Relationships between strategic performance measures, strategic decision-making, and organizational performance: empirical evidence from Canadian public organizations

Pollanen, Raili; Abdel‐Maksoud, Ahmed; Elbanna, Saïd; Mahama, Habib

doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1203013

Cited by 107 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The value of strategy implementation in strategy research is found in the concept of strategy and the strategic management modelsometimes denoted as the "process" or "framework" (Ackoff, 1970;Andrews, 1971;Ansoff, 1965;Dyson & O'brien, 1998;Espinosa, Reficco, Martínez, & Guzmán, 2015;Kazmi, 2008) and from many decades of strategy planning-performance studies (Grant, 2003;Kohtamäki, Kraus, Mäkelä, & Rönkkö, 2012;Kudla, 1980;Miller & Cardinal, 1994;Pollanen, Abdel-Maksoud, Elbanna, & Mahama, 2017;Thune & House, 1970).…”

Section: Background To the Measuring Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing and measuring strategy implementation: A multidimensional view

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When it comes to strategy making and strategy implementation, although it is acknowledged that the biggest challenge is the implementation, most of the literature tends to focus more on the strategy making part. Just like how the strategy implementation part of the strategy process has received little attention in the strategic planning literature, equally there are not much research devoted to developing measures for studying this important management process and practice. Through quantitative methodological approaches for studying the strategic management and planning process, and analysis of data from 208 senior managers involved in strategy processes within ten UK industrial sectors, this paper addresses this void by presenting evidence on the measurement properties of a multi‐dimensional instrument that assesses ten dimensions of strategy implementation. Using exploratory factor analysis, results indicate the sub‐constructs (the ten dimensions) are uni‐dimensional factors with acceptable reliability and validity. Furthermore, using three additional measures, a correlation and hierarchical regression analysis,the nomological validity for the multi‐dimensional strategy implementation construct was also established. Relative importance of ten strategy implementation dimensions (activities) for practising managers is highlighted, with the mutually and combinative effects and drawing conclusion that senior management involvement leads the way among the ten key identified activities vital for successful strategy implementation.

show abstract

Section: Background To the Measuring Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing and measuring strategy implementation: A multidimensional view

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this is clearly not the case as psychological, political and technical factors have influenced performance information use even when performance measurement systems are in place (e.g., Taylor ; Nomm and Randma‐Liiv ). Moreover, performance measurement has predominantly been conceptualized at the organizational, meso‐level using survey data from administrative staff (e.g., Pollanen et al ; George and Desmidt ), which inhibits our ability to elucidate the conditions under which performance information is used by individuals, at the micro‐level, and particularly by politicians. This is no trivial matter as policy‐making in many public organizations is part of the political arena where individual politicians use information—often provided by administrative staff—as well as their own political beliefs and agreements to formulate new policies and decisions related to those policies (Nielsen and Baekgaard ; George et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional isomorphism, negativity bias and performance information use by politicians: A survey experiment

George

Bækgaard

Decramer

et al. 2018

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New Public Management popularized performance measurement in public organizations. Underlying performance measurement's popularity is the assumption that it injects performance information (PI) into decision-making, thus rationalizing the ensuing decisions. Despite its popularity, performance measurement is criticized. In part, this criticism results from the limited knowledge of the conditions under which PI is purposefully used by politicians. We conducted a survey experiment based on real PI with 1,240 politicians. We hypothesized that PI has a positive impact on performance information use (PIU) when PI is benchmarked with coercive, mimetic or normative pressures. Moreover, due to negativity bias we expected this positive impact to be stronger when PI signals low performance. We found that normative pressures had a positive impact on actual PIU while coercive pressures positively affected intended PIU. Negativity bias is only relevant when linked to coercive pressures and intended PIU for analysing the organization's finances. | INTRODUCTIONThe advent of New Public Management (NPM)-a focus on accountability, effectiveness and efficiency-has ignited the popularity of performance measurement in public organizations (Hood 1991;Osborne 2006). Performance measurement has been conceptualized as an approach to strategy implementation which includes (a) using performance information to track the realization of strategic goals over time, (b) setting targets for this information and evaluating performance against those targets and (c) comparing performance information across departments and with other organizations (Poister et al. 2013;George and Desmidt 2018). Underlying its popularity is the assumption that

show abstract

“…Moreover, such perceptual data may be the only comparable information available on the achievements of key public services on different dimensions of performance in countries that lack extensive performance management regimes and information. Indeed, a number of recent studies of strategic management in the public sector have drawn on subjective performance measures (e.g., [24,67]). …”

Section: Service Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy Implementation Style and Public Service Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity

Andrews

Beynon

Genç

2017

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategic decision-making theories suggest that organizations that combine rational and incremental strategy implementation styles are likely to perform better than those that emphasize a single style. To assess whether these arguments apply to the public sector; we explore the strategy implementation style and perceived service effectiveness, efficiency and equity of Turkish municipal government departments. Using fuzzy cluster analysis, we identify four distinctive though inter-related styles of strategy implementation in our sample organizations: logical-incremental; mostly rational; mostly incremental; and no clear approach. A logical-incremental and mostly rational style of implementation are associated with better effectiveness, efficiency and equity; with the absence of an implementation style associated with worse performance. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

Relationships between strategic performance measures, strategic decision-making, and organizational performance: empirical evidence from Canadian public organizations

Cited by 107 publications

References 56 publications

Conceptualizing and measuring strategy implementation: A multidimensional view

Conceptualizing and measuring strategy implementation: A multidimensional view

Institutional isomorphism, negativity bias and performance information use by politicians: A survey experiment

Strategy Implementation Style and Public Service Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About