Answer & Explanation:Study Guide/Lecture for Unit 4 Strategic Planning
The topic for Unit 4 is:
Organizational Environment Assessment and Strategic Issue
Identification
Objectives for Unit 4 is:
5. Conduct a SWOT analysis to help clarify agency mission
and goals.
7. Discuss strategies for overcoming barriers in strategic
planning related to institutional and structural problems.I have not started this Unit, so I am giving you the chapters to review and write up the lecture.
Chapter 5 & 6
Need 1500 words lecture/study on the material, it must have
the following below.
Provide a written unit
lesson below using your knowledge and experience to amplify and expand
upon the information presented in the reading assignments.
Consider inserting
examples and anecdotes that apply to the concepts to keep the students’
interest. How can you make the material valuable?
The lesson should be
10-pt. Arial, single-spaced, and at least two pages in length, 1500 words.
chapter_five_assessing_the_environment_to_identify_strengths_and_weaknesses.docx
chapter_six_identifying_strategic_issues_facing_the_organization.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
CHAPTER FIVE Assessing the Environment to Identify Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Challenges
You wouldn’t think that something as complexly busy as life would be so easy to overlook.
—Diane Ackerman, A Natural History of the Senses
So it is said that if you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if
you do not know others, but do know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and
do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War
To respond effectively to changes in their environments, public and nonprofit organizations
(collaborations and communities) must understand the external and internal contexts within which they
find themselves, so that they can develop effective strategies to link the two in such a way that
significant and long-lasting public value is created. The word context comes from the Latin for “weave
together,” and that is exactly what well-done external and internal environmental assessments help
organizations do: weave together their understandings and actions in a sensible way so that
organizational performance is enhanced. As Weick (1995, p. 104) observes, “Sensemaking is about
context. Wholes and cues, documents and meanings, figures and ground, periphery and center, all
define one another. Sensibleness derives from relationships, not parts.” Sensemaking is needed to
weave hindsight, foresight, and insight into sensible action.
The sheer pace of change in the world at large heightens the need for effective assessments. It seems as
if the future is hurtling toward us more quickly, dramatically, and disruptively than ever—and this can be
alternately confusing, pleasing, or downright scary. There are disputes about whether or not the pace of
change is accelerating (Mintzberg, 1994; Barkema, Baum, & Mannix, 2002; Ball, 2004). Whether it is or
not, there is enough change all around that wise organizational leaders feel compelled to pay attention.
In part this is because change so often occurs where, when, how, and in a form that is least expected—
which, of course, is exactly what you should expect in a complex, richly interconnected world (Kelly,
1994; Ball, 2004; Senge, 2006). In other words, the pace of change may or may not have increased, but
the complexity of the systems that make up the world almost certainly has. A complex system is:
One made up of a large number of parts that have many interactions.… [In] such systems the whole is
more than the sum of the parts in the weak but important pragmatic sense that, given the properties of
the parts and the laws of their interaction, it is not a trivial matter to infer the properties of the whole
(Simon, 1996, pp. 184–185).
As a result, change anywhere can result in unpredictable results elsewhere as the behavior of complex
systems often demonstrates a sensitive and unpredictable dependence on initial conditions (Gleick,
1988, 1999; Weick and Sutcliffe, 2007).
Some of these changes might be what Taleb (2007, p. xxii) calls Black Swan events, where the term black
swan refers to exceedingly rare events in a world where it is assumed all swans must be white. Black
Swan events are high-impact events that are both unusual—statistically extreme outliers—and highly
consequential. Taleb cites World War I, the rise of the personal computer, the Internet, and the events
of September 11, 2001, as examples. More recently we might add the global financial meltdown of
2007–2009; the eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull, which means “island mountain volcano,” that
stranded millions of travelers worldwide (including yours truly); and the allegedly impossible destruction
of British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil platform resulting in one of the worst environmental
disasters in U.S. history. Some may dispute the unpredictability of these occurrences, but the fact is that
most people were taken by surprise as much of their world changed dramatically around them,
temporarily in some cases and profoundly in others. Not all of this is new, of course. Around 400 bce,
Plato observed in the dialogue Cratylus, “Everything changes and nothing remains still” (paragraph 402,
section a, line 8). But the sheer scope and scale of hard-to-predict changes emanating from unexpected
sources probably is new.
