The Melding of Theory & Practice in Public Administration
Disappointments
Strategic Planning Disappointments Abound
Strategic planning disappointments can be explained in many ways. Below are some comments from those attending Dr. McWeeney’s training sessions and college courses over the years:
“Our leaders approved the process and presided over it, but they did not engage in the important discussions about controversial or sensitive issues, did not require precision in our goals and strategies, and did not move resources accordingly or check on performance.”
“Our goals were written very generally - almost like saying the sun should rise in the morning. No one understood what they meant, what was expected, or what problem they addressed. As far as I know, nothing happened as a result of the plan.”
“Our agency has a culture of strong resistance to change. I’m not aware of any effort that was made to address the sources of this resistance and develop policies to overcome it. As a result, the same problems that prevented success in the past quickly became evident as we tried to move out on some of our more innovative initiatives. In the end, we failed to overcome long standing bureaucratic obstacles.”
“Our agency put most of its focus on a nice professionally developed strategic plan with graphics, illustrations, and a significant amount of past performance information. It didn’t include any real emerging issues that would require new approaches, and the planning initiatives were too general. Most of us felt it was a nice PR document but not much more, and few ever referred to it after it was published.”
“My bosses clearly informed the planning group that certain topics were simply off limits. Unfortunately, those topics were often the ones that caused a very serious agency problem. I understood that we were supposed to identify all problems that limited performance so we could develop actions to fix them. This was simply not done, and the plan did not address any of our most significant problems.”
