Proeller, Isabella, Polzer, Tobias. 2010. How to Manage Strategically in Weberian Bureaucracies - Strategic Management Initiatives in the Austrian and Swiss Federal Government. IRSPM, Bern, Schweiz, 07.04.-09.04..

RIS

@CONFERENCE{Proeller2010,
title = {How to Manage Strategically in Weberian Bureaucracies - Strategic Management Initiatives in the Austrian and Swiss Federal Government},
author = {Isabella Proeller and Tobias Polzer},
year = {2010},
address = {Bern},
url = {http://www.irspm2010.com/workshops/papers/K_howtomanage.pdf},
language = {EN},
misc = {IRSPM},
abstract = {Looking at the reform programs of various governments, it becomes apparent that strategic management has become a widespread component in modernization and management agendas of public organizations as it is the most fundamental, and the most critical, process for producing results in the challenging and increasingly competitive environment in which most public managers work. Federal and so-called Weberian systems, like Austria and Switzerland, have so far mainly relied on decentralized, isolated initiatives, e.g. there has been a strengthening of strategic approaches on single agency or bureau level, but hardly no coordinated and integrated strategic management initiatives on ministry or government level. The paper discusses the experiences gained with strategic management approaches at the central government level by giving an overview of the implementation, and of the achieved results. The contribution concludes that the decentralized conceptions will foremost enhance strategic capabilities on the office level. This effect has been proven by the recent evaluation in Switzerland, and is likely to happen also in Austria. So, a first (intermediary) result is that strategic management of administration is foremost understood as better strategic management at the office level, but not necessarily on the ministry and government-wide level. When applying Drumaux's four (mutually not exclusive) "lenses" of comparing strategic management initiatives to the cases it becomes clear that (1) universal aspects in both countries, (2) historical institutional elements (3) cultural elements, and (4) neo-institutional isomorphisms through mimetic processes can be identified in the two countries.},
}