Strategy Content and Public Service Organizations

Existing classifications of organizational strategy have limited relevance to public agencies. They confuse strategy processes and strategy content, consist of simplistic taxonomies, and do not take sufficient account of the constraints faced by public organizations. In this article we attempt to remedy these problems by developing a strategy content matrix that comprises two dimensions: strategic stance (the extent to which an organization is a prospector, defender, or reactor) and strategic actions (the relative emphasis on changes in markets, services, revenues, external relationships, and internal characteristics). This matrix is used to generate hypotheses on the strategies that are likely to be pursued by public organizations. The need for a clearer understanding of the strategies of public service organizations is urgent. Programs ofmanagement reform frequently require publicmanagers to develop new strategies that will lead to better performance. These expectations are clearly seen in the National Performance Review in the United States (Thompson 2000) and in the ‘‘Modernisation Agenda’’ in the United Kingdom (Boyne, Kitchener, and Kirkpatrick 2001). The aim of this article is to develop a framework to classify the strategies pursued by public organizations. Strategy content can be defined as the patterns of service provision that are selected and implemented by organizations. In contrast to the case in the private sector, strategy need not be viewed as a ‘‘weapon’’ that is used to defeat rivals in a competitive struggle (Greer and Hoggett 1999). Rather, strategy can be interpreted more broadly as a means to improve public services, whether these are provided by one agency or whole networks of organizations (Boyne 2003). Various strategic management frameworks seek to classify the strategies of public and private organizations (Ketchen, Thomas, and McDaniel 1996; Miles and Snow 1978; Miller 1986; Nutt and Backoff 1995; Porter 1980; Rubin 1988; Wechsler and Backoff 1987). However, there is no clear agreement on the concepts or classifications that are most appropriate (Montgomery, Wernerfelt, and Balakrishnan 1989). A framework that has applicability to public This article was presented at the American Society for Public Administration conference in Phoenix in March 2002. The research is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (Award R000239249). We would like to thank Frederick S. Lane for comments on an earlier draft and the four anonymous JPART referees. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muh015 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 231–252 a 2004 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc.; all rights reserved. at C adiff U niersity on A ril 5, 2012 http://jpaordjournals.org/ D ow nladed from organizations will make it possible to identify and measure their strategy content. This classification scheme could then be used in two ways in strategy research: as a dependent variable (in order to understand why particular strategies are adopted) and as an explanatory variable (in models of organizational performance). The remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, we discuss the meaning of the term strategy content and critically review existing frameworks for analyzing organizational strategies in the private and public sectors. Next we present a new matrix for conceptualizing and measuring strategy in public service organizations. Finally, we use this matrix to develop propositions on the strategies that public service organizations are likely to adopt. EXISTING MODELS OF STRATEGY CONTENT Strategy researchers focus on the relationships among organizational environments, strategy processes, strategy content, and organizational performance. The term strategy process (or strategy making) refers to how objectives and actions are selected or formulated (Hart 1992). The outcome of this process is strategy content itself, which is ‘‘a pattern of action through which [organizations] propose to achieve desired goals, modify current circumstances and/or realize latent opportunities’’ (Rubin 1988, 88). Strategy content can be conceptualized at two levels. First, it can be seen as a general approach that describes the organization’s position and how it interacts with its environment. We refer to this as ‘‘strategic stance,’’ or the broad way in which an organization seeks to maintain or improve its performance. It has been argued that this level of strategy is relatively enduring and unlikely to change substantially in the short term (Zajac and Shortell 1989). The second level of strategy involves the specific steps that an organization takes to operationalize its stance. We refer to these as ‘‘strategic actions,’’ which are more likely to change in the short term (Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal, and Hunt 1998). Stance and actions together constitute an organization’s strategy content. A large literature on the strategy content of private-sector organizations has developed (e.g., Fahey and Christensen 1988; Harrigan 1980; Miller 1986). However, this literature displays three main problems that restrict its relevance to the strategies of public organizations: false conflicts between strategy typologies that are supposedly competing but are actually complementary, simplistic and unidimensional classification systems that seek to locate different organizations in mutually exclusive boxes, and a failure to recognize the distinctive characteristics of management in the public sector. We now consider each of these issues in turn.