Purpose
The purpose of Step 4 in the strategic planning process, therefore, is to provide information on the
strengths and weaknesses of the organization in relation to the opportunities and challenges or threats
it faces. This information can be used, as Figure 2.3 indicates, to create ideas for strategic interventions
that would shape and guide organizational decisions and actions designed to create public value.
Strengths and weaknesses are usually internal and refer to the present capacity of the organization,
whereas opportunities and challenges are typically external and refer to future potentials for good or ill.
The distinctions, however, between internal and external and present and future orientations are fluid
and people should not worry too much about whether they have drawn them properly.
In addition, collaborations and communities may wish to focus not on strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and challenges, but on their hopes and concerns for the community. The reason is that
the distinction between internal and external ceases to be very meaningful when applied to
collaborations or communities, because what is internal and external for groups and organizations who
will be key implementers is not the same as what is internal and external for the collaboration or
jurisdiction. Beyond that, attention to hopes and fears is more likely to elicit value concerns (Weick,
1995, pp. 30, 127), which may be more central to collaboration or community-oriented strategic
planning than to strategic planning for organizations (Provan & Milward, 2001; Stone, 2002; Agranoff,
2007). (Interestingly, delineation of hopes often may lead directly to the articulation of goals and
strategic issues; enumerating fears helps identify strategic issues that must be addressed in order to
achieve the goals, in part by avoiding what might be called negative goals, or serious outcomes to be
avoided; see Bryson, Ackermann, Eden, & Finn, 2004, pp. 161–163. The desire to avoid negative
outcomes is often more motivating than the desire to achieve more positive outcomes; see Eden &
Ackermann, 2010.)
The approach to external and internal environmental assessments outlined in this chapter will set the
stage for the identification of strategic issues in Step 5. It will also provide valuable information for use
in the following step, strategy development. Strategic issues typically concern how the organization
(what is inside) relates to the larger environment it inhabits (what is outside). Every effective strategy
will take advantage of strengths and opportunities at the same time it minimizes or overcomes
weaknesses and challenges. In other words, a good strategy will link inside and outside in effective ways.
Chapter One highlighted several major trends and events that are currently forcing often-drastic
changes on governments, public agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Unfortunately, for various
reasons, public and nonprofit organizations typically are not very savvy about perceiving such changes
quickly enough to respond effectively (Light, 1998, p. 66; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). Instead, a crisis often
has to develop before organizations respond (Wilson, 1989). This may open up significant opportunity
spaces, but for the unprepared organization many useful avenues of response typically will be closed off
by the time a crisis emerges (Bryson, 1981, pp. 185–189; Mitroff & Anagnos, 2005). Also, in crisis
situations people typically stereotype, withdraw, project, rationalize, oversimplify, and otherwise make
errors likely to produce unwise decisions (Janis, 1989). The result can be colossal errors and debacles
(Tuchman, 1984; Nutt, 2002). A major purpose of any strategic planning exercise therefore is to alert an
organization to the various external or future-oriented threats and challenges that may prompt or
require an organizational response in the foreseeable future. In other words, a major purpose of
strategic planning is to instill the kind of “mindfulness” (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007, p. 32) or “support for
sensemaking” (Weick, 1995, p. 179) that prompts timely learning and action and prepares an
organization to respond effectively to the outside world either before a crisis emerges or when one
cannot be avoided. Even in a crisis, however, organizations can use many of the concepts, procedures,
and tools of strategic planning to help them think and act strategically (Mitroff & Anagnos, 2005).
But any effective response to potential challenges or opportunities must be based on an intimate
knowledge of the organization’s competencies and the strengths and weaknesses they entail. Strategic
planning, in other words, is concerned with finding the best or most advantageous fit between an
organization and its larger environment based on an intimate understanding of both. Finding that fit
may involve changing the organization, affecting the environment, or both.
Desired Immediate Outcomes
Step 4 produces documented lists of external or future-oriented organizational opportunities and
challenges or threats and internal or present strengths and weaknesses. Ordered differently, these four
lists comprise a SWOC/T analysis, a popular strategic planning tool. Note that traditionally challenges
have been called threats, but experience and research indicate that talking about threats may be too
threatening to many strategic planning participants. Characterizing things as threats can lead to rigidity
in thinking or, alternatively, excessively risky behavior in response to the threat (see, for example, Staw,
Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981; Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Chattopadhyay, Glick, & Huber, 2001). My own
experience and that of other consultants with whom I work indicates that the more neutral label
challenges seems to open people up more to considering a range of possible futures and actions. If the
threat category alone is used, the SWOC/T analysis becomes a SWOT analysis, a more commonly used
term (see Bryson, 2001, 2003).
The SWOC/T analysis, in conjunction with a stakeholder analysis, can help the team to identify what the
organization’s critical success factors (CSFs) (also called key success factors) are (Johnson, Scholes, &
Whittington, 2008). These are the things the organization must do, criteria it must meet, or performance
indicators it must do well against (because they matter to key stakeholders) for it to survive and
prosper. Key success factors, in other words, function as important performance requirements that the
organization’s strategies as a set must meet. In addition, the team should be encouraged to clarify the
organization’s distinctive competencies (Selznick, 1957; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Van der Heijden, 2005;
Eden & Ackermann, 2010). Here some definitions are helpful: a competency is an ability, sets of actions
or processes that an organization can manage and that ideally help it perform well (the desired
outcome) against important goals, desired competency outcomes, or CSFs (which should also be desired
outcomes) (Eden & Ackermann, 2010). In other words, an organization may have a competency, but if it
does not help the organization do well against a goal or CSF, it is not much of a competency—unless
stakeholders can be convinced to change what their CSFs are. Competencies usually arise and are
perfected through “learning by doing” (Joyce, 1999, p. 35). A distinctive competency is a competency
that is very difficult for others to replicate, and so is a source of enduring organizational advantage. A
core competency is really central to the success of the organization, that is, crucial to its doing well
against goals or CSFs. A distinctive core competency is not only central to the success of the organization,
but helps the organization add more public value than alternative providers. Examples of distinctive core
competencies might be what goes into providing outstanding customer service, maintaining a strong
reputation and the trust of key stakeholders, or being resilient in the face of crises. Note that a
competency indicates an ability to do something, so providing outstanding service is not a competency
per se, but the specific abilities that make it possible to do so are. Outstanding service is the competency
outcome of making use of the competencies needed and being available to do so. Usually distinctive
core competencies arise from the interrelationships of a set of competencies and core competencies. It
is the interrelationships that are particularly hard for others to replicate, for example, because they are
based on tacit knowledge and long-term relationships (Eden & Ackermann, 1998; Eden & Ackermann,
2010). Guidance on identifying competencies will be found in Resource C.
A particularly useful outcome is the creation of the organization’s current livelihood scheme (Bryson,
Ackermann, & Eden, 2007; Eden & Ackermann, 2010) that shows how competencies are directly related
to aspirations, including helping to do well against key success factors necessary to achieve the
aspirations. A livelihood scheme represents the core logic of a strategic plan; namely, mission, goals, key
success factors or performance indicators, and the necessary competencies to do well against each.
Each aspiration and key success factor must be supported by a competency, or else it is not achievable.
As Hill and Hupe (2009, p. 195) argue, “among possibly the most relevant factors” for fostering effective
implementation is directly linking “ambition (‘willing’) and competence (‘being able’).” Guidance on
developing a livelihood scheme will also be found in Resource C. Note that the current livelihood
scheme may well be changed as a result of further strategic planning work.
Before completing a SWOC/T analysis, it may be necessary to prepare various background reports on
external forces and trends; on key resource controllers, such as clients, customers, payers, or duespaying members; and on competitors and collaborators (Stone and Sandfort, 2009); with additional
reports on internal resources, present strategy, and performance. It may also be necessary to prepare
various scenarios, or stories, that capture important elements of possible futures for the organization—
delineating strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges, as well as key success factors and
competencies, which are then assessed in relation to these possible futures (Schwartz, 1996; Van der
Heijden, 2005; Marcus, 2009). Further, once the lists of SWOC/Ts, key success factors, and competencies
is prepared (with or without the help of scenarios), it may be necessary to commission careful analyses
of some listed items in relation to the overall strategic posture of the organization.
Another important early outcome of these two steps may be specific, relatively immediate actions to
deal with challenges, threats, and weaknesses; build on strengths (including especially distinctive core
competencies); and take advantage of opportunities (including improving performance against key
success factors). As soon as appropriate moves become apparent, key decision makers should consider
taking action. It is not only unnecessary, but probably also undesirable, to draw a sharp temporal
distinction between planning and implementation. As long as the contemplated actions are based on
reasonable information, have adequate support, and do not foreclose important strategic options,
serious consideration should be given to taking them. The feedback arrows in Figure 2.1 try to capture
this continuous blending and interplay of thinking and acting, doing and learning, planning and
implementation, and strategic and operational concerns. This kind of prompt action in response to a rich
appreciation of the interconnectedness of the organization’s operations and its environment is the
essence of “mindfulness” (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).
Short, thoughtful deliberations among key decision makers and opinion leaders concerning strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and challenges, key success factors, distinctive competencies, and immediate
desirable short-term actions are one of the most important outcomes of this step. Such deliberations—
particularly when they bridge various intra- and interorganizational boundaries—provide important
quantitative and qualitative insights into the organization and its environment, and also prepare the way
for the identification of strategic issues in the next step. Strategic issues will stem from the convergence
of these factors. Discussions such as these are absolutely crucial in order to move from what individuals
do (intuit and interpret) to what groups do (integrate information) to what organizations do
(institutionalize information) (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999). To paraphrase marketing guru Paco
Underhill (1999), such discussions provide a way to make apparent what perhaps ought to be obvious,
but is not, and then to act on it. Paying attention to the obvious is one important key to success in a
competitive world. As Isaac Asimov supposedly said, “Pay attention to the obvious—no one else will.”
But be aware that getting key stakeholders to engage in these sorts of analyses and deliberation is not
necessarily easy. People can find many more reasons not to engage in a SWOC/T analysis than they can
to participate. The reasons are familiar: participants may argue that they have no time or that they
already know the answers. Other opinions may not be voiced, but nonetheless be strongly held. People
may be afraid of discussing weaknesses and threats. They may not want to know what a SWOC/T
analysis will reveal. Or they may simply not know how to do one and feel embarrassed by their lack of
knowledge. Whatever the reasons, process sponsors and champions should strongly encourage
engaging in a SWOC/T analysis. The deliberations can be extremely helpful and actually should result in
some very direct positive change. That said, it is possible to do SWOC/T analyses at various places in the
process, and sometimes the most effective places to do the analyses are in relation to specific strategic
issues (Step 5) or strategies (Step 6). In those steps the analysis will seem more grounded and specific to
many people.
Longer-Term Desired Outcomes
An effective external and internal environmental assessment should result in several longer-term
benefits to the organization. Among the most important is that it will produce information that is vital to
the organization’s survival and prosperity. It is difficult to imagine that an organization can be truly
effective over the long haul unless it has an intimate knowledge of its strengths and weaknesses in
relation to the opportunities and challenges it faces, as Sun Tzu observed over 2,500 years ago.
Said somewhat differently, Step 4 allows the strategic planning team to develop the habit of seeing the
organization as a whole in relation to its environment. This is usually one of the singular
accomplishments of strategic planning. An ability to see the organization as a whole in relation to its
environment keeps the organization from being victimized by the present. Instead, the organization has
a basis for reasoned optimism, in that difficulties may be seen as specific rather than pervasive,
temporary rather than permanent, and the result of factors other than irremediable organizational
incompetence (Seligman, 1998; Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The organization thus prepares itself to follow
Hubert Humphrey’s advice: “Instead of worrying about the future, let us labor to create it” (Humphrey, …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Order a plagiarism free paper now. We do not use AI. Use the code SAVE15 to get a 15% Discount
Looking for help with your ASSIGNMENT? Our paper writing service can help you achieve higher grades and meet your deadlines.
Why order from us
We offer plagiarism-free content
We don’t use AI
Confidentiality is guaranteed
We guarantee A+ quality
We offer unlimited revisions