread, the world of
practice began to focus on effective strategic
management, which embraces strategic planStrategic management may
ning and implementation. Strategic management may be viewed as the appropriate and
be viewed as the appropriate
reasonable integration of strategic planning
and reasonable integration
and implementation across an organizaof strategic planning and
tion (or other entity) in an ongoing way to
implementation across an
enhance the fulfillment of mission, meetorganization (or other entity) in ing of mandates, continuous learning, and
an ongoing way to enhance the
sustained creation of public value (see table
1). I define strategic planning as a deliberafulfillment of mission, meeting
tive, disciplined effort to produce fundaof mandates, continuous
learning, and sustained creation mental decisions and actions that shape and
guide what an organization (or other entity)
of public value.
is (its identity), what it does (its strategies
garnered some significant fraction of the benefits of strategic planning—and continue to do so as they gain more experience with it.
The remainder of this essay is in five parts:
First, I offer definitions for strategic planning and the broader concept of strategic
management, as well as discuss their functions and approaches to their fulfillment.
Second, I describe how and why I think
strategic planning has become standard
practice for most governments and nonprofit
organizations. Third, I argue that in order to
improve strategic planning in both practice
and theory, it is important to view it as a
practice. Fourth, I make some predictions
about how strategic planning practice may
change in the next decade. Finally, I offer
concluding thoughts.
Table 1 Strategic Management, Strategic Planning, and Implementation: Definitions, Functions, and Approaches
Strategic Management
The appropriate and reasonable integration of strategic planning and implementation across an organization (or other entity) in an ongoing way to
enhance the fulfillment of mission, meeting of mandates, continuous learning, and sustained creation of public value.
Functions
Strategic planning: “a deliberative, disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization (or other entity) is,
what it does, and why it does it” (Bryson, forthcoming).
Implementation: the ongoing effort to realize in practice an
organization’s mission, goals and strategies, the meeting of its
mandates, continuous organizational learning, and creation of
public value.
Designing and integrating kinds of work that have to be done in an a reasonably
formalized way, for the sake of clarifying organizational purposes, mandates, goals,
issues, strategies, and requirements for success; the work includes design and use
of deliberative settings to foster collective strategic thinking, acting, and learning
around key issues
Developing an appropriate formal strategic management system
in practice and the placement and role of strategic and operational planning within it
Addressing the kinds of work that should be done in a reasonably formalized way,
for the sake of building the enterprise’s capacity for, and delivery of, success over time;
the work includes designing a strategic management system linking purposes,
people, structures, processes, resources, political support, and learning in productive ways
Linking budgeting, performance measurement, and performance management to meet mandates; achieve agreed mission,
goals, strategies, and requirements for success; allow for desirable changes in ends and means to emerge over time; and
achieve significant public value
Clarifying the purpose and placement of the strategic planning function within a
governmental or nonprofit organizational design
Making use of forums and formative evaluations to tailor and
adjust strategies during implementation to increase chances
of success
Making use of forums and evaluations to help judge the
degree to which success has been achieved, and whether new
ends and means should be pursued
Approaches to
Fulfilling the
Functions
A strategic planning approach is a kind of response to circumstances recognized
as challenges that people judge to require a considered, collective, and often
novel strategic response.
There are several approaches to, or kinds of, strategic management systems (Bryson,2004a):
• Layered or stacked units of management, including use of
cascaded balanced scorecards to help with alignment
Such responses are part of complex social problem solving, inseparable—and
in many ways indistinguishable from—other parts of the same thing. Still, for
purposes of discussing enterprises in which planning plays a role, it is advantageous to use strategic planning to characterize this “part” of response scenarios to
challenges.
• Strategic issues management, including PerformanceStat
A widely used approach is the strategy change cycle (Bryson 2004a), which
includes attending to context and developing and linking purposes, strategies,
participation, and the coalitions of support needed to adopt desirable changes
and protect them during implementation, as well as building capacity for ongoing
implementation, learning, and change
systems (Behn 2008)
•
•
•
•
•
Guided incrementalism (Barzelay and Campbell 2003)
Contract models
Value chain management
Portfolio approaches
Collaboration models (Provan and Kenis, 2005):
O Lead organization
O Shared governance
O Partnership administrative organization
• Goals or benchmark approaches
• Hybrid models (i.e., combinations of two or more of the
above)
Source: Adapted in part from Barzelay and Bryson (2010).
S256 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special Issue
and actions), and why it does it (mandates, mission, goals, and the
creation of public value) (Bryson, forthcoming). Strategic planning
is not any one thing, but is instead an adaptable set of concepts,
procedures, tools, and practices intended to help people and
organizations figure out what they should be doing, how, and why
(Bryson 2004a, xii).
Implementation, on the other hand, encompasses the ongoing effort
to realize in practice an organization’s mission, goals, and strategies;
continuous organizational learning; and creation of public value.
Both strategic planning and implementation are action oriented and
mutually influence each other. The difference between the two is a
matter of emphasis. In strategic planning, frame setting and guidance for subsequent decision making prevail; in implementation,
the focus is on sustained action within the constraints of mandates,
mission, goals, and strategies, while being open to new learning that
may affect the framework for action. In practice, there should be
feed-forward and feedback loops between the two (Crossan, White,
and Lane 1999; Poister and Streib 1999).
The functions served by strategic planning and implementation are
also complementary. Strategic planning at its best involves reasonably deliberative and disciplined work around clarifying organizational purposes and the requirements and likely strategies for
success. The process, therefore, is meant to foster strategic thinking,
acting, and learning.1 Strategic planning also should focus on the
work of figuring out how to build organizational capacity for, and
delivery of, success over time. This includes deliberating on how to
link purposes, people, structures, processes, political support, and
learning in productive ways—in other words, how to pursue effective strategic management.
Finally, a key function of strategic planning efforts is to figure
out where and how best to lodge the function within an enterprise. The functions of implementation also encompass strategic
thinking, acting, and learning, but with more of a pronounced
emphasis on ongoing learning-by-doing in a very pragmatic way
within the constraints (which may be questioned) of established
mandates, mission, goals, and strategies (Dewey 1954; Hoch
2002, 2007; Simons 1995). Action learning (Eden and Huxham
2006) and organization development (Cummings and Worley
2008) are thus important parts of both strategic planning and
implementation, including learning focused on developing the
strategic management system so real public value is created and
sustained over time. Utilization-focused evaluation to facilitate
implementation and assess overall performance should be seen as
a complementary and necessary part of effective strategic management (Patton 2008).
Several practice-oriented academics and practitioners have developed distinctive approaches to strategic planning and implementation (e.g., Barry 1997; Bryson 2004a; Cohen, Eimicke, and
Heikkila 2008; Mulgan 2009; Niven 2008; Nutt and Backoff 1992;
Poister and Streib 1999). All agree, however, that there are no-onesize-fits all approaches. Strategic planning and implementation must
be adapted carefully to context, even though their purposes typically
include changing significant parts of the context. The starting point,
in other words, must be things as they are (Mulgan 2009; Scharmer
2009).
Strategic planning is also just one among many responses to
important challenges; in practice, the boundaries between “it” (as
an adaptable set of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices) and
other approaches (e.g., muddling through, chief executive decision
making with little consultation, acting on intuition, crystallizing
emergent ideas, prototyping and experimentation) are often quite
blurred. Nonetheless, strategic planning as a reasonably deliberative,
disciplined, yet flexible practice has characteristics and advantages
that distinguish it from other kinds of responses to challenges.
(Unfortunately, those advantages can be easily undermined if the
practice involves rigid adherence to an inflexible process that drives
out strategic thinking, acting, and learning.) Strategic management
systems in practice also often blur with other approaches to ongoing
implementation and learning.
