The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Strategic Planning Improve Organizational Performance? A Meta‐Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Strategic planning is a widely adopted management approach in contemporary organizations. Underlying its popularity is the assumption that it is a successful practice in public and private organizations that has positive consequences for organizational performance. Nonetheless, strategic planning has been criticized for being overly rational and for inhibiting strategic thinking. This article undertakes a meta‐analysis of 87 correlations from 31 empirical studies and asks, Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? A random‐effects meta‐analysis reveals that strategic planning has a positive, moderate, and significant impact on organizational performance. Meta‐regression analysis suggests that the positive impact of strategic planning on organizational performance is strongest when performance is measured as effectiveness and when strategic planning is measured as formal strategic planning. This impact holds across sectors (private and public) and countries (U.S. and non‐U.S. contexts). Implications for public administration theory, research, and practice are discussed in the conclusion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS
HOOD, C. (1991) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x · Cited by 10,159
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“Publication bias implies that more significant research findings are published than null results (Rosenthal 1979).”
BackgroundBuilding a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766 · cited 5×
“Specifically, the theoretical logic underlying this relationship is in accord with the Harvard policy model (Andrews 1980), synoptic planning theory (Dror 1983), and goal-setting theory (Locke and Latham 2002).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialPrimary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890 · cited 1×
“This study used a meta-analysis, or an “analysis of analyses,” defined as “the statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings” (Glass 1976, 3).”
MethodMeta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
The entrepreneurial state: debunking public vs. private sector myths
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-3359 · Cited by 2,297
What to do when Stakeholders matter: Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques
Bryson, J. M. (2004) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719030410001675722 · Cited by 1,426
Cited by
Dimand, A. M. (2022) · International Journal of Public Sector Management · doi:10.1108/ijpsm-10-2021-0239 · Cited by 34
Johnsen, Å., Solholm, K., & Tufte, P. A. (2024) · Public Performance & Management Review · doi:10.1080/15309576.2024.2360158 · Cited by 32
Al‐Hashimi, K., Weerakkody, V., Elbanna, S., & Schwarz, G. (2022) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13447 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- George, B., Walker, R. M., & Monster, J.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-10-15
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 810-819
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2980500179
- Cited by
- 522
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 50.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
