Agenda
Special Meeting of the
Bell City Council/Bell Community Housing Authority/Successor Agency to the Bell Community Redevelopment Agency/ Bell Public Finance Authority Saturday, October 7, 2023
9:00 A.M. OPEN SESSION
Camp Little Bear Park and Lodge
6704 Orchard Avenue, Bell, CA 90201
Fidencio J. Gallardo
Mayor
Ana Maria Quintana
Vice -Mayor
Alicia Romero
Council Member
Monica Arroyo
Council Member
Ali Saleh
Council Member
Welcome to the City Council Meeting
The Bell City Council and staff welcome you. This is your City Government.
Individual participation is a basic part of American Democracy and all Bell residents are encouraged to attend meetings of the City Council. Regular City Council meetings are held the second and fourth Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m., Bell Community Center, 6250 Pine Avenue. For more information, you may call City Hall during regular business hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday at (323) 588-6211 Extension 2615.
City Council Organization
There are five City Council members, one of whom serves as Mayor and is the presiding officer of the City Council. These are your elected representatives who act as a Board of Directors for the City of Bell. City Council members are like you, concerned residents of the community who provide guidance in the operation of your City.
Addressing the City Council
If you wish to speak to the City Council on any item which is listed or not listed on the City Council Agenda, please complete a Request to Speak Card available in the back of the City Council Chambers. Please submit the completed card to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. The Mayor will call you to the microphone at the appropriate time if you have filled out a Request to Speak Card. At that time, approach the podium and please clearly state your name and address, and proceed to make your comments.
Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act
The City of Bell, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodation(s) to access, attend, and or participate in a City meeting due to disability. Please contact the City Clerk's Office, (323) 588-6211, Ext. 2615, at least one business day prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure that we may assist you.
Statement Reqarding Compensation for Members of the Bell City Council Compensation for the members of the Bell City Council is $673 a month. In accordance with Government Code Section 54952.3, Councilmembers will not receive any additional compensation or stipend for the convening of the following regular meetings: Successor Agency to the Bell Community Redevelopment Agency, the Bell Community Housing Authority, the Bell Public Finance Authority, the Bell Surplus Property Authority, and the Bell Solid Waste Authority.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
Bell City Council/Bell Community Housing Authority/Successor Agency to the Bell Community Redevelopment Agency/Bell Public Finance Authority Saturday, October 7, 2023
9:00 A.M. Open Session
Location: Camp Little Bear Park and Lodge, 6704 Orchard Avenue, Bell CA 90201
MEETING WILL BE HELD IN-PERSON
PUBLIC COMMENT: If you wish to make a comment on items listed on the agenda, you may attend the meeting in-person at Bell Community Center. Please complete a Request to Speak Card available in the location and wait until the mayor calls you to approach the podium. Please clearly state your name and address and proceed to make your comments.
You may also submit input electronically through a temporary public comment email established for City of Bell City Council meetings at cityclerkpcityofbell org. Your written comment must be submitted by 6 pm on Friday, October 6, 2023. Any emails received after the time indicated will not be included in the record. Written Comments will be subject to the three minute time limitation (approximately 350 words).
The meeting will be recorded and live streamed on the City's website at httr):// www.cityofbell ora/?Elavl®=101 Call to Order
Roll Call of the City Council in their capacities as Councilmembers/Members of all Related Agencies: Arroyo, Romero, Saleh, Quintana, and Gallardo Pledge of Allegiance
Communications from the Public
This is the time members of the public may address the City Council and related Authorities and Agencies on items that are listed on the agenda only. (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) Business Session
1. Strategic Planning Workshop. (City Council)
Recommendation: Receive and File.
Next Regular Meeting, Wednesday, October 11, 2023
I, Angela Bustamante, City Clerk of the City of Bell, certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 5, 2023 at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting as required by law.
Angela Bustamante, City Clerk
Special Meeting of the
Bell City Council and Related Agencies
October 7, 2023
City of Bell
Strategic Planning/Goal Setting Workshop
October 7th, 2023
INTERVIEW RESULTS
QUESTION #1
What are the things that the City of Bell is doing well? Staff Responses:
Leadership/Communications
• Strong City Manager
• Engaged Executive Team
• Good communication between
departments
• No in -fighting
• Building an organizational culture
• Improving City Hall culture
• City Manager has created quarterly
meetings with employees
• Revising economic development approach
Community Services/Outreach
• Quality Community Services, Special
Events and Programs
• Social Media
• Outreach to the community is good
• Providing good services to the community
• Community interaction
• Providing great programming and services
to our residents
• Keeping the City clean
Use of Resources
• Doing more with less
• All department heads maximizing their
budgets
• Providing staff with tools to succeed
• Hiring more people
• Implement new technology
1 City Council Member Responses:
Leadership/Communications
• Good communication between Council
and staff
• Trying to meet target deadlines has
improved
• City Manager has done a good job of
moving us forward
Community Services/Outreach
• Taking care of infrastructure well
• The City is very clean
• The City is communicating well with its
residents
• Transparency/City Hall is an open book —
this is good
• Committed to our residents for services
• Maintaining services to the community
Use of Resources
• Manage restricted funds well
QUESTION #2
What are the areas you feel could be improved?
—Staff
Responses:
City Council Member Responses:
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
• Facility appearance and deferred
0 Old processes and systems
maintenance
0 Focus on areas of the City that need
• ARPA — technology platforms are tough
attention
Staffing/organizational Development
Staffing/Organizational Development
• Be able to recruit employees with technical
* We are understaffed/need more staffing
skills
• Competitive wages
Revenue/Finances
• Succession planning
• Finding new revenues
• Succession planning/get started
Revenue/Finances
Economic Development/Image
0 Economic development feels stagnant
• Need more revenue
9 Economic development
• Growing pains
* Business/economic development
Leadership/Communications
Strategic Plan
• Internal communication
• Need for a strategic plan
• Breaking down perceived department silos
• Be able to communicate in different
formats
• Improve digital communication
• Improve better communication at the staff
level
• Be better at educating the Council on what
the City's true needs are
• City Council is good right now
• City Council attitude is better
• Communication to residents
QUESTION #3
What are the top 5 challenges Bell faces?
Staff Responses:
City Council Member Responses:
Member
Leadership/Communications
leadership/Communications
z
leadership/Communication
Leadership/Communication
Council needs strategic education
heads are held accountable to
• D e r t s
• Better understanding of the dynamics
perform
between Council and staff
0 Reporting/communication can be improved
• Communicate better
* Need to develop trust
• How to prioritize
• Lack of understanding on how to prioritize
Revenue/Finances
and listen to financial recommendations of
* Budget/limited capacity
staff
9 Look for new revenues
• Improve communication with the City
9 Revenue challenged
Council and staff
* Resources are limited
Revenue/Finances
Staffing/Organizational Development
• Revenue
* Staffing crisis/revolving door at City Hall
• Lack of funding for critical needs i.e.
projects and people
Economic Development/Image
• Need more revenue
0 Economic development
• Revenue streams
a Economic development is slow
• We can improve the budget process
• Fiscal health
Staffing/Organizational Development
• High Part -Time Turn Over
• Losing key staff
• Succession planning can be challenging
• Succession planning
• Need more training for new staff
• Recruitment and retention
• Succession planning
• Have a competitive edge to keep
employees
• Employee recruitment and attraction
Economic Development/image
• Economic development is a priority
• Lack of Community Partners
• Implementing business development
strategy
• Economic development
• Bell Stigma
Infrastructure
0 Updating City Processes
QUESTION #4
What is the one thing Bell can do better'?
Staff Responses: Council Member Re`p—on�ses:
Economic 0m.n�
�City
Economic Development/ImageChange
• our narrative
4 Economic development — very important
• Market ourselves
* More aggressive economic development
• We can promote ourselves better —
* Take a deep dive into all facets of
internally/externally
development
Community Services/Outreach
# Develop relationships with our businesses
• Always provide better services
0 Economic development — we have done
• More aggressive outreach to the
nothing
community
• Communication with community
Community Services/Outreach
Enforcing
* some of our laws better i.e.
• Improve external communications
parking issues
Staffing/Organizational Development
* Street vendor permits
6 More staff
Staffing/Organizational Development
Leadership/Communications6
Staffing
• Improve internal communications
Revenue/Finances
• Digitize information
* Fiscal sustainability
QUESTION #5
What are your personal goals/interests for Bell (e.g. programs, projects, or processes)?
Staff Responses:
City Council Member Responses:
Revenue/Finances
Revenue/Finances
Need to get new revenue streams
* Higher income/revenue to our City
0 Look at how to reduce taxes
Community Services/Outreach
* Reimagine programs, activities, and
Community Services/Outreach
services
0 Safe City
* Develop a robust volunteer program
0 Clean City
* Enhanced senior and teen programming
0 Develop school collaborative initiatives
* Community resources
0 Stable government
Economic Development/image
Economic Development/Image
* Build Community Partners
* Progressive City with vision
* Make projects happen
0 Economic development — very frustrating —
* See physical change in the community
we haven't done anything
* Economic development
* Economic development
* Economic development
Infrastructure
* Develop Western Auto property
* Focus on cleaning up our records
0 Develop Sopp Chevrolet property
• Improve public records request process
* Economic development
* Move forward with technology
* Implement Neo Gov platform
Infrastructure
* Develop new systems and processes
* Manage City well
0 Constant adoption of best practices should
Staffinci
be reviewed
* Build a strong, prepared, mindful,
0 Think about the concept of a new City Hall
experienced team and culture
* Succession planning
* More staffing
* Recruitment/retention of qualified staff
* Competitive salaries
* Organizational development
QUESTION #6
What are your priorities?
I
Staff Responses:
City Council Member Responses:
Staffing/Organizational Development
Staffing/Organizational Development
• Building on our team/preservation of the
• Succession planning
• More training
existing staff
• Succession planning
• Staffing
• Succession planning
• Recruitment/retention
Infrastructure
• Developing staff
Think about the concept of a new City Hall
• Customer service
• Competitive salaries
Economic Development/Image
• Look at the workforce versus real goals
• Get "In and Out Burger"
• Organizational culture
• Economic development
• Economic development
Infrastructure
• Develop Western Auto property
• Best practices
• Develop Sopp Chevrolet property
Economic Development/Image
Revenue/Finances
• Economic development
• Higher income/more revenue for our City
• Economic development should be a
• Finding more revenue
priority
• Stable government
• Economic development
• Better Bell
Community Services/Outreach
• Connecting with schools
Revenue/Finances
• Maintaining our programming for
• Sales tax measure
community services
• Find ways to get additional revenue
• Safety for our residents
• Discal health
Community Services/Outreach
• Safe access to parks, services, and
activities
• Opportunities to engage residents
• Informed residents
• Use ARPT money for community
TARGET/PRIORITY #1 - PUBLIC SAFETY
GOALS/STRATEGIES (ACTIONS):
EXAMPLE
Goal #1: Continued Reduction in Crime
Actions:
Responsible:
Time Frame:
1. Continue to expand community
policing implementation plan.
Ann
6/22
2. Implement crime mapping system.
Steve
8/22
3. Create parolee service center.
Diane
12/22
4. Continue Operation Falling Sun
activities.
Dan
9/22
Goal #2: Explore Expanded Fire services
Actions:
Actions:
Responsible:
Time Frame:
1. Move station #37.
Sam
10/22
2. Expand new Eastern Station.
Sam
1/23
3. Create Fire Inspection Program.
Kim
2/23
4. Engage community involvement.
Kim
On-going
Goal #3: Continue Graffiti and Code Enforcement
Actions: Responsible: Time Frame:
1. Contract RFP for Graffiti Services. Pat 12/22
Goal #4: Emergency Preparedness
Actions:
Responsible:
Time Frame:
1. Heighten City preparedness/staff
training.
Bill
12/22
2. Promote community involvement in
emergency preparedness.
Bill
On-going
3. Establish EOC.
Rud
12/22
4. EOP Plan review.
Bill
6/23
Agenda
Strategic Planning
Worksheets
Interview Results
Pre -Workshop Reading:
i
Creating Tomorrow's
Government Leaders
- -
Pre -Workshop Reading: !
i
The Future of Strategic Planning in 1
the Public Sector: Linking j
Strategic Management and
Performance
IPre -Workshop Reading:
Practices for Effective Local
Government Leadership
Pre -Workshop Reading:
Four Steps to High -Impact
Strategic Planning In
Government
AGENDA
CITY OF BELL
STRATEGIC PLANNING/GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP
October 7t", 2023
9:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast
9:30 a.m. Call Meeting to Order and Introduction
-Welcome participants
-Overview of workshop's purpose and objective
9:45 a.m. Presentation of Interview Results
-Share findings from interviews conducted with the
participants
10:00 a.m. SWOT Analysis/Team Building Exercise - Group Break -Out (4 Groups)
• Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats
10:40 a.m. Break
10:50 a.m. Group Report Out (10 Minutes Each Group)
• Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats
11:40 a.m. Develop Targets
-Based on the SWOT analysis, identify specific objectives to focus on in the strategic plan.
-Discuss the desired outcomes and measurable outcomes,
metrics for each target.
12:00-12:30 p.m. Lunch Break
12:30 p.m. Review of Strategic Plan 2018
-Discuss the progress and achievements made since the last strategic plan.
12:40 p.m. Establish Goals
-Using the identified targets, work collaboratively to establish clear and actionable goals from the strategic plan.
-Ensure that goals align with the City of Bell's mission and vision.
2:15 p.m. Prioritization of Goals
-Review and prioritize the established goals based on their importance and feasibility.
-Discuss potential strategies for achieving each goal.
2:30 p.m. Wrap-up/Next Steps
-Summarize the key points discussed during the workshop. -Determine the next steps, including assigning responsibility for implementation and establishing timelines.
DYNAMICS& PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, INC.
Strategic planning is a is , rocas by which you
identify:
yyour local government exists
0 Whom it serves
U What benefits will be derived from the services it provides, and
0 The vise you have regarding how the citizens' needs can best be served.
The strategic plan is the result of this process, and serves as a blueprint for how your local government will achieve this vision.
SCrategic Planning
Ra s ic E -le, rn e n es
MISSION
The way you cornmunic-ate to your customers
(citizens to whom services are provided) and
other stakeholders (those with a vested interest)
whyyour local government exists, and
howthey benefit or are impacted.
Mission Statement Examples
"The City of Concord partners with our community to deliver excellent service, and plans for the future while preserving, protecting, and enhancing the quality of life."
"The City of Fallon's mission is to provide top-quality, fiscally responsible municipal services in a manner that promotes the high standards of our City. Further, the mission of our City's elected officials is to make the required decisions and set policy that furthers the best interests of our residents and the City."
VISION
Represents a future aspiration that is responsive
to the citizen's needs and concerns -
a `icture"of what your local
Government's future will look like.
Strategic Planning
Elements,
Bdsloc
VISION STATEMENT EXAMPLES
"Charlottesville: A Great Place to Live for All of Our Citizens:
• A leader in innovation, environmental sustainability, and social and economic justice, and healthy race relations
• Flexible and progressive in anticipating and responding to the needs of our citizens
• Cultural and creative capital of Central Virginia
• United community that treasures diversity"
"Cham ai is an inclusive community that welcomes all. City residents enjoy a great quality of life, first class educational opportunities and easy mobility. Champaign is a vibrant community with an active center city and healthy neighborhoods. The City is designed for quality and sustainability, and has a growing economy."
Strateg'ic Planni"ng
BaSIC E iemef 5
TARGETS
Represent the '�oill ars Flq or `categofries'of government services under which specific goals will be developed.
Targets will be identified following a group exercise
to evaluate internal and external
factors (SWOT-Analy-5i'5).
* Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Strategi c Planning
Basic Vernents
EXAMPLES OF TARGETS
Public Safety
Economic Development
Quality of Life
S.W.O.T. Analysis
Environmental Scan (Internal/External
Strategic Plann€ng
Basic Elements
GOALS
Goals are results oriented, broadstatements
of pofir-y or ineention and represent
particular aspects of the vision.
Goals will address "What results do we want?"
Strategic Planning
Basic Elements
EXAMPLE OF GOALS - CIN OF SEASIDE*
d Provide an increasingly safe community
Create vibrant, sustainable economic development
Provide leadership to obtain a sufficient water supply
for desired development and quality of life
Develop and implement a Quality Infrastructure
Improvement Program
Achieve and sustain fiscal health and wellness
For each goal, specific and measurable objectives were established for their six-month planning period.
ACTION PLANS (STRATEGIES
The action plans are the strategies/
key -• .n .•.
included is who is responsible and target dates for
completion of Identified steps.
The action plans will address "How are we going to do it?"
Strategic Plannin,,
Elements
et
EXAMPLE
TARGET/PRIORITY #1 - PUBLIC SAFETY
GOALS/STRATEGIES:
Goal #1: Increased Staffing
Actions:
Responsible:
Time Frame:
1. Add two new police officers/parcel
tax.
Mike
6/11
2. Fill one non -sworn vacancy. -Dave
Steve
3/11
Goal #2: Continued Reduction in Crime
Actions:
Responsible:
Time Frame:
1. Continue to expand community
policing implementation plan.
Ann
_
6/12
2. Implement crime mappings stem_.
Steve
8/13
3. Create parolee service center.
Diane
12/12
4. Continue Operation Falling Sun
activities.
Dan
9/13
The,-- Straiegfc Planning Cycle
How did we do?
How do we
get there?
How can we improve?
Where do we
want to go?
Strategic Planning
Basic Elements
SUMMARY
The Basic Elements of strategic planning (Mission,
Vision, SWOT Analysis, Targets, Goals and Action
Plans) comprises the Strategic Plan.
The Plan is the way "YourAgenda."is
communicated t® the citizens.
It's implementation is the way you insure that your
vision is achieved.
Strategic Planning
Continuous Cycle
The Strategic Plan is an evolvif?_q document
requiring routine oversight and in most cases,
fine-tuning.
MONITOR PROGRESS AND RE-EVALUATE
() How are we doing?
0 Are we meeting goals?
Where do we want to be at Year X .... Future Vision?
> What new factors have entered into the picture?
Monitor quarterly; re-evaluate Strategic Plan each
vinar
QUESTIONS?
. . . . . . Dili
Workshop Expectations
S.W.®.T. Analysis
Strengths
S.W.®.T. Analysis
Weaknesses
S.W.O.T. Analysis
Opportunities
S.W.®.T. Analysis
Threats
Targets
Target #1:
Goals/Strategies
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. Target #2®
3 0
3. j
a
A
w
E:]
a
Goals/Strategies
0 Target #3:
Goals/Strategies
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. Target #4:
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. Goals/Strategies
Ice
Target #5:
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. Goals/Strategies
11 Target #6:
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. Goals/Strategies
12 Target #7m
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. Goals/Strategies
13 Target #8:
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. Goals/Strategies
14 Tab 4,
handout will be
provided at the
session.
Al
Changing Nature
introduction: ]
of Leadership in Governrnient
at ve
rnFvent is changing Soda!
ne --,'4 0 r tis and !<.-._:., � a a,- e _ ea `.i ng a r e v,; ,i.. v e 1 a V transpa7mcl. GeneraNonal shils, MAMMA
---MLI AaHenges, and everxeseK
PC 3z charge andmumv the kods of
spiat_e,
VUCA is an ��as q,.Ay,
irts the leasership AxWom It est t_,5 tor
n i. z'
ard
McKshr &
x'. cur,M nuid fuv..,�,e
bo 1
Unni onggas and ther sodl mela cc W45M
pd, inc bma&22 rp_,.
This rRuart expims Me ie,,adlers
med !a be sumyfui 0 a VUCA awksmont A �!
V: jvinc
pment pirgrams 22 the Certer for OWN
We resuls Mche the V��,,p
-�:Vibes Or IM07 dnempmut in we gommmuz
Leadhg ChangfE
management AM-
iicn,v to, span� their
We pages Vat Now pronde demb an CCA My ard a�_,dlressnq each of these cmaj juadw wrompmem Ku .SUS.
Me "G�nx*s 360degMe survey insUmep,
scaes"
Me 9wd duTfors under pmssm-
zornpAex wcrk systems and rfngage in Fjexj..,jje
probnn-ss:ivirn.g' behaWor: an wol etatNwy
,�M.h h,,',gher mamagep�er,7, in desiiin-,, ,�J-�,
con-gpi,exi"ies of a rnan.ag-�T-,i�n.
Knows has, to Md and
MoMon wo&Ag reia*,:)nships
a, n,, -! e x� p a,- ties c a i-, j' e go, t . ai,,c -11 na: d wok problenns ,vitiihout akeri'-Iting pp"opiE:
underst;wds Men md is able to get thAr
i-,eladooships,
V 113S perseverance VV, WAS gxwh'�',
TA Kul in 002 Y Astades; takes zmaqa is ini o-,"Iher-5 a -7r" to in.rad e of ya7djrg
-n-
-mKer5 Pew
andl busir',,es:s lqmc�odedge,
—� n E � PM05 quvk and appax4vC,
Mandgar"EM
efechvel-ybi�-o,ip � ) ��
de;l-'s , ---ye , oopor�urjtys,
any nth %Nn., 7awnt AM Mpop:" am vans
'dent -e -i
arc "N- 1160 use? leafng o-;;tP
uses eff
ferr
Werog sews and
amen Tc "Oki zopsersus and to innuence other -5
i? -i �Z--'jAing
Ses MaNe suaygos
xMNAWN chwp
n' e. e "Awyne & Amp
4 Tom, nVors partes WQ[ Personal ife y:
F8440; � Pegwcy?
spgs WY nth m--'
, . Dormpsymes a rewpa Or
o5 '—ntak
ainu' js,?s
c1c onn p a t elinvc y R, a n k iin gs f or "-� "11h] 2 11 1D v; r to Too a 11 t S it C in or Though ani the competencies memured by Bemhrnarks play a role in effective leader5hip, respmldents we Med to ree thr-anca o;' the Q leadership skills tineir 3rga.F!jzai.JoF,,s hby seiect-7g -ie eigi't ti",e%/ see as mos,. irnportaMATe =ata are then compiled into a ,-an( ordering across aggregated ,-e5ccrses frcom, ti'ne go've, nment sector.
Tables VOT success RIVAnys
SvQXfxwaQre_,s
61 5
symog wo Mem,-g
S17
7 -s
Wg a QA! SWOi
4-,
stance between Pe"Ond We ant ICA
g
sommumn
Quing Peopie at On-
571corces kinna-
cn�y-
nt
a 1 Li uru
WAIJIS for
FinaHj 3enchmarks asm respoRdmus to rate leaders an Nve demkl-�en- th"':it j,,�csale s o" '-CL rcs.arch shcvi :-.an s,i&.!! or Yeak j, 7nanageroent came . They wcr,�dentillhed 'by a,sedes of A.... ,_.w compa sumeAlli -n �J - f,ve dlcrailmien*,,. facro,�'S
rS With, thme who wo had, d,.motred, cr pIaN,:,a,-, early� T'no c
rd "i 9 oal
ficrjfties iin, developing good AmOng reiz`,.��n.-P,5hips up cn rn,,ises a, -ornp�e, T, ?.g,' lacking
�,',;�Pun nev�ded' to imanag�-- oul, -s ciirr-z"I't
eicp, and, n,
1p resvopse to VkHakes
J io��
4 -rn, 5, ess�
s has be� a 1��ader,"--, e� ec,iveness and -� g 'e; z c 0 u ,.,,f the, 15ve ractor. � -,!7
anamh umm she nnos� s&i'io�, _s cera. fac",Or pacl� n
� s �r� '.ne- g:%v"zm
"too narr,_�v
pay",e to Met 3""russ Qmcdms
Y% Avg 0 m Amm
A 41 rn vi n -40, &1 ,
Uk., ILIH kill IP D JE! LAYOUT If) U11IMS
-Y 0 1
02A rese an h shows govem par c se0or rparagers are 7p
away such as moumMnes, a7,d ccmposL�, e, b-, =Idihg
'!�d Merding relaWnshiPs. decisiveness, and doing whatever it takes. Cleady govemmem leaders are recagnizea for their commi-mnenz, Service to, the nation, --�,Dwever, '0–cse same leaders AN S1 0 seve, WTOQ-t away ne gaps become evid'.it v,,Ke r me -Mc� 5 --oim SI:jcy are PICec ins,. ai -Simi"ie fer
ROME
My A0A.VV ;! vxas
8 ,Fnport.a—n! tor S1j;cCess Jhiv, peoPiL�
. .... . . � ss
"Sum; Ample 07 1psz�
31,anrces many -
W11 -
it is clear that those areas unere gavernment jeadas we most &Ifecl-ive do 001 align with., t"he seadership M ranked highes"', in importatic'e, 'cst signir"'c.'ant aMOilg the ,,-3MP 2P 7 -S N the abilky to ic-ad enmplc',vees. Whil'c' t�IS CaPabilit"; is ranked first among W &a&whQ in terms of :rportri nce, K rx*ed qVin ;n 3r2r3, f ac-uiai ie. ac,, -o
ss ---he govern.r,
sectoo K
itange IMPageTYPt anc pabcya-.�,e
among the top in Fo- succesi,
VVC-iat aire the im�)icaJor�s o' �hc5L f Pal-gs? leading or-Djoyees M Ae is �,,jpq cAVmg&& ire jeaoers cai beneft Forn IN,
g w e m rn e, A. s -M-b., r . I-
development or the key �kiPi to Creat -'e,
commAyiny amnig thAr emplowes. Me skits ir tKi a7ena Wdule aid Wing Gem& staN a' --'J
Govxrmcnt sacradeasen Vso oar Sam move :10001 TOSPOPNO9 M alc, c,`-argse an vp dweap a j,,_
rti,,:�se cue skar be AvIc5e',
h �niJatti.ies
WAh a cujc�. '�'er tivoe Overnoll. nt fe&ers 4!S,, -D :'an b lo -"x 2t.._.. tc
organi�za-�on,,,,i sijf,,and Imadeorg bed, their experienne aim! perspectwe
L
a dose the Wa0eMp gaps in the areas we4e ldeqtted
-Ir�d tx.,,hav7ons Ceq,,uvea and how Bey arBei
.,he SpE�citc
offer asta-;'ting pc)jPr f, -,(,,'-finders ,andIng wnat it takes ,,l e.cp effectve leade!ship WHIs in each of the three arvas ..a eked niosc-:Jtcato 'rhe ?C' avoiding 'he, iik)-��ke focus �,hat �--a,,n derad a caireE,,,-, -�i- �-eading Z'rnpicyees
Recent studies suggest thal ycwnger
weradons eqving tSe wc0place see
�ent as a standard
MUMMA fOr SUCCes, QvXts n to aak
*j�ey-',E often Anus an
p€re-gr ,kong,og hy
g, as
P"vAT" Old MaYng `-)ey
trabing and dweQpmu,v ..van.
Her Gyrn a boa! and deepfoutidal oir, for
Cmal"i? a STOWCAngave of Jnaaers,,nip-ma..
Se'ves 10 onrea5e Memy WHO the agely,
are
V leaders Wn the coni Rvie nce To manage
Vey nap see how Teo tedrM
,ILVe,' 'Nts irtO 7he Ereater whve so they ca,-;
"'J ".-i'anage zhange Deter
a.-noss the orgjr,�zatio�-- AAenrpr�r-,g offers
Knowledge and oger!nygm, When paired with
a Parke Hm ownwe yok own wCOM
pormQ y.
g
151
3. Pai-UCIP--'Uve Afianagemen Z
Alarvy ab -cut the fut,,A�-e fr
Or the, -nes: reiationsh,�ps,
MormKor, neMsks. technology, and
to remak: 11 they own M are
They wij create ar envkarrncert
of Namoi
We
;e CgiTO
vJP
20 TI organ Vali on, CLr Van 'N
'o
-rtabia. Ar,,'C be rea&Py
an'-ot
,,Dverlraent Majors muzz seek za go Tjevor�
externa!
"--reatc
'-e4,ionships anJ organizahanal synergiestha�
ev-e�,d tihe T-�eedis of cl;ecy-S av-'d s-'a".i .fit`_^'ars,
The Implications
n c s o n:
m ,-.eaders�hip Developme--int
ir an e-Wrommeq- mat is v,ate urter tor
1-
olaNzaWns cannot afford to put re5ources
chiev- -'re Tight ounomes
0awn daMopmen
emeakly w CIO;; :Akal
and anwAre jrAwkwal W
suvess. Mective and web
aired �eaders be aoi�� tc J-�
�, eed' s, man age dri e wort, and f nd in .ova r Me an d effeCtiVe S0jkjtjojjS
to COFTIpleX chai�enges.
go winmer, ag;--rici Z5 l,,a ie "7�z =app ort-iri Y to
reassess t�7e�r cir, ent +eavde'SNQ papa` i,Ly and
can begbi focused e9ons to devAup AS their
Waters need to today and To Te funure,
M
G«y��� :
z = a .� @
.� «<f..
./��y.
.� � � � }
;2
�»��.;: �. .
� « . z/ »..2. y / �: & * ?
\�^� ��\%
a. / .� :2.
.� �a�:� �
o Ir s -
Ellen Van Velsor, Phl), N a sei or fedovq a�. the Center for Creative Leadership ((:CL'),LHer areas o-Fexperdse
include the use and impac of feedback, gender
diferences in Mawr dMopment, hovv imanagers,
ex,
exec eriefut ana Te dqami�:s o -,`c-, L ;'v -2
derahmept, Eder is an edRa of Te CV40 0-c,-
leane-ships WHOM
6ossey-9ast Q38: 211012070, all'Ir2', is
,,;3 Te&nq Can Wron Out:
-ivas a
acK devebProart at Si"e
F�il
I �A, Z afl, 4� S C2e s �s 0 '- �c.3 n e
of
or ' , i..",a
Clemson Turmpno, Ph% is a Serilor OW M
aw Am= Y CM Coverr-nev Serso Ise Sops
aid ciedws easerY; 5eMOr 'WarY
and Sovonswo: is
SoMegiz Varrer iw-:. a,, .;; ser'or
yg4a- an, coy4k I n4an, A, yi�2c 7ank Ra�jwn
ex.Kene 0 me- --e �-'as
lei an AN Exwren-2s �r
zwnwly He evrew a mahn"s degme& secwty
and Mangy Ow ve LS WI' i'VIPA
Sc en;cc
legrees
EBIII Adams, PhD, �s a seznior 'FacW-,-y me.mber at ::ZL g
w h -,, -, a 1 e a d e --s h i p p! a m rns f Or, v'I e nod?sig; s arddlel�ve
--o,,-, 5��! is a +wmer career -Oikay US,
pubflc sec',
and, d-�-ecto,' of the centy for Enhanced
Pelowince a, WeSOint,
~ a Defo-,mwce Ma7cernent car; 110m,
e e re
mxE too loco Am, Mai M A 001d WO",
z3w aw ie -d ",,te -,-.,e,
for Enhwed -'e �s a
.l_, ,,. -.e
John Fleenor° Phi v a WON MKOV7
:- ano PSY)OMMOz
MeAwl He 7s
gy '� 'S 'o: A 0 At _c Ex 1 a
vedha n�' el -:' -� !�c -, i'll, ": '--'q cr-
Fwqjowcx vw ivinnages: A ReNew and QW -00"
De"
Qg8j and AVEM909 We 77105 1 3600WW
Feedbonk k2O0;S)OAr moidi vt NO ir WMI'S'
wgunlaYwa: DsywS,--,s'y --ejf7- �Or�l
es as 'a'7' 1 en
7o k2ur man abont iris topic or the center for Crenwe adersrt's wograrns and produco, please C."untact Our Client 5ervices teaim.
t' 800 780 101 � 1 33 5 3, 4 -3 2 3 10 i nfo @ Ca
1 PART VI:
THE PASTAS
PRELUDE: WERE
THE PREDICTIONS
OF CLASSIC
SCHOLARS
CORRECT?
Theodore H. Poister is a professor of
public management and Policy at the
Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at
Georgia State University. He has published
Nudely on strategic management and
performance measurement in the public
sector. His current research focuses on the
impact of strategy and strategic planning on
the performance of public transit systems in
the United States.
E-mail- ,poistertegsu.edu
Theodore H. Poister
Georgia State University
`Ifhe Future of Strategic Planning in the Public Sector: Linking Strategic Management and Performance
While it has become ubiquitous in the public sector- over the past 25 years, strategic planning will need to play a more critical role in 2020 than it does at present if public managers are to antic ivate and manage change
adroitly and effectively address new issues that are likely to emerge with increasing rapidity. This article argues that making strategy more meaningfil in the future
will require transitioning from strategic planning to
the broader process of strategic management, which
involves managing an agency's overall strategic agenda
on an ongoing rather than an episodic basis, as well
as ensuring that strategies are implemented effectively.
Complementing this move to more holistic strategic
management, we need to shift- the emphasis of the
performance movement from a principal concern with
measurement to the more encompassing process of
pe7formanee management over the coming decade in
order to focus more proactively on achieving strategic
goals and objectives. Finally, agencies will need to link their strategic management and ongoing performance
management processes more closely in a reciprocating
relationship in which strategizing is aimed largely at
defining and strengthening overall performance while
performance monitoring helps to inform strategy along
the way.
Guest editors' note: In 1942, the Universit l 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 con-
cerning the future of U.S. public
administration. In this article,
Theodore H. Poister examines
John Vieg's predictions on the
future ofgovernment planning
published in that book, comments
on whether Vieglf predictions were
correct not, and then looks to the
future to examine public adminis-
tration in 2020.
n 1942, John A. Vieg wrote that after a century
and a half of a deliberate lack of public planning
in this country, the kind of planning that had
arisen out of the New Deal's approach to the Great
Depression with vigorous government action was
"here to stay" because it was desperately needed, and
because the consequences of not planning would be
too costly. Since Then, planning has evolved over the
second half of the twentieth century, with city plan-
ning, metropolitan planning, regional planning, advo-
cacy planning, policy planning, program planning,
and—transitioning into the twenty-first century—
strategic planning all gaining prominence. Thus, plan-
ning has become firmly established in the American
governmental system, just as Vieg predicted.
In compelling fashion, many of Vieg's observations
regarding the nascent field of planning more than
60 years ago still ring true today. For example, the
purpose of planning is to "protect and promote the
public interest," and planners will endeavor to "weigh
all the relevant facts" but will also "use their disci- plined imagination" (Vieg 1942, 65). In addition,
Vieg asserted that planning should be a continuing
process, that planning is synthesis more than analy-
sis, and, above all, that "planning should be pointed
toward action" (67-68). These characterizations are
particularly relevant to strategic planning, as is Vieg's emphasis on the importance,
and the difficulty, of developing
consensus around the values on
which planning is predicated.
This article looks at the
mid-term future of strategic
planning in the public sector
from a managerial perspective
over the next decade to the year
2020.... it focuses on three
related movements ... that will
be essential in order for strategic
planning to assume a more
meaningful role in the United
States over the next 10 years.
5246 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special Issue This article looks at the mid-
term future of strategic plan-
ning in the public sector from a
managerial perspective over the
next decade to the year 2020.
After briefly reviewing the cur-
rent status of strategic planning
in public agencies, it focuses
on three related movements—a
transition from strategic plan -
ning to strategic management, a shift from performance measure- ment to performance management, and a closer linkage of strategic planning with performance management—that will be essential in order for strategic planning to assume a more meaningful role in the United States over the next 10 years.
Strategic Planning in the Public Sector
Strategic planning is concerned with formulating strategy. In his seminal book on strategic planning in the public and nonprofit sectors, Bryson presents strategic planning as a set of concepts, processes, and tools for shaping "what an organization (or other entity) is, what it does, and why it does it" (2004, 6). In the long run, its purpose is to promote strategic thinking, acting, and learning on an ongoing basis. Thus, strategic planning takes a "big picture" approach that blends futuristic thinking, objective analysis, and subjective evaluation of values, goals, and priorities to chart a future direction and courses of action to ensure an organization's vitality, effectiveness, and ability to add public value.
Virtually unheard of in government in the United States in 1980, strategic planning is now ubiquitous in the public sector at pres- ent, at least as measured by self-reported data. All federal depart- ments and agencies periodically develop and update strategic plans, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, and these efforts may well constitute the most thorough and advanced strategic planning activity carried out in the U.S. public sector today. Surveys also indicate that strategic planning has been widely adopted by state agencies (Berry 1995; Brudney, Hebert, and Wright 1999), and that many local government jurisdictions have been undertaking strategic planning efforts as well (Foister and Streib 2005).
However, the extent to which these efforts are worthwhile is not all that clear. Harry (2002) observes, for example, that the efforts of many public agencies that are nominally engaged in strategic planning are not meaningful because they fail to meet even mini- mal criteria such as identifying desired outcomes and developing strategies to achieve them. In addition, reports published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2004, 2005) found that while federal agency strategic planning had improved over initial efforts, in certain areas, federal managers had difficulty establishing outcome -oriented goals, addressing issues that cut across federal agencies, adequately soliciting or incorporating consultation from external stakeholders in strategic plans, relating annual goals to long-term goals, and identifying the budgetary, human resources, and other resources needed to achieve these goals. Critics have also asserted that the top-down, one -size -fits -all approach mandated by the Government Performance and Results Act limits agencies' abilities to tailor strategic planning efforts to their own needs and circumstances (Long and Franklin 2004; Roberts 2000).
On the other hand, case studies of strategic planning best practices in the U.S. military (Barzelay and Campbell 2003; Frentzel, Bryson, and Crosby 2000), along with case studies of strategic planning in local government (Hendrick 2003; Wheeland 2004), indicate that effective strategic planning on the part of public agencies can be instrumental in bringing about meaningful change. In addition, surveys of public managers in Welsh local authorities (Boyne and Gould -Williams 2003), as well as municipal governments in the United Stares (Pointer and Streib 2005), have found that strategic planning efforts are credited with bringing about improvements in both organizational capacity and performance. Furthermore, new case study research suggests that strategic planning was associ- ated with success in bringing about significant changes in several federal agencies (Kelman and Meyers 2009) and led to beneficial change in a large regional collaborative enterprise (Bryson, Crosby, and Bryson 2009).
Research notwithstanding, the experiences of two organizations that I have been quite familiar with over time illustrate that strategic planning can and does strengthen organizations, improve effective- ness, and create public value in different ways. First, the Pennsylva- nia Department of Transportation (PennDOT), one of the earliest public agencies to engage in strategic planning, has periodically conducted formal strategic planning efforts since 1982, led by four different secretaries of transportation under two Republican and two Democratic administrations. Strategies that resulted from these efforts early on included affirming the top priority of maintaining existing highways rather than expanding capacity in the system, professionalizing highway maintenance operations in the field and converting county -level maintenance managers from political pa- tronage jobs to civil service positions, instituting an employee -cen- tered quality improvement program, investing in a "leading-edge" computerization initiative when such a massive commitment to new technology was highly controversial, and instilling a customer focus in all program areas.
Strategies launched in the last two administrations included institut- ing a Baldrige organizational assessment process, initiating the Agil try 11 program under which PennDOT entered into service -swapping . agreements (e.g., providing line painting services in exchange for roadside mowing) with several hundred local governmental units in order to streamline operations at both levels, reengineering the management of complex highway preconstruction and construc- tion processes in order to deliver Penr1DOT's capital program more effectively, shifting top priority from road maintenance to bridge safety, ensuring adequate funding for public transit systems across the commonwealth, and "right -sizing" capital projects to meet local communities' needs for highway capacity expansion projects with lower construction costs.
Second, River Valley Transit (RVT), an agency of the city of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, has conducted two formal strategic planning efforts over the past decade that have been aimed largely at broadening its mission and expanding its portfolio of responsi- bilities. Over this period, RVT, which at the outset was responsible solely for operating the local public transit system, has become the contract manager of the city's parking authority, assumed responsi- bility for overseeing the city department that manages public works and parks, expanded its tourist -oriented historic trolley operations, partnered with a local nonprofit organization in operating a paddle- wheel boar on the Susquehanna River, and built a large trade and transit center in downtown Williamsport char houses office space for the local chamber of commerce, a community theater, and small retail outlets, in addition to the operations center for its bus system.
While strategic planning at PennDOT has helped that organiza- tion pursue its already substantial mission much more effectively over the years, such planning has helped RVT diversify its portfolio The Future of Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 5247
of services considerably and capture significant synergies from connecting these various enterprises at both the management and operating levels.
In both of these cases, the initial creative sparks that eventually led to substantial changes rarely originated in formal strategic planning efforts. Rather, many of these ideas were part of the new agen- das of successive incoming chief executive officers, in the case of PennDOT, or sprang from the fertile imagination of the long-term visionary general manager of RVT, or they were suggested along the way by others in these organizations in the course of managing their own areas of responsibility and even by outsiders who interacted with these agencies. In both cases, strategy has evolved over the long run in ways that are consistent with the logical incrementalism model advanced by Quinn (1978) and "management by groping along" described by Behn (1988).
However, formal strategic planning in both cases served in vari- ous ways and at various stages of the development of these ideas to flesh them out in terms of what they would actually look like and how they would be undertaken; to subject them to scrutiny from a variety of perspectives; and to assess their feasibility, desirability, and fit with the more general direction in which these organizations wanted to move. Ultimately, the discussions generated by the formal planning efforts led to validating some of these proposals and reject- ing others or tabling them for future consideration. More generally, strategic planning has served in these cases to involve managers in thinking systematically about the future of the organization and the environment in which it operates; to promote learning and discus Sion about what is important, what the priorities should be, and what will work and what will not work; to build consensus around and commitment to strategic initiatives; and to communicate direc- tion, overall strategy, priorities, and plans to broader constituencies inside and outside the organization.
The Future of Strategic Planning
Though it has become orthodox practice in the
public sector over the past 25 years, strategic
planning will need to play a more critical
role in 2020 than it does at present if public
managers are to anticipate and manage change
adroitly and address new issues that seem to
emerge with increasing rapidity. This means
that more public agencies will need to advance
beyond the point of inventorying current
operations and programming future activities
based on extrapolations of past trends to more
creative "out of the box" thinking about future
directions in response to candid assessments of
their own capacities as well as realistic expectations regarding emerg- ing trends and issues and forces beyond their control.
ment of strategists from the realities of the "nuts and bolts" at the operating level and the world that surrounds it. Clearly, if planning is to be done well in the public sector, strategy needs to be formu- lated by top executives and line managers, with planners in support roles; the analysis of strategic issues must be based on extensive intelligence gathering including "soft" data rather than intensive number crunching; and strategy formulation should be influenced by experience, intuition, inspiration, and even hunches, as well as a keen sense of political feasibility.
Thus, strategic planning processes need to facilitate understand- ing of the forces driving issues, explore options in terms of their feasibility and likely consequences, and stimulate candid discussions regarding the costs and risks associated with various alternatives.
If managers can engage in these kinds of assessments and develop genuine consensus around strategies among the "power players" within the organization and outside it whose support or active involvement is essential for success, the strategies arrived at stand a much better chance of success in moving the organization in the desired direction.
Regarding this last point, given the boundary -spanning nature of many of the issues they are confronting, public agencies need to make greater efforts to be more inclusive in their strategic planning, inviting key external stakeholders to become involved in parts of the process or making greater efforts to solicit input from outsiders through surveys, focus groups, executive sessions, or other forums.
Furthermore, given that public policy is often determined and car- ried out in networked environments rather than by single agencies, strategic planning will need to be applied increasingly to collabora- tive enterprises (Bryson, Crosby, and Bryson, 2009).
Recognizing the importance of other public as well as private and nonprofit organizations to the advancement of their own strategic agendas, public agencies often assess critical
external stakeholders' support for or opposi-
tion to their plans and then develop strate-
gies as part of those plans to capitalize on or
recruit supporters while accommodating or
making end -runs around opponents in order
to move those plans forward more effectively
(Nutt and Backoff 1992). Although it may
be more cumbersome and challenging, it
may be much more effective in the long run
for the agency in question to attempt to
convince these other organizations to work
collaboratively in developing a strategic plan
for the larger network and then work within
that process to try to ensure that the plan
that results reflects its own substantive objectives to the extent pos- sible. For example, most state transportation departments develop their own strategic plans and then attempt to develop buy -in from external stakeholders as needed. The Florida Department of Trans- portation (FDOT), however, led a variety of entities representing numerous transportation interests across the state in developing a strategic multimodal transportation plan for Florida looking out to 2020. FDOT then developed its own organization's strategic plan, which was heavily oriented to advancing the larger state transporta- tion plan that was supported by these external stakeholder groups.
Though it has become orthodox
practice in the public sector
over the past 25 years, strategic
planning will need to play a
more critical role in 2020 than
it does at present if public
managers are to anticipate and
manage change adroitly and
address new issues that seem to
emerge with increasing rapidity.
If public agencies are to use strategic planning processes more ef- fectively, however, they need to avoid the kinds of traps identified in Mintzberg's (1994) classic critique, which argued that strategic planning in the private sector often spoils rather than facilitates truly strategic thinking as a result of overly formalized planning systems, the central role played by professional planners as opposed to managers, overreliance on quantitative data, and the detach - 5248 Public Administration Review a December 2010 a Special Issue
More immediate, however, public managers need to link strategic planning much more closely with performance management pro- cesses in response to continued pressure for accountability as well as their own commitment to managing for results. More specifically, we will need to effectuate three fundamental changes in the way in which we manage public agencies over the next decade:
1. Shifting from strategic planning to strategic management
2. Moving from performance measurement to performance
management
3. Linking strategy and performance management more ef- fectively
Making these three transitions will be essential to enable public agencies to focus attention on the most appropriate goals and to manage effectively to achieve those goals.
From Strategic Planning to Strategic Management
Paradoxically, Mintzberg's claim that strategic planning often amounts to strategic programming in practice may be on target, in part, in identifying what is needed in terms of overall strategic man- agement in public agencies. Strategic programming as described by Mintzberg consists of clarifying strategy and translating broad vision into more operational terms; elaborating strategies in greater detail and developing action plans that specify what must be done to real- ize strategies; and assessing the implications of strategic mandates on the organization's operating systems and revising budgets, control systems, and standard operating procedures. As planners attend to these critical tasks, they will help their agencies shift from strategic planning to broader strategic management.
It is hoped that public agencies will move further toward more comprehensive strategic management over the next 10 years as they not only see the value of good strategic planning, but also feel the need to use strategy to drive decisions and actions and to advance their strategic agendas more effectively (Vinzant and Vinzant 1996) Strategic management is concerned with ensuring that strategy is implemented effectively and encouraging strategic learning, think- ing, and acting on an ongoing basis. The implementation aspect involves working all of the "management levers" in a concerted ef- fort to implement strategic initiatives, advance the strategic agenda, and move an organization into the future in a deliberate manner.
These levers include, but are not limited to, operational and busi- ness planning, budgets, workforce development and training, other management and administrative processes, internal and external communications, analytical and problem -solving capabilities, pro- gram delivery mechanisms, legislative agendas, leadership skills, and an organization's ability to influence other ac-
tors in the networks through which it operates
(Poister and Streib 1999).
Strategic management is largely a matter of
utilizing and coordinating all of the resources
and venues at top management's disposal, en-
forcing a kind of "omnidirectional alignment"
among them in the interest of advancing the
strategic agenda (Poister and Van Slyke 2002).
Public agencies can develop action plans for
implementing particular strategic initiatives
and utilize project management approaches to ensure that they will be carried out to completion. To provide accountability for results, they can assign lead responsibility for implementing strategies to individual managers or operating units, and they can create ac- tion teams to flesh out and oversee the implementation of cross - functional strategies. More generally, they can mandate that major divisions or other organizational units develop their own strategic plans or business plans within the framework of the agency's overall strategic agenda. In addition, agencies can do a number of ocher things to ensure that strategy is translated into action, such as, • Identifying and monitoring appropriate performance measures to track progress in implementing strategic initiatives and achiev- ing strategic goals and objectives
® Assessing performance data in periodic strategy review sessions and making adjustments as needed to keep implementation on track
Aligning budgets with strategic priorities, allocating resources to fund new strategic initiatives, and challenging operating units to show how their budget proposals advance strategy
Incorporating goals and objectives related to the strategic plan in individuals' performance planning and appraisal processes and rewarding contributions to the advancement of strategy as possible Promoting the agency's vision and strategic plan internally to mobilize commitment throughout the organization
• Communicating strategy to external stakeholders and soliciting their assistance in advancing strategy as needed
Emphasizing consistency with strategy in proposals, requests, and other external communications to build credibility and support on the part of governing bodies, oversight agencies, and other key constituencies
Without this kind of follow-through on numerous fronts, pub- lic agencies are unlikely to see the real value of their strategic plans brought to fruition. Indeed, halfhearted efforts regarding implementation beg the question of the value of strategic planning in the first place. On the other hand, as illustrated by PennDOT, among others, a full court press and continuing attention to coordinating a variety of approaches to implementing strategy can strengthen organizational capacity and improve performance significantly.
More generally, strategic management involves shaping, imple- menting, and managing an agency's strategic agenda on an ongo- ing rather than an episodic basis, in a way that is highly consistent with Quinn's description of a purposeful, incremental approach to strategy formulation mentioned earlier. "Ilius, strategically managed agencies might charge major divisions and
then successively lower levels of management
with responsibility for cascading planning
down through the organization in order to
develop initiatives that advance the vision
created at the top with actionable strategies at
the operating level.
[S] trategic management
involves shaping, implementing,
and managing an agency's
strategic agenda on an ongoing
rather than episodic basis, .. .
[employing] a purposeful
incremental approach to
strategy formulation.
Effective strategic management must also be
concerned with monitoring external trends
and forces as well as internal performance on�
an ongoing basis, refreshing intelligence along
The Future of Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 5249
the way, and revising strategy when and as needed. For example, the Georgia Department of Transportation has adopted a 360 -degree stakeholder survey process to solicit periodic feedback from key customer groups, business partners, suppliers, and state legisla- tors, as well as its own employees to help inform regular strategic plan monitoring and update efforts. The Kansas Department of Transportation and other state transportation departments have been experimenting with the use of social networking media such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter to solicit the public's views and feedback on transportation needs and programs as well as to com- municate outwardly regarding the challenges they face and their plans for addressing these issues.
Indeed, one of the most important functions of strategic manage- ment is to ensure that monitoring the internal and external environ- ments, gathering information from a wide variety of sources, and sensing how circumstances are perceived and how values might be changing on the part of an array of constituencies continues to go on in between active rounds of strategic planning. The resulting sense of how things stand can be invaluable in shaping the timing and nature of strategic planning efforts. Very often, for example, strategic planning efforts appropriately consist of plan updates or refinements of existing strategy, or otherwise looking for ways to ad- vance existing priorities more effectively. At times, however, agencies may need to recognize that they are at a crossroads and face epochal shifts (Barzelay and Campbell 2003) in environment and expecta- tions that may call for refocusing their entire mission, moving in new directions, and revamping priorities substantially.
This was the situation facing PennDOT in the early stages of a major turnaround effort beginning in 1979 in response to a growing consensus in state government circles and among a wide range of stakeholders that it had become highly dysfunctional and needed either to be reinvented or eliminated. Similarly, in its early strategic planning effort, RVT recognized that it had reached a point at which it needed to decide whether to continue operating solely as a public transit system or to move aggressively to become a multimodal transportation agency and a force in downtown redevelopment efforts. Strategic planning efforts can be oriented appropriately toward more routine updates of existing functions or a more dramatic paradigm -changing type of strategizing, but in either case, they can be undertaken more effectively if an agency has been actively monitoring its environment on an ongoing basis.
From Performance Measurement to Performance
Management
Paralleling the transition from strategic
measures are less actionable in the "hollow state," where responsi- bility for conducting much of government's business is contracted out to other entities (Frederickson and Frederickson 2006), in many quarters, performance measurement seems to be assumed to automatically lead to improved performance.
However, actual performance management, actively utilizing per- formance information to strengthen policies and programs, improve performance, and maximize the benefits of public services, still appears to seriously lag performance measurement activity (Harry 2002). Grades from the 2008 Government Performance Project for generating appropriate information and using it to support deci- sion making reflect the current state of performance management in practice; only 6 of the 50 states received an A rating on this criterion, while 20 received a B rating, and the remaining 24 states received a C or even D rating (Barrett and Green 2008).
At the federal level, while some agencies, such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have increased their use of perfor- mance information for various management decisions, this is not the case in general. According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, more than the 16 years since the Govern- ment Performance and Results Act was passed, agencies across the federal government "have developed strategic plans and are routinely generating performance information to measure and report progress toward their strategic goals. However, ... our periodic surveys of federal managers on their use of performance information show that while significantly more federal managers reported having perfor- mance measures for their programs than they did 10 years ago, their reported use of performance information to make management deci- sions has not changed significantly" (2009, 1-2). On the other hand, some recent research suggests that selected governmental units are be- ginning to use performance data to improve performance (Ammons and Rivenbark 2008; De Lance Julnes et at. 2008; Moynihan 2008). planning to strategic management, we need
to shift the emphasis of the performance
Paralleling t
movement from performance measurement
from strategic
to a focus on performance management over
strategic manage
the coming decade. Clearly, governments at
to shift the e
all levels in the United States are operating in
Performance
an era of performance. Performance measure-
performance
ment systems are ubiquitous, and although
the top-down one -size -fits -all systems man-
to a focus on
In part, the lack of true performance management originates with governing bodies that lack the political will to make the kinds of dif- ficult decisions that are required to achieve substantial performance improvements in fields such as crime or education and instead redefine the issues as problems of mismanagement and inefficiency and then vow to hold the respective bureaucracies responsible (Fred- erickson 2005). Similarly, Moynihan (2008) finds that although agency managers see improved decision making and performance as the most important purpose of measurement, elected officials are more likely to be interested in accountability and the symbolic value of requiring agencies to report on their performance. Thus, while performance management doctrine calls
for allowing administrators greater discre-
he transition tion in managing their programs in order to planning to facilitate performance improvement, states
ment, we need have been reluctant to provide increased flex- mphasis of the ibility regarding financial controls in terms of movement from resource allocation, procurement, and budget execution or human resource management in
measurement terms of hiring, performance appraisal, and performance compensation practices,
dated at the federal level and in many states management over the coming have been criticized as being problematic in decade. Nevertheless, there still are possibilities for many cases (Radin 2006), and performance using performance information to strengthen 5250 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special Issue
performance. Perhaps the best known examples include a number of U.S. cities, such as San Francisco, Atlanta, and St. Louis, that have followed Baltimore's lead in implementing "CitiStat" systems, in which the mayor and/or top aides conduct regular meetings with department heads and their staff to review performance data and discuss performance, objectives, and strategies for achieving them (Behn 2006). At the state and federal levels, Moynihan (2008) advo- cates building agency -centered performance management, although he cautions that the success of such efforts is dependent on a num- ber of organizational characteristics, such as the degree of autonomy, functional areas of responsibility, clientele and stakeholders, political context, and resourcing.
Measurement systems are most likely to produce actionable perfor- mance data in circumstances in which outputs and outcomes are more readily observable and agencies have more control over the outputs they produce and greater leverage over the outcomes they are expected to generate (Jennings and Haist 2004). Particularly in these kinds of agencies, public managers must proactively seize the opportunity to utilize the information produced by measure- ment systems to help improve performance, in part by linking performance data to manager- and employee -centered performance management systems. For example, they can designate appropriate individuals in the organization as "results owners" and charge them with lead responsibility for maintaining or improving performance on particular measure sets. They can also give the performance imperative a "real-time" edge by negotiating target levels of per- formance to be attained in particular time frames that are both aggressive but also realistic and by incorpo-
rating results data in employee performance
appraisal systems. More generally, agencies
can utilize performance data as the basis for
triggering performance improvements, includ-
ing the following:
• Actively reviewing performance data
with managers who are responsible for
programs on a regular basis and challeng-
ing them to assess underlying reasons for
chronically poor or eroding performance
and develop plans for corrective action
• Redirecting internal budget allocations
and program activities to the extent possible to make programs more effective
• Providing training to service delivery stats and mounting quality and productivity improvement initiatives to overcome performance deficiencies
Working collaboratively with partners, contractors, and suppli- ers to find ways to overcome performance problems
• Commissioning task forces or formative program evaluations to investigate performance problems when solutions are not more readily forthcoming
nor outcomes lend themselves to direct measurement, agencies should monitor systematic feedback on the value of their services to customers and the public as well as reciprocal relationships with other entities (Boschken 1992) through periodic surveys or other mechanisms for soliciting meaningful information from critical external stakeholders groups.
Most importantly, perhaps, public agencies can consistently and candidly communicate their performance information, including the problems they face as well as success stories, to a wide range of external audiences, including governing bodies, working over the long run to convince these critical stakeholders that performance does indeed matter, that they are committed to improving it, and that they need support and cooperation in doing so. Governing bodies, it is hoped, will come to appreciate the value of performance improvement and accountability over time, and will begin to sup- port "the great bargain" by relaxing controls on agencies' financial and human resource management practices in exchange for holding them accountable for substantially higher performance expecta- tions—but that is a long -run proposition. In the meantime, mean- ingful performance management, rather than simply performance measurement, needs to become the rule rather than the exception at the agency level, generating incremental but ongoing improvement in the performance of public programs.
Integrating Strategy and Performance Management
More generally, performance management is the process of setting goals for an organization and managing effectively to achieve those goals and eventually bring about the desired
outcomes. In that sense, strategic management
can be viewed as performance management
at a strategic Level. However, large, complex
public organizations typically maintain a wide
variety of performance measurement systems
at different levels and in different parts of
the organization. These systems are likely to
focus on different programs or processes, serve
different purposes, and be oriented to the
needs of different audiences or intended users.
Thus, performance measurement and, it is
hoped, performance management are ongoing
processes at all levels and across numerous
applications, and they are much more encompassing and pervasive than strategic planning and management systems,
[P] erformance management is
the process of setting goals for
an organization and managing
effectively to achieve those goals
and eventually bring about
the desired outcomes. In that
sense, strategic management
can be viewed as performance
management at a strategic level.
With respect to programs whose outcomes are not so readily observ- able, but whose outputs are measurable and he1.d to be effective and worthwhile in contributing to desired results, agencies can focus primarily on these outputs, particularly in terms of service quality and quantity, perhaps using expert review panels when more objec- tive indicators are not available. In cases in which neither outputs While strategic planning and management should be focused very selectively on issues of the most fundamental importance, organi- zations still must manage their core businesses and more routine operations on an ongoing basis. Whereas strategic management focuses on taking actions now to position the organization to move into the future, performance management is largely concerned with managing ongoing programs and operations at present.
Strategy is usually oriented to change that is aimed at enhancing an organization's role in the larger environment or the way it pursues its mission. Implementing strategies is the province of strategic management, but when strategic initiatives have been completed and/or strategic goals have been attained, they typically should move off the strategic aZD
genda. However, some of these strategies may still
The Future of Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 5251
be important in the sense of being embedded in the way an organi- zation does business on a continuing basis, and thus they may need to be supported through the ongoing performance management process.
With few exceptions (Bryson 2004; Poister 2003), strategic plan- ning and performance management are not closely connected in the public management literature. However, we need to manage the interplay between strategy and performance management to much greater advantage. While strategic plans usually identify perfor- mance measures that are monitored and may feed meaningful in- formation into strategy review and update efforts, often they are not linked systematically to goal structures and measurement systems at the program management and operating levels, where performance improvement is most likely to be generated. Without such linkages, strategic planning is much less effective in driving decisions and actions in an agency and moving purposefully into the future. Of course, in many large federal departments as well as multifunctional organizations at the state level, strategic plans are likely to be devel- oped at multiple levels (e.g., the department, agency, and program levels), and in many local jurisdictions, strategic plans are developed both at the corporate level and by individual departments. In such cases, strategic plans can and should be linked directly to perfor- mance management systems at each level.
From a performance management perspective, Harry asserted that strategic planning is not really essential to successful government, arguing that governments at all levels are "continually taking numer- ous actions to improve their services without significant input from strategic planning" (2002, 353). Clearly, however, performance management systems that are not tied to or at least consistent with strategy run the risk of maintaining and/or improving immediate performance on previously established criteria of success but increas- ingly missing the mark in terms of where the organization should be heading in the longer run.
For example, for several years beginning in the mid-1990s, the New Mexico Department of Transportation used its performance management system, called the Compass, very aggressively to sub- stantially elevate the performance of its core mission: building and maintaining highways. Indeed, the system became so firmly rooted as the driving force of decisions and actions in the department that when strategic planning was mandated for all state agencies in New Mexico in the late 1990s, the Department of Transportation re- sponded by simply writing a plan around the performance measures in the Compass as its de facto strategy, thus passing up an opporm- nity to question broader strategic issues.
A few years later, however, recognizing the limitations of existing strategy in a context of changing development patterns, transporta- tion needs, and mobility options, a new secretary appointed in 2002 initiated a strategic planning process that opened a broader discus- sion on future directions and set new priorities for public transit, commuter rail, and intercity bus services, as well as highway safety.
The Compass, which had worked so effectively in channeling the ---department's energy and resources to its traditional mission, but nad also become somewhat outmoded with respect to changing needs and priorities, was then reoriented to focus attention on the department's rebalanced strategies. At the same time, many of the 5252 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special Issue measures were removed from the strategically oriented Compass but retained in other systems at the program and operating levels.
The point here is that strategic planning will become more meaning- ful as more agencies transition to comprehensive strategic manage- ment approaches that, among other things, drive their performance management systems forward. At the same time, as agencies shift from simply measuring performance to incorporating the resulting information into systematic efforts to actually improve performance, those performance management systems will be more effective in the long run if they are aligned with strategy and driven by strategic management processes.
Thus, the preferred type of performance measurement/ manage- ment system will depend in large part on the nature and content of strategy. For example, if an agency's principal strategies focus on producing significant improvements in its immediate service de- livery processes, as was the case with the New Mexico Department of Transportation's COMPASS, for instance, a "stats" -type system emphasizing the quantity and quality of outputs, customer or citizen satisfaction, and outcomes, with frequent reviews and clear expectations for action plans to correct deficiencies as required, may be very useful. On the other hand, when strategy concerns the implementation of new programs or other initiatives, a project management approach may be more helpful, while an agency whose strategies focus more on longer-term change in policies or overall direction may find that monitoring a wider range of perfor- mance data, perhaps including leading as well as lagging indicators, at longer time intervals is more useful in determining whether the organization is on course and whether plans need to be revised.
Moreover, performance management processes in an immediate sense operate within a context characterized by numerous factors that may limit performance improvement, such as structure, orga- nization culture, service delivery arrangements, and technology, in addition to constraints in terms of authority and resources. In some cases, when there seems to be little opportunity for working "inside the box" to improve performance at a programmatic or operating level, strategic planning at a higher level may be able to bring about more systemic change and remove barriers to productivity in terms of redesigning structure, developing a productive culture, institut- ing new service delivery arrangements, and even securing additional resources or expanding formal authority in order to facilitate perfor- mance improvement.
For example, the Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Division of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) initiated a per- formance measurement system at the beginning of this decade to monitor the performance of the STD prevention and treatment programs operated by health departments in all 50 states and several large cities to which the CDC gives grants for programmatic sup- port. The measures were developed through a participative process involving representatives of the state and local programs and related academics and advocates from professional groups, as well as CDC central office managers and field personnel. They were initially piloted in a few states, then implemented by all grantees and later incorporated into the CDC's triennial grant solicitation process, and a task force was convened a few years ago to review the system and add, eliminate, or adjust some of the measures.
While the measures are reported every year and the CDC actively reviews the data and encourages and challenges grantees to work harder and smarter to strengthen their outputs and immedi- ate outcomes, the results do not show the kind of performance improvement that the CDC had been anticipating. Instead, on critical indicators such as the proportion of primary and second- ary syphilis cases interviewed within 7, 14, and 30 days or the proportion of positive chlamydia cases from family planning clinics treated within 14 and 30 days, performance in the aggregate has been quite static over the past several years. A consensus is develop- ing that part of the reason for this lack of movement in the data is that significant improvement in performance in these areas requires increased cooperation on the part of a number of other entities in the larger STD "system," e.g., schools, health maintenance orga- nizations, community-based organizations, and jails, and that the state and local STD programs have not been able to leverage suf- ficient influence through these networks to bring about the kinds of needed responses from these other actors. Thus, at present, the CDC is planning to initiate a strategic review and planning process to identify the critical issues regarding these programs and, it is hoped, move to a new networked based paradigm in the interests of improving performance.
Conversely, while strategic planning and management provide an essential framework for effective performance management, performance management itself can sometimes enrich strategic planning by clarifying strategy (Moynihan 2008) and even "finding strategy" (Mintzberg 1994). For instance, ongoing experience with performance management systems can inform strategic planners about realistic expectations, opportunities, and limitations regard- ing attempts to strengthen the performance of a given program in its operating context in ways that might help thinking strategically about other programmatic options in the long run. In addition, performance reports that break performance data down by decen- tralized operating unirs, supplemented with information regarding differences in the environments in which they operate, may help identify strategies that are more or less effective in particular operat- ing contexts.
In addition, over the coming decade, it is imperative for public agencies to engage much more widely in developing comparative measurement systems with other similar agencies and programs in order to facilitate benchmarking efforts aimed at identifying evidence -based best practices on the part of leading performers that might he able to 6e adapted prof^ tably 6y other agencies (Ammons and Rivenbark 2008). This kind of information can often inform the development of strategic initiatives aimed at making agencies more effective.
Conclusions
The first decade of the twenty-first century has seen the United States involved in two protracted overseas wars that are straining the military, a new and urgent concern with homeland security and ter- rorise attacks from within as well as without, the deepest economic recession in 70 years and unprecedented government bailouts and stimulus funding, state and local governments in dire fiscal straits just as the need for them is significantly increasing, and polarizing national politics that have been very divisive with respect to the role of government in society in general. Over the same period, public managers have seen continued growth in outsourcing to private sector contractors and suppliers, the rise of collaboratives to make policy as well as deliver public services, the phenomenal growth of e -government service channels, a more insistent customer focus on the part of government agencies, and increased pressure for accountability and performance from elected officials, the media, and the public.
If the coming decade is as turbulent as the one just now ending, drifting into the future on somewhat predictable tides will not be an option. Instead, "muddling through" could well result in public agencies being buffeted about by strong winds and battered on the rocks. Thus, if agencies are to anticipate new problems and chal- lenges, respond to them effectively, and, to a degree at least, chart their own course for moving into the future, they will need to think and act strategically and be able to manage for results.
To add public value, government agencies must identify appropri- ate goals that are legitimate and politically sustainable and have the management and operational capacity to deliver on them effectively (Moore 1995). Clearly, strategic planning is not always aimed at improving the performance of ongoing programs. Often, it redefines performance to meet new challenges, but it should always focus on identifying the kinds of results to be achieved and strategies for achieving them. Public agencies are best served by "nimble" strategic planning systems that focus very selectively on identifying and resolving the most compelling issues facing them as they continue to monitor internal and external conditions and scan the environment to discern emerging issues that might require new strategic respons- es. Consistent with this, strategic management must not be seen as a matter of micromanaging to enforce uniformity across operating divisions, but rather working to ensure that decisions and actions at all levels are driven by a few fundamental strategies that are critical for success in the long run.
However, comprehensive performance managemenr at the operating level still must be oriented in part to advancing an agency's overall strategy. "Thus, I am convinced that moving from planning strategy and measuring the performance of ongoing programs, on the one hand, to implementing strategy and using performance information to improve performance, on the other, will be essential for public agencies to significantly increase their capacity to meet new and unforeseen challenges and create public value over the next 10 years.
This will also require linking strategic management and ongoing performance management processes more effectively in a reciprocat- ing relationship in which strategizing is aimed largely at defining and strengthening overall performance and performance monitoring helps inform strategy along the way.
While many leading-edge public organizations do have effective stra- tegic management processes in place, many more agencies at all levels of government fail to utilize the kinds of practices discussed in this ar- ticle to develop and implement strategy and to manage performance effectively. Transitioning to comprehensive strategic management and performance management will be critical for these agencies over the next 10 years given the rapid pace of change and increased uncertain- ties facing public administrators at all levels. Thus, strong leadership will be required to overcome a range of institutional, bureaucratic, and cultural factors that reinforce the tendency to continue managing The Future of Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 5253
on a day-to-day basis while drifting into the future rather than guid- ing the agency into the future in a purposeful direction.
The critical need is for leaders who are organizational entrepreneurs not only in the sense of creating visions of success for the future, developing strategies for pursuing those visions, and mobilizing sup- port both internally and externally for those visions and strategies, but who also fully appreciate the value of basic management systems and demonstrate a personal commitment to utilizing them to imple- ment strategy and management performance effectively. Ultimately, more public agencies need to develop organizational cultures and leadership at all levels that welcome opportunities to manage change and provide positive reinforcement for being cognizant of the dy- namic fit between organization and environment and contributing to strategy development and implementation as the normal way of doing business.
References
Ammons, David N., and William C. Rivenbark. 2008. Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Data to Improve Municipal Services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project. Public Administration Review 68(2): 304-18.
Barrett, Katherine, and Richard Green. 2008. Grading the States: The Mandate to Measure. Governing2l(6):24-95.
Barzelay, Michael, and Colin Campbell. 2003. Preparing for the Future: Strategic Plan- ning in the US. Air Force. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Behn, Robert D. 1988. Management by Groping Along_ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management7(4): 643-63.
. 2006. The Varieties of CitiStat_ Public Administration Review 66(3): 332-40.
Berry, Frances Stokes. 1995. Innovation in Public Management: The Adoption of State Strategic Planning. Public Administration Review 54(4): 322-30.
Boschken, Herman L. 1992. Analyzing Performance Skewness in Public Agencies:
the Case of Urban Mass Transit. Journal of Pssblic Administration Research and 77-7), 2(3): 265-88.
Boyne, George A., and Julian Gould -Williams. 2003. Planning and Performance in Pub- lic Organizations: An Empirical Analysis. Public Management Review 5(l): 115-32.
Bryson, John M. 2004. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, John IM., Barbara C. Crosby, and John K. Bryson. 2009. Understanding Strategic Planning and the Formulation and Implementation of Strategic Plans as a Way of Knowing: The Contributions of Acror-Network Theory_ Interna- onal Public Management Journal 12(2): 172-207.
Brudney, Jeffrey, F. Ted Hebert, and Deil S. Wright. 1999. Reinventing Government in the American States: Measuring and Explaining Administrative Reform.
Public Administration Review 59(1): 19 -30 -
de Lancer Julnes, Patricia, Frances Stokes Berry, Maria P. Aristigueta, and Kaifeng Yang, eds. 2008. International Handbook of Practice -Based Performance Manage- ment Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Frederickson, David G., and H. Georgc Freclerickson. 2006. Measuring the Perfor- mance of the Hallow State. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Frederickson, H. George. 2005. Up the Bureaucracy: A True and Faultless Guide to Organizational Success and the Further Adventures of Krime and Thor. http:// wvvw.people.ku.edu/-gfred/documents/Up theBureaucracy050205v.3.doc Iac- cessed August 28, 2010].
Frenezel, William Y., II, John M. Bryson, and Barbara C. Crosby. 2000. Strategic Planning in the Military: The U.S. Naval Security Group Changes Its Strategy, 1992-1998_ Long Range Planning 33(3): 402-29.
5254 Public Administration Review a December 2010 • Special Issue Harry, Harry P. 2002. Performance 1Cteasurement: Fashions and Fallacies. Public Performance and Management Review 25(4): 352-35.
Hendrick, Rebecca. 2003. Strategic Planning Environment, Process, and Perfor- mance in Public Agencies: A Comparative Study of Departments in Milwaukee_ Journal of Public Administration Research andTbeory 13(4):491-519.
Jennings, Edward T., Jr., and Meg Patrick Haist. 2004. Putting Performance 4iea- surement in Context. in The Art of Governance: Analyzing Management and Ad- ministration, edited by Patricia W Ingraham and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., 173-94.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Kelman, Steven, and Jeff Ivlyers. 2009. Successfully Executing Ambitious Strategies in Government- An Empirical Analysis. Paper presented to the 10th National Public Management Research Conference, October 1-3, Columbus, OH.
Long, Edward, and Aimee L. Franklin. 2004. The Paradox of Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act: Top -Down Direction for Bottom -Up Implementation. Public Administration Review 64(3): 309-19.
Minnberg, Henry. 1994- The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review 71(1): 107-14.
Moore, Mark H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.
Cambridge, NIA: Harvard University Press.
Moynihan, Donald P_ 2008. 77re Dynamics of Performance Management Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Nutt, Paul C., and Robert W Backoff. 1992_ Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organizations A Handbook for Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Poister, Theodore H. 2003. Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organiza- tions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Poister, Theodore IT., and Gregory D. Streib. 1999. Strategic [Management in the Public Sector: Concepts, Models, and Processes. Public Productivity and Manage- ment Review 22(3): 308-25.
2005. Elements of Strategic Planning and Management in Municipal Gov- ernment. PublicAdminutraiion Review 65(1): 45-56.
Poister, Theodore H., and David M. Van Slyke_ 2002. Strategic Management fnnova- tions in State Transportation Departments. Public Performance andManagement Review 26(1): 58-74.
Quinn, James B. 1978. Strategic Change: Logical Incrementalism, Sloan Management Review 20(1): 7-21.
Radio, Beryl A. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement Accountability, Com- pdxit7s and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press_ Roberts, Nancy. 2000. The Synoptic Model of Strategic Planning and the GPRA:
Lackinga, Good Fit with the Political Context. Public Productivity and Manage- ment Review 23(3): 297-311.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2004. Results Oriented Government:
GPRA Alas Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO -04-38.
2005. Results -Oriented Government Improvements to DHS' Planning Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountabiliet.. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. GAO -05-300.
2009. Government Performance: Strategies for Building a Results -Oriented and Collaborative Culture in the Federal Government. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. GAO -09-1011T.
Vieg, Joseph A_ 1942. Developments in Government Planning. In The Future of Government in the United States, edited by Leonard D. White, 63-87. University of Chicago Press.
Vinzant, Douglas H., and Janet C. Vinzant. 1996. Strategy and Organizational Ca- pacity: Finding a Fit. Public Productivir, and ManagementReview 20(2): 139-57_ Wheeland, Craig. 2004. Empowering the Vision: Gommunity-Wide Strategic Planning in Rock Hill South Carolina. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
tacit or sem.ff *a, v ocl-al GG3ove nt Leadership
ILm jut elle_._
leadership and management.
ICMA University is the premier resource for local government leadership and management training. Our programs are designed to advance your career, enrich your community, and contribute to your professional fulfillment. ICMA's online workshops and programs bring the latest research from leading experts to your office. Our conferences and in-person workshops allow you to network with colleagues and exchange ideas. All ICMA University programs are drawn from the 14 core competencies that members have determined are essential to local government leadership and management.
ICMXs professional development programs encourage local government professionals to think in terms of leading the organization and not just managing the organization. Leadership is engaging with and inspiring others to participate in developing, achieving, articulating, and embodying a shared set of values, shared sense of purpose, and shared vision of the desired community outcome. Leadership requires professionals who are highly interpersonally competent as well as self -aware.
ICMA also recognizes the leadership role of local government managers in creating and maintaining resilient and livable communities. Through the responsible stewardship of public resources, our communities will retain the economic, environmental, and social capital needed to prosper for future generations.
1. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY
Being fair, honest, and ethical in all personal and professional relationships and activities Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Fostering ethical behavior throughout the organization through exemplary personal actions • Ensuring the decision-making model reflects integrity, honesty, and openness.
INI anagernens_ dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Conducting professional relationships and activities fairly, honestly, ethically, and in conformance with the ICMA Code of Ethics and the policies of your local government to maintain public confidence in the profession and local government
• Performing official and personal affairs in a manner that clearly conveys that you cannot be improperly influenced
• Fostering ethical behavior throughout the organization through staff training on administrative ethics and the ICMA Code of Ethics
• Holding staff accountable and instilling accountability into operations • Communicating ethical standards and guidelines to others.
2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Ensuring and managing community involvement in local government to support good decision making Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Building relationships among local, state, and federal elected and appointed officials to advocate for the community
• Ensuring robust public outreach in the policy-making process • Respecting the governing body's role in setting direction and vision, and helping staff and the community understand the governing body's role in the democratic process • Working to promote civility in public discourse
• Advocating for diverse viewpoints to be considered and helping the organization seek them out when they appear to be missing.
'Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Understanding the perspectives of elected officials and being mindful of competing public values in policy recommendations
• Learning and respecting a community's history with various political, social, and economic issues • Engaging with -and understanding the viewpoints of key stakeholders in the community; committing to ongoing communication about expectations, decisions, and outcomes • Understanding emerging technologies that are designed to promote open dialogue between local government and constituents
• Employing a range of engagement, positive communication, and conflict resolution methods.
3. EQUITY ND MCLUSIO
Creating an environment of involvement, respect, and connection of diverse ideas, backgrounds, and talent throughout the organization and the community
Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Authentically bringing everyone, including traditionally excluded individuals and groups, into processes, activities, and decision making
• Taking a proactive approach to service delivery and decision making that accounts for underlying differences in opportunities, burdens, and needs, in order to equitably improve the quality of life for all. r
Z7.
va wm �
t. /.�
Pia SN'rcRl"k'Y.ik'
.S t..-, ..,*wG� ,W.• .'R�' ffin« i�li G.P/.u.. Pi*#`t ,..
Ma.,lagement dimensions that contribute to this content area are:
• Driving measures, goals, and plans around diversity, equity, and inclusion within your organization and community; communicating the vision for why and how achieving these goals will improve the organization and service delivery
• Understanding and championing sustainable support mechanisms such as affinity groups, mentoring programs, and cultural celebrations
• Educating the organization on common behaviors that advance diversity and inclusion efforts and address implicit biases
• Being aware of and acknowledging culturally significant events and holy days for employees and community members
• Creating opportunities for employees and community members to learn about each other's cultural backgrounds, lives, and interests; building relationships through increased understanding.
4. STAFF EFFECTIVENESS
Taking responsibility for the development, performance, and success of employees throughout the organization Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Energizing the team to reach a higher level of performance • Providing the team with a sense of direction and purpose, and balancing the big picture framework with day-to-day operations
• Prioritizing collaboration and efforts that create a shared sense of success • Being a role model and demonstrating behavior expected by others • Developing an environment where staff are encouraged to learn new skills and try new ideas • Developing meaningful connections with people at all levels of the organization • Facilitating teamwork.
Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Setting clear expectations for the organization and work groups • Creating an empowering work environment that encourages responsibility and decision making at all organizational levels
• Delegating: assigning responsibility to others and relying on staff • Coaching and mentoring: providing direction, support, and feedback to enable others to meet their full potential
• Conducting effective performance evaluations, reviewing success and opportunities for achievement of goals and work objectives, providing constructive feedback, and identifying others' developmental needs and available ways to address those needs
• Creating a positive atmosphere where interactions are based in respect and professionalism.
S, PERSONAL RESILIENCYAND DEVELOPMENT
Demonstrating a commitment to a balanced life through ongoing self -renewal and development in order to increase personal capacity
Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Modeling healthy work habits to your employees
• Modeling a healthy lifestyle to your employees
• Actively encouraging a personal and professional growth and development mindset throughout the organization • Seeking and providing support when career setbacks occur.
Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Periodically establishing personal development goals
3 CSA PRAGT[CE5 FOR EFEECTfk E LtrtA OC'VI 4RIN TENT LEADERSHIP
Successfully integrating work and personal responsibilities; periodically assessing yourself and seeking input from trusted others on their assessment of your work -life balance or integration Continually practicing mindfulness of your stress levels .� Identifying areas where you would like to gain knowledge or skills and developing a plan to acquire those skills and knowledge,
6. STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP
Defining and communicating a vision and leveraging all resources and tools to achieve it Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Creating, conveying, and instilling a unified vision and purpose by illustrating and providing examples of what the future will look like
• Fostering a safe place to take risks and initiative; serving as an example to others by applying lessons learned to future initiatives, decision making, and risk taking • Examining the full scope of factors that influence an issue, determining calculated risks, and developing and using relationships and interpersonal skills to build consensus • Implementing integrated solutions to complex problems that address the needs of all stakeholders • Creating new and innovative strategies to deal with rapid change by assessing the environment, synthesizing strategies and plans, ensuring organizational direction and alignment, generating excitement in the workforce, and celebrating new ideas
• Thinking and acting to instill a culture of continuous improvement; moving the organization forward through consistent examination of methods and integration of new and innovative business trends • Demonstrating high interpersonal competence and educating yourself on fundamental concepts such as self-awareness, judgment, emotions, power, resistance to change, and trust.
Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Sharing, supporting, and advocating the organization's mission and vision by developing and communicating the vision to staff and others
• Creating an environment through coaching that encourages others to address complex problems using a strategic approach
• Providing resources and training to support creative innovation and problem -solving and seeking opportunities for improvement as well as new initiatives.
7, STRATEGIC PLANNING
Developing a plan of action that brings the community together, provides clarity of purpose and priorities, and guides the organization's actions in achieving its goals and objectives Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Ensuring the organization is focused on the core mission, plans are implemented, and resources are available to achieve the plan's goals and objectives.
• Ensuring that the social responsibility of the organization is well understood and forms part of the planning process
• Making sure the plan ties all parts of the organization together and that everyone sees themselves in the plan and is invested in the plan
• Making sure that the planning process is highly participative, involves all levels of the organization, has strong support from the elected officials and the community, and coalesces everyone around the plan • Building an integrated planning system that begins with the community and flows to corporate, operational, and individual plans. Plan examples include short- and long-term financial, human resource and workforce, enterprise -wide technology, capital improvement and asset management, and community. 4 � C-1E0�cG�E L�s€2"t/rEi2lall��i�i"F �E1�F�ER�I`i�R
Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Carrying out the planning process incorporating the needs of all stakeholders, including input from the community, elected officials, and staff
• Completing an environmental scan and assessment of organizational strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats including major economic, social, and competitive factors • Developing a vision and mission for the organization that are aspirational and reflect the organization's social responsibility
• Ensuring that organizational values are incorporated into strategy and plans at all levels • Determining goals and key strategic objectives and indicators • Completing a strategic planning document
• Implementing the strategic plan
• Assessing the results of the planning effort through data collection and measurement and benchmarking of performance
• Ensuring necessary improvements to processes and systems so that attainment of goals and objectives is possible.
8. POLICY FACILITATION AND IMPLEMENTAT ION
Engaging with elected officials and other community stakeholders to create and execute policies that achieve common goals and objectives
Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Assessing the environment to determine the best approach or style for championing a project to success • Maintaining perspective and focus on both short- and long-term outcomes • Listening to identify core interests and build cooperation and consensus among and within diverse groups • Helping diverse groups identify common goals and act effectively to achieve them • Energizing a group: acting as a stimulus for group action • Demonstrating courage and taking responsibility for advancing the policy discussion • Knowing when to lead others and when to follow the lead of others • Accepting and implementing elected officials' decisions that run counter to your recommendations • Being politically savvy: recognizing and navigating relationships to influence and achieve positive results • Understanding the political environment and the impact of decision making on diverse groups.
Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Helping elected officials develop a policy agenda that can be implemented effectively and that serves the best interests of the community
• Understanding the policy cycle, including problem definition, data gathering, development and analysis of alternatives, and ranking and recommendations
• Communicating sound information and recommendations
• Developing fact sheets, issue briefs, and other materials to provide information to decision makers and other stakeholders
• Respecting the role and authority relationships between elected and appointed officials • Recognizing interdependent relationships and multiple causes of community issues • Anticipating the consequences of policy decisions and their link to strategy • Acting as a neutral party in the resolution of policy disputes; using mediation and negotiation techniques • Identifying core initiatives, long-term trends, and policy issues to support and enhance the success of local government
" • Participating in national, state, provincial, regional, and local policy discussions. y < 5 1CM ,P CTWES -Fdk S ffWK Ldt-_AL advEtNM W -T'' € E i{ R Ht
9. MKNAUNITY AND RESIDENT SERVICE
Discerning community needs and providing responsive, equitable services t.eaders>hip dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Convening, encouraging, and ensuring that all facets of the community are represented and have physical or technological access to engage in and be informed about community discussions and issues • Celebrating participation and engagement of the community • Building a culture of transparency throughout the organization • Making difficult funding recommendations and building consensus when needed, taking service equity into consideration
• Understanding that different approaches are needed to account for different needs.
Manage zaent dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Adopting a variety of data collection methods to determine community and resident needs and to inform decision making
• Using technology to build an open and engaging relationship between residents and their government • Employing various communication methods, including social media, to ensure transparency and to tell the story of local government services and performance
• Providing complete, accurate, and timely information.
10. SERIA E DELIVERY
Understanding the basic principles of service delivery, using strategic decision making and continuous improvement to serve the organization and community, and influencing the components and relationships between operational areas
Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Championing and supporting comprehensive plans and quality standards for service delivery and efficiency • Anticipating the probability and impact of external influences on the organization, community, and individual service levels; initiating change to harness positive impacts and mitigate negative impacts • Identifying strategic decisions required to pivot current resources and policies to achieve a desired future state • Holding managers and staff accountable for measuring performance, using data to improve services, sharing data with other communities, and using data to communicate with constituents and tell a story • Building a culture that values high performance and continuous improvement. tVlasnajernent dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Understanding the basic principles of service delivery in functional areas • Systems planning: Understanding the processes by which functional and operational systems can impact the ability to grow jobs and improve the economy, to control cost of government, and to improve quality of life; recognizing that systems are interrelated and interdependent and must work in a coordinated fashion, in order to maintain long-term community vitality
• Asking the right questions of functional experts to ascertain service delivery needs and corresponding solutions • Understanding the roles and responsibilities of all levels of management and aligning those with the broader mission and vision of the organization
• Identifying the interconnectivity within the organization and with other levels of government—horizontal integration and collaboration—to create opportunities to improve service or efficiency • Identifying, gathering, and reporting performance measures in a manner that is meaningful, understandable, and efficient; using data to lead and manage the organization and deliver results.
Eo i?R�gsc�F�i< Gecvtr iu rQs�.R
il. TECHNOLOGICAL LI` E C`f
Demonstrating an understanding of information technology and ensuring that it is incorporated appropriately in service delivery, information sharing, and public access Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Remaining future oriented to anticipate how new developments in technology can be applied to local government
• Being a change agent, role model, and advocate for technology innovation that improves the organization and community
• Engaging the users of technology in decision making about the tools they use to serve the community and accomplish tasks
• Sharing data and technology with other communities to improve delivery of service and, ultimately, quality of life.
Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Identifying the organization's technology needs and devising strategic plans to meet those needs • Managing technology resources to maintain up-to-date systems, software, and infrastructure; establishing a business continuity plan
• Ensuring security of information technology systems
• Continually exploring work process and process improvements; automating only effective processes.
12. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETING
Implementing long-term financial analysis and planning that integrates strategic planning and reflects a community's values and priorities; preparing and administering the budget Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Supporting transparency in financial planning and budget development by involving the community to identify goals and prioritize spending
• Building financial resiliency by analyzing risk, anticipating future trends and challenges, and planning for the unexpected
• Using the budget to tell a story and as a vehicle to connect with and inform the community • Understanding the community and governing body's priorities and advancing them through the budget and short- and long-term financial planning and management
• Communicating and working collaboratively with departments and stakeholders throughout the budget process and through ongoing financial management
• Ensuring the governing body is well informed about its fiduciary responsibilities.
Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Implementing short- and long-term financial analysis and planning • Preparing accurate and understandable capital and operating budgets • Providing information for effective budget and financial planning decisions by elected officials and other stakeholders
• Administering the adopted budget and ensuring accountability for spending • Taking responsibility for preventing fraud in the system • Engaging in strategic planning to direct the development of goals and the budget document • Engaging employees across the organization in strategic planning, budget development, and ongoing budget management
• Measuring performance and assessing the results of spending . Understanding investments and best practices of government finance officers • Interpreting financial information to assess the short- and long-term fiscal condition of the community, determine the cost-effectiveness of programs, and compare alternative strategies. i 7 €C(NA €R'CTtES FFYf:EEc't`!vt L.QALOCtf R1ME�fT'LE1kbEfkp`
13. HUIMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE ENGAGEMENT Ensuring that the policies and procedures of the organization are applied consistently and fairly, and motivating and engaging the workforce to its highest potential
Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Encouraging each employee to be focused on personal growth; proactively providing professional and leadership development opportunities for staff
• Modeling the organization's values
• Building a culture of trust and inclusiveness in which employees understand the big picture and how their positions fit within it
• Ensuring that hiring practices are open and transparent and that diversity goals are acted upon • Actively engaging employees in the development of a high-performance organization • Forecasting the needs of the workforce and institutionalizing succession planning.
Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Understanding the organization's policies and procedures, making sure that they remain current, and ensuring that they are applied consistently
• Understanding the collective bargaining process
• Keeping current on trends in human resources management • Understanding employee and employer rights and responsibilities and applicable laws and regulations • Providing for continuous education and improvement, including coaching, mentoring, and access to professional and leadership development
• Recruiting, retaining, and developing a talented workforce • Aligning the organization's human capital with the strategic objectives of the governing body.
14. COMMUNICATION AIND hNFOR AT ICN SHARING
Effectively facilitating the flow of ideas, information, and understanding Leadership dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Articulating personal support for policies, programs, or ideas that advance organizational and community objectives
• Practicing emotional intelligence, including understanding and managing your own and others' emotions and harnessing emotions to apply them to tasks like thinking and problem solving • Using verbal and nonverbal communication and cues to inspire and motivate • Effectively communicating with elected officials
• Maintaining poise and composure while presenting in emotionally charged and crisis situations • Understanding your environment; knowing when to engage and when not to engage • Building a culture of transparency in the organization that facilitates effective information sharing across the entire organization and community
• Strategically supplementing the organization's communication tools to provide the most effective outreach opportunities.
Management dimensions that contribute to this core content area are:
• Clearly and articulately conveying a message to diverse audiences who have different levels of understanding of the content
• Selecting the most effective communication methods and using interesting and compelling tools to share information, including story telling
• Communicating and sharing information respectfully, credibly, and confidently • Communicating complex material in a nontechnical way
'� . t . i�i'G2GkCP"ECA C(}N 1 �IIDSG4'
xdes.
• Anticipating things that can go wrong and preparing accordingly • Demonstrating a solid grasp of the subject matter
• Understanding, appreciating, and interacting with persons from cultures or belief systems other than one's own
• Providing accurate information in a timely manner
• Training staff on how to appropriately and effectively communicate with various stakeholders, including traditional and social media, with one message and one voice, and in compliance with community protocols • Preparing a crisis communication protocol
• Establishing positive working relationships with the media and other key information -sharing outlets • Understanding and training staff on the importance of appropriate compliance with public records requests. f
r
9i4� W, C47MR5
k�
CG
Tim BosroN CoNsuimm GGRoup
Four Steps to High -Impact
Strategic Planning
in Government
»� �;
ya_.. tom:
The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a global
management consulting firm and the world's
leading advisor on business strategy. We partner
with clients from the private, public, and not-for-
profit
otforprofit sectors in all regions to identify their
highest -value opportunities, address their most
critical challenges, and transfbffrt their enterprises.
Our customized approach combines deep insight
into the dynamic of companies and markets with
close collaboration at all levels of the client
organization_ This ensures that our clients achieve
sustainable competitive advantage, build more
capable organizations, and secure lasting results.
Founded in 1963, BGG is a private company with
offices in more than 90 cities in 5o countries. For
more information, please visit bcg corn,
DCCT
Ti f v BOSTON CONSUIA ING GROUP
Matt Boland, Troy Thomas, and Danny WerfeL
AT
A GLANCE
Governments struggle when it comes to strategic planning and execution. But rising risks and expectations make it critical that they up their game.
MOUNTING CHALLENGES
The public sector is facing harsh new realities, including increasing complexity, declining public confidence, and constrained budgets.
BARRIERS To EFFECTIVE PLANNING
Governments face significant obstacles in improving strategic planning and execution. Among them: frequent Leadership turnover and a risk -averse culture.
ACTIONS THAT DELIVER IMPACT
Government leaders can improve strategic planning by focusing on steps in four areas: culture, purpose, operating model, and execution.
OW DO GOVERNMENTS FARE when it comes to strategic planning and execu- tion? Consider a recent session SCG conducted with a group of government leaders. To kick off the discussion, we asked for a show of hands: Who among you knows exactly what your agency's priorities are? A few raised their hands. We then asked, Who among you believes that your agency's strategic -planning process has had a real impact on your work? Again, just a few. Our final question: How many of you think that your agency can—and must—do better in this area? To that, every- one raised a hand.
Smart planning and sustained execution are needed to anticipate and navigate the increasing complexity and challenges facing government leaders around the world.
Governments must make the best use of limited resources and mitigate the risks of economic and political turbulence. Despite these imperatives, public -sector agen- cies commonly fail to value strategy, and they rarely excel at strategic planning and execution. The result: government leaders struggle to change their organization's behavior and to drive progress toward the most important policy outcomes.
The key to upping government's game on this front is to understand what prevents effective strategic planning and execution and then to attack those challenges head on. On the basis of its more than So years of working as a leader in strategy, BCG has developed deep insight into the barriers that confront the private sector and an understanding of how they also challenge the public sector. These hurdles include a planning system that is too focused on bureaucratic processes at the expense of outcomes. In the public sector, such challenges are compounded by the frequent changes in leadership that are tied to election cycles, entrenched hierarchies and regulations, and a culture of risk avoidance.
Drawing on 31 interviews with current and former public -sector leaders around the globe, we have identified four steps that governments can take to eliminate these obstacles: promote a strategic culture, leverage the organization's purpose to cata- lyze action, transform the operating model, and build a system for execution and learning.
Remaking the strategic -planning process is not about creating the optimal meeting schedule, metrics, or mission statements. It is about building a system that allows agency and department heads to determine priorities, put adequate resources be- hind those priorities, and then hold people accountable for results. It is about solving real problems. When they achieve this, government leaders find that they are fight- ing the right battles and delivering lasting value for their citizens.
It is through strategic planning and execution that both private- and public -sector organizations develop and implement strategies, whether for corporate growth or for achieving a federal mandate. Through this process, organizations reconcile their responsibilities with their resources and set strategic priorities. When done well, strategic planning and execution can effectively account for and manage the nu- merous variables that affect their plans and programs and make the important con- nections within and among stakeholders, allowing them to work in concert toward critical goals. Sustainable and flexible execution of the strategy promotes the likeli- hood that government will deliver on its promises, improving citizens' confidence and promoting their trust.
Exhibit 1 illustrates one highly effective approach to strategic planning: the W-shaped model. (See Four Best Practices for Strategic Planning, BCG Focus, April 2016.) This approach starts with leadership's definition of the organization's vision and strategic ambition. Next, the division, field unit, or function heads are asked to respond to a series of pointed questions about the organization's big challenges rel- ative to this vision. Answering these questions, the unit or function heads suggest concepts or proposals for meeting the challenges. On the basis of their subsequent discussion, management selects proposals and assigns the unit or function heads responsibility for developing detailed plans for putting those proposals into action.
Management drives execution of the plan, as well as a system for learning and adapting that is based on new information.
Mlounting pUbiic-Sector ChaUenl-ew. The need for this sort of effective strategic - planning and execution process in government is intensifying in the face of four difficult realities.
E HISIT 11 lie a -Shaped Approach Can Drive Effective Strategic Planning and Execution Strategic dialogue Strategic planning
Strategy execution
vie
Define key Review,
challenge, w,
Approve plans;
Vision and ?ategic consolidate, allocate
;-
anibit4on estkJ!?5;
`� aE-t_+aptsr��t8 reso�rc�sto
" Ccommunicate na ssF�e-
des,gp. process. high -Leve!, prang sttppan platis
4, tr gu_.--
CUEt4 7
- 41 111eVei #^'EL%YE:.(Qp
g �detajed
Align FSefine
n i1,.
Ulan, aar)C�J'catP_�
strate,6� plii�rs
- suece5f
- mQp
cations
Source: BCG analysis.
i'
First, owing to the scale and pace of change, including changes driven by advancing technology, today's operating environment is more complex than ever before. Case in point: the democratization and proliferation of advanced technologies is upend- ing the way governments manage risks to security and their economies. Second, finding solutions to most public -sector challenges requires the involvement of more stakeholders—in and out of government—than in the past. For example, respond- ing effectively to the risks posed by infectious diseases such as the Zika and Ebola viruses required international collaboration within and across government agencies as well as the private sector. Third, many governments are facing ongoing erosion of public confidence. A 2017 Pew Research Center survey, for example, found that only 18% of Americans trust the national government to do what is right. A 2015 survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, mean- while, found that just 43% of citizens in its member countries trust their govern- ment. Fourth, many governments are feeling the squeeze on discretionary spending due to rising deficits, aging populations, and the increasing cost of government services.
Obstacles to Enectpre Strateaic Narmiing. Amid such challenges, strategic planning becomes more important than ever before. However, in many public and private organizations, such planning is frequently undervalued and poorly done.
Many of the obstacles are common to both government and the private sector. In numerous situations, the process is too bureaucratic, requiring multiple iterations and consuming too much time. It can also be too internally focused, failing to ac- count for external factors or to learn from the experience of other sectors or similar organizations. Furthermore, in all too many cases, strategic planning excludes key stakeholders who are needed both for diagnosing challenges and for delivering out- comes. The failure to involve midlevel managers is particularly problematic be- cause it can mean that the right issues are not elevated to the attention of senior leaders as they set strategy and that there is limited buy -in among the rank and file, weakening execution. Finally, there is a disconnect between the strategy and the in- centive structure that is meant to promote follow-through on the strategic plan_ Public -sector organizations are, of course, quite different from private -sector compa- nies. Some challenges seen in the private sector may be magnified in the public sphere while other additional issues that exist in government have no presence in the private sector.
For one thing, government leaders—especially political appointees—generally have a more limited window of time for action than do private -sector leaders. That's be- cause there is high turnover among government leaders in many countries. In the U.S., for example, not only does a considerable majority of the federal government's most senior political leaders turn over every four to eight years, but the average tenure of a federal government, Senate -confirmed appointee is only 18 to 30 months.
At the same time, although many government leaders have solid policy expertise, a large number have little of the strategy and management expertise that comes from running a large and complex organization. As a result, it's not unusual for them to delegate responsibility for the strategic -planning process, and they are not
always personally invested in execution. This lack of engagement at the top filters down, leading to marginally engaged staff members who are not optimally commit- ted to developing and implementing the organization's strategy.
Finally, many government organizations don't perceive risk as private -sector com- panies do. Public -sector organizations can often be focused on short-term outcomes and compliance with rules and regulations rather than on long-term strategic re- sults. Consequently, creating a strategy that can be adapted in the face of changing environments or new information is difficult.
Buildinci a Strategic-111x-iincr flrocess That Deliver,, Impact To improve their strategic -planning and execution track record, government leaders should focus on steps that leverage four critical areas: culture, purpose, operating model, and execution. (See Exhibit 2.) Steps taken in these areas affect all stages of strategic planning—and can enhance the entire process. Of the four, culture is the most critical. It shapes and is shaped by the other three major levers for change.
Changing an organization's culture will unlock opportunity in the other three areas and help embed change in the organization.
PROMOTE ASTRATEGIC CULTURE
Certainly, there are pockets of robust strategic planning in government, particularly within the defense sector: it is ingrained in the military profession. But either the culture of too many public -sector organizations does not embrace the value of stra- tegic planning or the organizations' leaders aren't committed to that process.
To ensure a successful culture shift, the head of the agency or office must take a leading role in strategic planning, middle management must be involved from the ExHIBiT 2; Action in four Areas Can Improve Strategic Naming -and Execution Government should promote
a strategic culture to improve
performance in the other
three areas
Defining and leveraging the
organization's purpose involves
outlining a clear vision, setting
strategic objectives linked to
that vision, and creating a
strong narrative
Source: BCG anatysis.
Culture
i Purpose - Execution
Operating
model
The right data, clear accountability,
and appropriate incentives will
improve execution and learning
To transform the operating model,
government should enhance risk
management, engage with
external stakeholders, and align
resources with strategy
start, and the risk -averse mindset inherent in government organizations must be ad- dressed.
"Strategy is ultimately the top leader's responsibility," according to one former senior government official. "You can't delegate responsibility for leading change." Public -sector leaders must personally drive the effort to set strategic priorities, build buy -in, align resources, communicate the strategy consistently, and hold peo- ple accountable for executing the plan. And they should make it clear to everyone in the organization that the unit responsible for strategic planning has a clear man- date from the top.
To draw midlevel management into the strategic -planning process from the start, senior management must identify key staff throughout the organization who have responsibility for implementing policies and programs and bring them into the process through cross -functional teams. In addition, leaders should link the day-to- day work of frontline staffers to the strategy by highlighting ways that their roles and responsibilities—and the strategic -planning system itself—can help eliminate the obstacles to achieving important objectives and directly contribute to solving citizens' real-world problems. Such steps will develop strategic thinking in person- nel who are likely to be the next generation of leadership. And just as important, it will build buy -in for the strategy, making successful execution more likely.
The former head of a major operational directorate within a large government tax authority told us, "If a team is closely involved in developing the strategy, they will feel ownership of it. If they feel ownership, then they will want to make it work." For the head of one large government diplomatic organization, ensuring commit- ment to the strategy among the rank and file was critical for delivering results. She initiated and personally led a strategic -planning process when she took the helm of the organization a few years ago and involved managers from across the organiza- tion in the effort. In addition, goals were designed to drive agency -wide cooperation across various functional and regional silos. "This created a clear sense of where we were going, why, and the role each group played in achieving our goals," she reported.
The conservative mindset that some government organizations cultivate in employees can be a serious impediment to execution of the strategy. It's important to find ways to reward and protect—not punish—those who take reasonable risks and achieve less than positive results.
The head of a large transportation department understood that risk aversion could seriously undermine the progress of an extensive infrastructure project that the de- partment was managing. The staff knew that rather than confine traffic to one lane during the many months of construction, the most cost-effective way to manage one element of the project would be to completely shut down traffic for several weeks. The head of the department knew that shutting down all traffic would generate short-term public outcry, but he was willing to take that risk. He understood the long-term public benefit and cost-saving opportunity that could be achieved in ex- pediting the project, and he made it clear to his staff that he would own the deci- sion should public backlash be directed at any of them.
I.I VERAGF.. THF. ORGANIZATION'S PURPOSE.
A critical element in effective strategic planning is a clear sense of purpose, which consists of an organization's timeless reason for being—its mission—and the strate- gic goals for fulfilling this mission within a set period of time. Strategic planning and execution allow organizations to deliver on that purpose by setting priorities, aligning resources, and mobilizing and measuring action.
The following three actions help overcome the barriers to effective strategic plan- ning and execution that stem from the organization's overall sense of purpose:
Reinforce the core mission of the organization. In addition to reinforcing the core mission, which is generally rooted in law, the leaders must articulate a compelling vision for advancing the mission over a three- to five-year period.
This will provide critical direction and energy for the organization and ensure that all staff members understand where the organization is moving.
Set clear strategic priorities to achieve the vision. This step may seem obvious, but it is rarely easy. "Deciding among top priorities is a challenge," a former senior advisor in the U.S. executive branch told us. "Not everything can be a priority. You need ruthless prioritization." Staff will play a key role in this area, helping to frame the inherent tensions and tradeoffs among these prior- ities.
Communicate the strategy throughout the organization. Organization leaders must make strategy come alive by providing their staff a consistently vivid strategic narrative that is relevant to their day-to-day activities. This story should be related energetically throughout the organization: the top leaders communicate the strategy to their direct reports, who then communicate it to the people they manage, and so on. The cascading narrative should show workers how their actions, driven by the new strategy, directly contribute to improving the organization's performance. Such clarity can go a long way toward improving the odds of successful execution of the strategy.
Consistent messaging was a powerful tool for mobilizing staff behind a large government defense agency's new strategy. To help drive change, a variety of carefully drafted messages were developed to communicate the strategy, including a short "bumper sticker" message, a three-minute elevator pitch, a series of videos from top leaders, and detailed documents and presentations.
One senior leader recalled that the head of the agency `joked that the strategy bumper sticker message would end up on his tombstone" Still, consistent communication was critical. "Absent that kind of commitment to messaging of the strategy," she noted, "it is difficult to overcome the cultural resistance to change."
TRANSFORM TM OPERATINC MODEL
Typically, the public -sector operating model—the governance, structure, and proc- esses of a government agency—is hierarchical, rigid, and not adaptable to changing circumstances. Action in three areas can eliminate those impediments and, in so do- ing, enable a more effective and efficient operating model:
Communication and Engagement with External Stakeholders. Government leaders should create a clear process for working with, for example, appropria- tors, authorizers, budgeting agencies, the office of the president or prime minister, citizens, and industry in order to secure the necessary resources and support for the strategic objectives.
Integration of Risk Management in the Strategic -Planning Process. Strategic planning and risk management must be integrated so that the organization can anticipate and prepare for the full spectrum of potential problems and opportu- nities that could arise during execution. In many cases, the primary risks relate to insufficient statutory authority, resource constraints, and weak or unwilling external partners. And effective risk management requires looking at the organi- zation's entire interrelated portfolio of programs, rather than addressing only risks that are within silos or that are perceived as external to the organization.
Adapting Processes to Support the Strategy. New programs, policies, and the ways that their success is tracked and that resources are allocated should be directly linked to the organization's strategic objectives. The use of agile teams—groups whose members are from functions throughout the organization and that are designed for rapid experimentation and adjustment—can provide powerful support in the design and development of these programs and poli- cies. (See "Taking Agile Way Beyond Software," SCG article, July 2017.) Such teams can generate quick insight on which initiatives are working and which are not. In addition, what success will look like for each strategic objective should be clear, with specific performance goals, indicators, and milestones identified for assessing progress. Furthermore, leaders must ensure that the disposition of resources and talent and the decision-making process are driven by the organi- zation's strategic priorities. The head of the large diplomatic organization mentioned previously says that more often than not, this is the exception in government. In many cases, she noted, '`the strategy is not viewed as something that helps us get resources. There's very little correlation between the strategy and budget requests.'
Leaders within the large defense organization described previously not only created multiple ways to communicate the strategy but also built a process that ensured that strategic priorities were supported with the necessary resources.
During the budgeting process, one military department cut back on orders for equipment that was needed to support a crucial strategic objective. The aim was to trim purchases in order to invest in modernizing other conventional capabili- ties. Armed with a clear understanding of the priorities, senior defense organiza- tion leadership directed the department to fund strategically important equip- ment while allowing the department to determine how to offset the costs of other, less critical programs.
DEVELOP A SYSTEM FOR EXECUTION AND LEARNING
Agencies that lack critical tools and data that can be used to measure progress can- not adjust course on the basis of new information. In addition, when strategy is not integrated into the day-to-day actions of frontline staff, employees can focus too much on programs that are not relevant to the organization's strategic priorities.
Doing an effective job of executing and adjusting the strategy hinges on three ele- ments: the right data, a system that values accountability and aligns incentives, and the ability to adapt where necessary. The involvement and commitment of frontline managers is critical to success in all three areas.
The data required includes not only upfront information about what works in terms of programs and initiatives—data that can drive the initial strategic -planning process—but also timely and action -promoting data during the execution phase.
Such information can come from both internal and external sources. Internal data may be the result of monthly strategy "pulse checks" with staff, quarterly or annual strategic reviews with senior managers, and evaluations of specific programs. Exter- nal data can and—in many cases—should include information on the impact of certain programs in the real world. For the data to make a difference, it must be available, reliable, and timely, A senior executive in a large finance and tax agency told us that it's important to "measure what matters—and movement will happen on things you measure."
The second element—accountability and incentives—is critical to successful execu- tion. Leaders should hold regular evidence -based progress reviews with key manag- ers, including officials who have direct oversight of programs that support each strategic objective. The sessions should focus on performance data for each pro- gram and allow in-depth discussions that include suggestions related to improving performance and mitigating risk. These sessions must be held more frequently and cover more detail than the annual or quarterly strategic reviews that many govern- ment departments and agencies already conduct. At the same time, the organiza- tion should create clear and valued incentives, including formal and informal awards and recognition for those who adopt new behaviors and contribute most to achieving objectives.
The most effective government organizations understand that without accountabili- ty and the right incentives, even the best strategic plan will likely never become re- ality. One large agency responsible for managing much of the government's real es- tate holdings held biweekly meetings at which staff reported progress on strategic priorities. According to the agency administrator, that "repeatable rhythm" of re- porting kept the team focused on those priorities. A public -housing -and -finance or- ganization, meanwhile, tied management's performance evaluations to the accom- plishments of the agency's strategic objectives. This required identifying the right metrics for tracking progress against the objectives and instituting a credible and timely review process that integrated that information.
The third element—the ability to monitor performance in a way that helps the or- ganization adapt—can result in two types of adjustments. First, data on the progress of key strategic objectives can help the organization alter the way it is executing its existing strategy. The strategic objectives may not change, but the way in which the organization tries to achieve them may. The second involves revision of the strategy itself. The need for such a shift can become evident only if the organization steps back periodically to assess whether or not things have changed in the overall operat- ing environment. Such analysis may reveal that the assumptions on which the origi- nal strategy was based have changed, making it necessary to revisit the strategy.
oVERNMENT AGENCY AND department heads worldwide can confirm that, as public -sector leaders, they are struggling to be successful in a uniquely challeng- ing period. Political upheaval is the norm, and technology continues to alter the ways that society functions.
In such an environment, government institutions must up their game or risk be- coming irrelevant to the citizens they serve. Because confidence has slipped and must now be rebuilt, governments will be forced to take a major leap in the ways that they plan and execute strategy. Government leaders must institute a strategic - planning process that identifies the right priorities and drives decision making that supports those priorities. Taking steps in the four areas we've outlined—culture, purpose, operating model, and execution—can move governments from endless rounds of planning to delivery of results.
About the Authors
Matt Boland is a career diplomat with the Foreign Service of the U.S. Department of State. You may contact him by emaii at [email protected]. The views expressed herein are those of Matt Boland and The Boston Consulting Group authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views or endorsement of the U.S. government.
Troy Thomas is an associate director in the firm's Washington, DC, office. He previously served as special assistant to the president for U.S .National Security Affairs and director of strategic planning on the U.S. National Security Council. You may contact him by email at [email protected].
Danny Werfel is a partner and managing director in BCC's Washington, DC, office. He previously served as the acting commissioner of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. You may contact him by email at were[ [email protected].
Ackn wledgrnetits
The authors are grateful to their BCG colleague Aaron Tessler for his support in developing the research for this report. They also thank Amy Barrett for writing assistance, as well as Katherine Andrews, Gary Callahan, Elyse F iedman, Kim Friedman.; Abby Garland, Sean Hourihan, and Shannon Nardi for their contributions to the editing, design, and production of this report.
For Further Contact
If you would like to discuss this report, please contact one of the authors.
To find the tatest SCG content and register to receive e-aterts on this topic or others, ptease visit bcg.com.
Fottow The Boston Consulting Group on Facebook and TWitter. @ The Boston Consulting Group, Inc- 2018. All rights reserved. 5118
1 TBF, BOMN CONSULTING GROUP
bcg.com