How and Why Strategic Planning Has Become Standard
Practice
Strategic planning is typically pursued by senior elected officials
and/or general managers and focuses on an organization, collaboration, or community. At its best, it may be distinguished from other
kinds of planning by its intense attention to purpose, stakeholders, internal and external environmental assessment, major issues
requiring resolution, viable strategies for doing so, political savvy
and necessary coalition formation, focused action, the many aspects
of implementation (e.g., budgeting, performance measurement, and
evaluation), and ongoing learning (e.g., Bryson 2004a; Nutt and
Backoff 1992).2 Said differently, strategic planners at their best are
likely to think of organizations in relation to their environments as
flows of various kinds through time and across space, for example,
of people, resources, activities, decisions, attention, services, and so
forth. What strategic planning tries to do is inform and foster decisions and actions meant to affect something important about those
flows—for example, their direction, content, shape, size, volume,
speed, and/or integration—in order to improve their effectiveness, along with ongoing organizational capability, viability, and/or
legitimacy in the eyes of key stakeholders. Strategic planning of this
sort bears little resemblance to the characterizations of it by critics as
rigid, formulaic, excessively analytic, and divorced from implementation (e.g., Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 1998, 49–84). The
criticisms seem to be based primarily on an exegesis and critique of
historical texts and outdated private sector practice.
Planning in general has been part of public and nonprofit management for a long time (Friedmann 1987; Graham 1976; Hall 2002).
After all, it is the “P” in Luther Gulick’s (1937) famous acronym
POSDCORB, which stands for planning, organizing, staffing,
directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Strategic planning, of the sort described earlier, got a boost in 1942 from political
scientist, public servant, and political activist John Vieg, who argued
at the end of the Great Depression and the beginning of World War
II that the country had seen enough of negative planning (italics in
original), by which he meant “deliberately refraining from public
control over more than a few fields of social action in the confident
belief that all would then go well in the vast areas left ‘free.’” He
believed that the American people were “prepared to move toward
positive planning,” (italics in original), by which he meant “the
foreshaping of things to come” and “the experiment of a conscious
design of living that, at least in the essentials of existence, will leave
less to the play of chance” (Vieg 1942, 63).
The Future of Public and Nonprofit Strategic Planning S257
Vieg saw planning as an executive function related to advising decision makers and intended “to protect and promote the public interest and the general welfare” (65). In order to give decision makers a
broader view, he thought that planning should be more concerned
with synthesis than analysis. In his strategic view, planning was
needed at all levels. At the national level, the recent experience of
the Great Depression and the New Deal convinced policy makers of
the necessity for economic and social planning. Moreover, the need
for massive war planning was painfully obvious and pressing. The
only real prior precedents for national planning had occurred during
World War I (Graham 1976) and the Civil War (Faust 2008). Vieg
clearly recognized the limits of national planning and saw strong
arguments for subnational planning at the regional and state levels.
He also saw a crying need for broader and more effective municipallevel planning and planning for rural areas. Drawing on arguments
in Robert Walker’s influential book The Planning Function in Urban
Government (1941), Vieg asserted that municipal planning needed
to embrace all of the functions of city governments, not just the
physical functions of transportation, water, sewer, public facilities,
and parks.
Unfortunately, more strategic municipal planning of the sort Vieg
wished to see did not take hold until the 1980s. Until then, municipal planning primarily involved capital budgeting and so-called
comprehensive city planning—which was not comprehensive at
all, but limited to physical functions (Hall 2002). Strategic planning instead had become a primarily private sector phenomenon
(Bryson and Einsweiler 1988) and did not show up on the public
sector screen until Olsen and Eadie’s (1982) and Sorkin, Ferris, and
Hudak’s (1984) pathbreaking books. Mayors and city managers realized that strategic planning could help them gain intellectual and
practical control over their cities in a way that their city planners
could not or would not. In contrast to comprehensive planning,
strategic planning considered the full range of city functions and
stakeholders; the array of city strengths, weakness, opportunities,
and threats; strategic issues and what might be done about them,
and was very action oriented. At a time of resource shortages and
rising citizen activism, strategic planning helped senior managers
make substanti …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades