Strategy defining in government and other public organizations benefits from a more agile approach. Emphasizing execution and ongoing adaptation over detailed long-term planning, enables better navigation of intricate legitimacy challenges and shifting interest.

Public sector organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of strategic management, albeit the practice is still in its nascent stages. If they do, they tend to follow traditional approaches to strategic planning, aiming to aligning various interests, which culminate in highly detailed and constrained long-term plans. However, this meticulous approach has shown limitations, particularly in dynamic and unpredictable political environments.

Defining strategy in the public sector

Defining strategy in an dynamic and often unstable political environment is a multifaceted endeavor, deeply entrenched in the quest for legitimacy and the balancing of myriad interests. For this reason strategy defining in the public sector tends be a time-consuming process, marked by negotiations among various stakeholders, that can take months even years. Ironically, this rigorous planning does not guarantee a predictable smooth execution.

Strategy roll-outs often face volatility. The effort to reconcile diverse interests frequently results in highly complex solutions. In addition, despite thorough preparation, unresolved issues and conflicting interests persist, with strategies seen as provisional, pending future review. As new insights emerge, political landscapes evolve, new stakeholders get involved, or media scrutiny increases, the legitimacy of approved strategies is frequently challenged during its execution. This dynamic reality often triggers calls for strategy revision and adaptation, initiating new rounds of negotiations and new prolonged cycle of strategy formulation. As time passes the original meticulously crafted plans lose relevance giving rise to further (and justifiable) legitimacy concerns. This cycle prompts a critical question: given the substantial time invested in strategy formulation and possible reformulation, without the assurance of predictable outcomes, is such an approach genuinely worthwhile?

The role of legitimacy

Recognizing the inevitability of legitimacy challenges in public sector strategic changes, administrative leaders can opt for a proactive, agile approach to strategy development. This method underscores the importance of iterative strategy development, paralleling the accumulation of legitimacy with tangible outcomes that signal success. Given the complex web of interests in the public sector, it helps to initially focus on crafting a "strategic concept" that synchronizes meaning and intent among key stakeholders. This strategic concept acts as a source of legitimacy for subsequent strategic decisions. With the "strategic concept" in place, change agents can embark on cycles of short-term planning, execution, and retrospectives. The lack of detailed planning may prompt legitimacy concerns, as the public sector tends to be risk-averse. Mitigating this requires clear governance structures that ensure transparency in progress, offer specific opportunities for evaluation, and identify junctures for renegotiation based on evidence as newer versions of the strategic plan need to be crafted.

During the strategy journey, change agents must remain alert to shifts in legitimacy judgments by key stakeholders. Legitimacy tends to increase as successes are achieved, while failures can erode it. Yet, as perceptions evolve, these judgments themselves can lead to success or failure, making legitimacy a self-reinforcing phenomenon that can either advance the strategy or significantly impede it. This highlights the legitimization process as a critical, though often overlooked, element of transition. Legitimation entails continuous social negotiation, with the capacity of change agents to secure legitimacy being vital for success and garnering support for moving into the next phase. While rhetorical strategies might sometimes prove effective, often substantive adjustments are necessary to overcome resistance and external challenges. A proactive approach to these issues is crucial; overlooking them can increase opposition. Sticking strictly to an initial plan without considering these dynamics can invite scrutiny, reduce legitimacy, and, in extreme cases, result in reversals or the abandoning of strategies .

By embracing an agile approach to strategic change, administrative leaders acknowledge the volatile nature of their environment and the necessity of navigating political dynamics. Shifting focus from prolonged strategy formulation to prioritizing strategy execution and legitimation allows public sector leaders to develop strategies that are both resilient and adaptable to change. Furthermore, integrating legitimation as a continuous element within the cycles of strategy formulation and execution enhances their relevance and effectiveness.

In conclusion, adopting a more flexible and iterative approach to strategy development in the public sector marks a significant departure from conventional methods. As the public sector moves towards an agile strategy framework, it positions itself to deliver greater impact and value, fulfilling its mission to serve the public good more effectively.

Acknowledgement: the constructs in the blog are based on the research of Suddaby, Bitektine and  Haack (2017) regarding legitimacy and legitimation and Rajagopalan and Jalonen, Schildt and Vaara (2018) regarding strategic concepts.