To contact us


Go Back To:

A weak relationship between

Strategic Planning
Organisational Performance.

[Better Strategic Planning does not necessarily mean better organisation behaviour]

Strategic Planning has long been assumed to be the direction-setter for the organisation, and the means by which organisationala performance is manipulated.  However, there are very mixed results as to the effectiveness of planning - as it is practiced.  Some researchers report good results from organisations that plan, and others report poor relationships.  Frustratingly, there has been no explanation for the differences - it remained a mystery.

This page is printer-friendly

Go Across To:

In a test of 380 participants from a variety of manufacturing, service, educational, government organisations, the relationship between the measurements of Strategic Planing and Organisational performance was .41 (r = .41, p < .001).  However, when the influence (contribution) of Strategic Conversation was removed, the link between planning and performance became non-significant - in other words, any link was no better than be chance.  Sometimes it works, but mostly it doesn’t work very well. 

We now know that the links between planning and performance is better in organisations with higher levels of Strategic Conversastion.  In fact, Strategic Conversation takes over as the main link with performance.  Compare the original and new models.

Contact us

Existing thinking - that planning controls behaviour -
which in turn influences the performance

In the new understanding of how it works, planning has a strong connection with organisational performance, but only through strategic conversation and strategic behaviour.  It turns out that strategic conversation has its own unique connection with performance.  The SB-OP bond is strong, as is SC-OP.  The SP-OP link is weak - sometimes non-existent.

SP = strategic Planning.  SC = Strategic Conversation
SB = Strategic Behaviour.  OP = Organisation Performance