Advertisement

Strategy and Performance

  • Jan-Erik JohansonEmail author
  • Jarmo Vakkuri
Chapter

Abstract

Johanson and Vakkuri put forward a combined view on the strategy performance interface. Strategic management and performance management are separate areas of activity, but they have multiple points of contact. The economy, efficiency and effectiveness are important aspects in designing organisation structures, developing heuristics and dealing with external constituencies. The long-terms consequences of the strategy performance interactions can be seen in the well-being of future generations, in development of social welfare and in the growth of the social capital.

Keywords

Strategic management Performance management Organisation design Heuristics Innovation 

References

  1. Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N. (2008). Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(6), 489–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, R., Beynon, M. J., & McDermott, A. M. (2015). Organizational capability in the public sector: A configurational approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archibugi, F. (2008). Planning theory: From the political debate to the methodological reconstruction. Milano: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 643–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behn, R. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2011). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Bingham, C., & Eisenhardt, K. (2011). Rational heuristics: The ‘simple rules’ that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1437–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyne, G. A. (2006). Strategies for public service turnaround: Lessons from the private sector? Administration & Society, 38(3), 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunsson, N. (2006). Mechanisms of hope: Maintaining the dream of the rational organization. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bryson, J. M., Berry, F. S., & Yang, K. (2010). The state of public strategic management research: A selective literature review and set of future directions. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(5), 495–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Lewin, A. (1994). Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology and applications. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 480–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Bruijn, J. (2002). Managing performance in the public sector. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1994). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dommett, K., & Skelcher, C. (2014). Opening the black box of administrative reform: A strategic-relational analysis of agency responses to termination threats. International Public Management Journal, 17(4), 540–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dosi, G., Faillo, M., & Marengo, L. (2008). Organizational capabilities, patterns of knowledge accumulation and governance structures in business firms: An introduction. Organization Studies, 29(8/9), 1165–1185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Einhorn, H. (1982). Learning from experience and suboptimal rules in decision-making. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 268–284). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ellison, B. (2006). Bureaucratic politics as agency competition: A comparative perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(13), 1259–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandez, R. M., & Gould, R. V. (1994). A dilemma of state power: Brokerage and influence in the National Health Policy domain. The American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1455–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenwood, R., & Miller, D. (2010). Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 78–88.Google Scholar
  25. Hafenbrädl, S., Waeger, D., Marewski, J. N., & Gigerenzer, G. (2016). Applied decision making with fast-and-frugal heuristics. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(2), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hood, C. (2011). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Johanson, J. E., & Vakkuri, J. (2017). Governing hybrid organisations: Exploring diversity of institutional life. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koopmans, T. (1977). Concepts of optimality and their uses. The American Economic Review, 67(3), 261–274.Google Scholar
  30. Lapsley, I., & Mitchell, F. (1996). Accounting and performance measurement: Issues in the private and public sectors. London: Paul Chapman Pub.Google Scholar
  31. Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levi-Faur, D. (2013). The odyssey of the regulatory state: From a “thin” monomorphic concept to a “thick” and polymorphic concept. Law & Policy, 35(1–2), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levinthal, D. A., & Workiewicz, M. (2018). When two bosses are better than one: Nearly decomposable systems and organizational adaptation. Organization Science, 29(2), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Llewellyn, S., & Northcott, D. (2005). The average hospital. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(6), 555–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1988). The uncertainty of the past. Organizational learning under ambiguity. In J. March (Ed.), Decisions and organizations (pp. 335–358). New York, NY: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Mayston, D. (1993). Principals, agents and the economics of accountability in the new public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 6(3), 68–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McNulty, T., & Ferlie, E. (2004). Process transformation: Limitations to radical organizational change within public service organizations. Organization Studies, 25(8), 1389–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moe, T. M. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. Can the Government Govern, 267, 285–323.Google Scholar
  40. Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nutt, P., & Backoff, R. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector organizations: A handbook for leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Piening, E. P. (2013). Dynamic capabilities in public organizations: A literature review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 15(2), 209–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poister, T. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Pollitt, C. (1986). Beyond the managerial model: The case for broadening performance assessment in government and the public services. Financial Accountability and Management, 2(3), 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Porter, T. (2008). Locating the domain of calculation. Journal of Cultural Economy, 1(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ridder, H., Bruns, H., & Spier, F. (2005). Analysis of public management change processes: The case of local government accounting reforms in Germany. Public Administration, 83(2), 443–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ring, P. S., & Perry, J. L. (1985). Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 276–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar
  51. Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 493–513.Google Scholar
  52. Stark, D. (2009). The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Steurer, R. (2013). Disentangling governance: A synoptic view of regulation by government, business and civil society. Policy Sciences, 46(4), 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trompette, P., & Vinck, D. (2009). Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 3(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uppström, E., & Lönn, C. (2017). Explaining value co-creation and co-destruction in e-government using boundary object theory. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 406–420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weber, M., & Winckelmann, J. (1985). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  57. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolf, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2017). Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1754–1788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations