Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

 

 

i. the extent to which external actors attempt to influence the strategy of an agency

 

ii. whether control over strategic direction is external or internal

 

iii. whether strategy anticipates events or reacts to them

 

iv. the objectives of strategy

 

v. the orientation toward change and the status quo

 

vi. whether the scope of strategy covers a broad or narrow set of issues

 

vii. the level of management attention to strategic issues

 

viii. the balance between external and internal targets

 

These underlying components of the typology make up a me´lange of strategic goals (items iv and viii), strategy processes (items i, ii, and vii), strategic stance (items iii and v, which echo elements of Miles and Snow’s 1978 typology), and strategic actions (item vi, which is similar to Porter’s 1980 concept of differentiation). This is not, by any means, a typology of strategy content alone. Furthermore, the elements of content that are included are few in number (items iii, v, and vi) and incomplete. For example, the strategic actions element makes no reference to new services or sources of revenue.

 

Rubin attempts to develop an ‘‘archetypal typology of strategic action’’ that is ‘‘elemental enough to apply to any [public-sector] context’’ (1988, 85). The methodology for constructing the typology is unclear, but it seems to have been informed by evidence from case studies of twenty-seven public-sector organizations. Like Wechsler and Backoff (1986), Rubin falls into the ‘‘strategy in fours’’ school of typologists. His four generic strategies are as follows:

 

i. the ‘‘saga,’’ which is ‘‘a strategy configured to regain or protect a position or set of values perceived to be threatened by major internal or external change’’;

 

ii. the ‘‘quest,’’ which ‘‘derives from a desire to make fundamental change in the current operations, priorities, or values of the organization’’;

 

iii. the ‘‘venture,’’ which is ‘‘a pattern of action that focuses on either perceived opportunities or emergent problems’’; and

 

iv. the ‘‘parlay,’’ which ‘‘evolves in situations of extreme turbulence . . . where no clear trends or historic patterns can be discerned with any degree of confidence’’ (1988, 90–93).

 

This may be a vivid set of metaphors, but it sheds little light on strategy content. The ‘‘saga’’ clearly refers to strategic goals; the ‘‘venture’’ could simply be a general definition of any organizational strategy; and the ‘‘parlay’’ is a description of a set of circumstances in the environment of an organization. This leaves the ‘‘quest,’’ which contains elements of both the prospector and the defender in Miles and Snow’s (1978) typology. Thus, the supposed ‘‘archetypal typology’’ offers little coverage of strategic stance and none of strategic actions. Rubin’s claim to have produced a classification of strategy that is ‘‘basic to any context and is in effect protocontextual’’ (1988, 102) is extravagant and unfounded.



 

The final and most recent classification of strategy content in public-service organizations is provided by Nutt and Backoff (1995). Their aim is to identify the strategies


 

 

 

 


Date: 2015-01-11; view: 860


<== previous page | next page ==>
Contrast, in the public sector the relationship between regulation and strategy content is likely to be central rather than peripheral. | Home assignment & revision
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.007 sec.)