Intent-Focused Management Theory: Redefining Management Practice and Scholarship

1. Introduction

Management has no snap-shot definition; it is usually easier for management scholars to explain than to define. Management scholars and teachers are still searching for a definition that will be all embracing. To Okafor, L.C. et al. (2018) perhaps this definition problem could be attributed to the pervasiveness of the discipline. It covers the entire gamut of human life. In effect, any definition given is amorphous and, therefore, could be challenged. As more scholars continue to research on management principles, theories and concepts, more and more definitions continue to be suggested. This paper focuses on the following as the definition of management for the purpose of addressing the identified gaps in literature regarding the use of certain decision making tools within military organizations, non-governmental organizations and public policy formulation institutions including the relevance and applicability of management theories.

Management is seen as a process of planning, organizing, directing and controlling the available resources of the organization in order to achieve the set goals of the organization in a non-static environment. Consequently, Graffin (1996) sees management as a set of activities (including planning and decision making, organizing, leading and controlling) directed at an organization’s resources (human, time, financial, physical and information), with the aim of achieving organizational goals in an efficient and effective manner. Also, management is the process of working with and through others to achieve organizational objectives in a changing environment (Kreitner 1992). The practice of management is guided by theories, some of which will be discussed in the paper at a later stage. The starting point is to gain an understanding of the difference between two commonly applied concepts in the study of management: concept of management and management thought.

A discussion on the development of management thought requires that scholars clearly distinguish between ‘Concept of management’ and ‘Management thought’. Concept of management refers to the process of planning, organizing, directing and controlling of resources to achieve organizational objectives. Management thought on the other hand refers to the body of knowledge and theories that guide management practices. Evidence of the use of well-recognized principles of management is found in the organization of the Roman Catholic Church and the organization of military forces. The Roman Army in 100 BC for example, was organized into legions of 4,200 infantry and 300 cavalry for accomplishment of missions. 

Management therefore, in some form or the other has been practiced in the various parts of the world since the dawn of civilization. With the onset of Industrial Revolution, however, the position underwent a radical change. The structure of industry became extremely complex. At this stage, the development of a  formal theory of management became absolutely necessary. It was against this background that the pioneers of modern management thought laid the foundations of modem management theory and practice.

Management theories are concepts that outline different approaches to business management. These theories guide leadership styles, decision-making processes, and organizational structures. It is simply a statement predicting which actions will lead to what results and why. Essentially management theory provides logical reasoning in the form of a set of broad principles that provide a general frame of reference by which management practice can be evaluated and the development of new practices and procedures are based. The most important goal of management theory is to provide a coherent set of logical principles that form the general frame of reference for the evaluation and development of sound management practices.

It is instructive to note that every action that managers take and every plan they formulate, is based on some theory at the back of their minds that makes them expect the actions they contemplate will lead to the results they envision. The value of theories in management can be summarized in two points: They help in interpreting the present, to understand what is happening and why; and they help in making predictions. In other words “theories help to sort the signals that portend important changes in the future from the noise that has no strategic meaning”. From this general view of the functions of management theory, it is without gain to say that management theory is an important tool in the practice of management. It is a means to an end.

In other words management theory serves as a tool to increase the effectiveness of managers. Managers who are up to date in management theories are more likely to be up to date in practice, if and only if they would, and are able to apply the knowledge gained from the theories. Management theory is useful to the manager by helping him to explain the dynamics of organization and shedding light on the problems often faced by him in practice, such as those related to motivation, productivity, satisfaction etc.

In specific terms, management theory is useful in the following ways: It increases efficiency. A manager becomes more effective and efficient as he/she uses established guidelines to help solve problems; It improves managerial learning and development, because it provides an established structural framework of knowledge, which would appear to be useful, and which managers can fall back on to crystallize the nature and process of management and to simplify the process of learning.

Without theories and principles learning managerial practice would depend upon haphazard trial and error. It is however worth noting that even with the continued application of carefully crafted and tested management theories, managers still grapple with the management of businesses and organizations in general.

1.1.  Statement of the problem

Theories are built on assumptions that certain conditions exist and the application of a given theory is subject to the fulfillment of the assumptions underlying it. The nature of the relationship  between an organization and the environment may change over time as environmental factors change structure, form and volume and even assuming greater fluidity. This results in the violation of the essential assumption that the specified conditions remain stable over time. Events and situations are affected and determined by the realities of the environment in which they occur.

It is implied therefore that solutions to problems will vary according to situations at hand and the environmental influence on them. Evidently, on many occasions, managers encounter circumstances in which application of the supposed relevant theory does not yield the predicted results. This is particularly because the theory does not comply with the existing conditions for it to work. In other words it does not fit the circumstance to which it is being applied. A situation that is usually referred to as lack of “circumstance-contingency.” It therefore follows that many theories have failed because they have been misapplied.

Essentially, a theory in management is more reliable when “its statement describing the actions that must lead to success explains how they will vary as a company’s circumstance change”. A review of extant conceptual and empirical literature brings out a clear gap in terms of lack of comprehensiveness in the existing theories of management. This is attributed to lack of clarity on the minimum threshold required of a theory. In this case therefore, most theories have assumed that the planning function of management is automated and that the management process commences at implementation stage, thus creating a knowledge gap regarding the application of management theories.

Further to the aforesaid, the pervasive and universal nature of management has seen application of its concepts and principles in both civilian and military organizations as explained here below: Firstly, Militaries are organizations constitutionally established to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. They also support civil authorities during disasters and calamities to restore normalcy in the affected areas. The planning and execution of such sensitive missions calls for application of decision making tools such as Campaign planning and the Combat Estimates also known as the Seven Questions (7Qs). These two tools guide the Military Decision Making Process. The success of military planning and accomplishment of military operations is much dependent on the conceptualization and proper application of such decision making tools.

Secondly, Civilian organizations including Non-Governmental Organizations on the other hand, apply the Project Logic Models to aid in project planning, implementation and evaluation. This is a tool that guides on determining the requirements in terms of inputs and outlines the outputs including project outcomes.

Lastly, within the Public Sector, the word policy is used to denote a Statement of Government Intent, which articulates basic principles to be pursued to attain specific goals and actions. Public Institutions world over conduct public policy formulation. This follows a well laid down process from identification of the problem to policy implementation including monitoring and evaluation, which is a management process as well. The process is guided by theories and models such as game theory model, systems model, institutional model, elite-mass model, rationality model and incremental model.  A keen scrutiny of these models and theories clearly brings out the existence of a knowledge gap. The theories have majored in explaining the factors necessitating the formulation of public policy rather than guiding the process of policy formulation.

The continued application of the Campaign Planning Tool and the Combat Estimates as decision making tools within military organizations has therefore no theoretical anchorage from the Management Scholar’s point of view. Lack of comprehensive models and theories to guide project planning and public policy formulation by Non-Governmental organizations and the public sector respectively is a matter that must be addressed through scholarship.

It is in view of the a foresaid that this study was carried out for the purpose of filling the existing knowledge gaps relating to theoretical anchorage and comprehensiveness of the military decision making process, public policy formulation and project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation within various institutions.

1.2.  Objectives of the study

The objectives of this paper were as follows:

a. To review extant conceptual and empirical literature on existing management theories and models with intent of establishing existing gaps in their contribution towards decision making and organizational management.

b. To establish existing gaps with reference to theoretical anchorage of the military decision making process tools, project planning logic models and public policy formulation process.

c. To propose a comprehensive theoretical model, management theory and supporting principles as a basis upon which the above decision making tools and process will be anchored. 

These proposed theoretical models, the management theory including supporting principles, were built on the realization that the military decision planning process, project planning using logic models and public policy formulation process are all strategic planning and management processes that ought to be intent driven. The determination of the strategic intent which closely translates into the end-state or desired outcome is what initiates the planning process.  It was the author’s belief that the proposed theory would be comprehensive enough to fill the realized theoretical gaps.

It was further believed that this study would not only contribute theoretically to the body of existing knowledge on management theories, but would improve the practice of decision making within: Security, Strategy and Defence Studies Institutions; Public Policy Formulation Organs; Policy Studies Institutions and other organizations, both public and private. It will also promote optimum resource utilization in various organizations through strict adherence to strategic intents in the exercise of management.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Defining a ‘Theory’

According to Gabriel (2008), a theory refers to a generalized statement of abstractions or ideas that asserts, explains or predicts relationships or connections between or among phenomena, within the limits of critical bounding assumptions that the theory explicitly makes.

Kerlinger and Lee (2000, p. 11) define a theory as a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena.

These two definitions are important in guiding the understanding of the factors that together constitute a theory including the nature of relationship that must exist for a concept to be referred to as a theory. It was necessary to do so for the purpose of eliminating confusion in the conceptualization of theories and models or frameworks. An understanding of the historical context regarding the evolution of management theories is necessary for a deeper analysis of resultant gaps.

2.2. Historical Context of Management Theories

Wilson and Thomson (2006) argued that 'History matters' and therefore, it is essential to develop better understanding of the present-day emerging trends and stages in the management since 19th century so that holistic view could be attained. To larger extent, there is an agreement that the management practices and approaches have altered with the passage of time (Bartol and Martin, 1998; Naranjo-Gil, Sánchez-Expósito and Gómez-Ruiz, 2016; Hodge, 2002). However, different schools of thought have accredited it to several factors namely; globalization (Stros, Bukovinski and Coner, 2014), intense competition/survival of the fittest (Ferreira and Kittsteiner, 2011), connectedness (Pham et al, 2018), multiplicity (Cooper et al, 2017), socially constructed realities (Morgan, 1986) and so on. Having said that, the roots of management lies in the earlier management theories and therefore remain vital for tackling the contemporary management challenges.

The advent of industrial revolution in the middle of the 18th century had its impact on management.  Industrial  revolution  brought  about  a  complete  change  in  the  methods  of production, tools and equipment, organization of labour and methods of raising capital. Under this system, land and buildings, hired labour, and capital was made available to the entrepreneur, who strived to combine these factors for efficient achievement of a particular goal. These changes brought about development in  the  field  of  management.  Traditional or customary  ideas  of management were slowly given up and management came to be based on scientific principles.

Prof. Charles Babbage, James Watt Junior and Mathew Robinson Boulton, and Robert Owen were no doubt, pioneers of management thought. But, the impact of their contributions on the industry as a whole was meagre. The real beginning of the science of management did not occur until the last decade of the 19th century. During this period, stalwarts like F.W. Taylor, H.L. Gantt, Emerson, Frank and Lillian Gilberth etc., laid the foundation of management, which in due course, came to be known as scientific management.

This epoch in the history of management will be remembered as an era in which traditional ways of managing were challenged, past management experience were scientifically systematized and principles of management were distilled and propagated. The contributions of the pioneers of this age have had a profound impact in furthering the management know-how and enriching the store of management principles. Fredrick W. Taylor and Henry Fayol are generally regarded as the founders of scientific management and administrative management respectively and both provided the bases for science and art of management.

2.3. Overview of Major Management Theories

In simple terms, Drucker (1963) defined management as the product of effectiveness and efficiency where “doing things right” is regarded as ‘efficiency’ while “doing the right things” is considered as ‘effectiveness’ (cited from Robbins and Coulter, 2012). The theme of Drucker's definition is based on “knowledge work” (McGrath, 2014). On the other hand, Fayol defined it as, “to manage is to forecast and to plan, to organise, to command, to co-ordinate and to control” (cited from Prasad and Gulshan, 2011).

Different scholars have classified the management theories differently, such as Koontz (1988) divided it into six groups, namely, (i) The management process school, (ii) the empirical school, (iii) the human behavioural school, (iv) the social system school, (v) the decision theory school and (vi) the mathematical school respectively. On the other hand, Hitt et al. (1979) categorized it into three broader groups, such as (a) Classical management theory, (b) neo-classical management theory and (c) modern management theory. Following Sridhar's (2017) approach, this report considered second strategy and use three broader groups to explore and examine the distinctive theories under each school of thought.

2.3.1. Classical Management Theories

Scientific Management Theory. Classical theory is also known as traditional theory of management. The first among this school of thought (classical management perspective) is “scientific management perspective” where Frederick W. Taylor is known to be a “father of scientific management” for proposing 'one best way to do things' or scientific management/Taylorism (Ghuman and Aswathapa, 2010). Time and motion were a scientific analysis of task for examining the physical movements and requirements for the completion of task (Khurana, 2009). The idea of Taylorism is found to be consistent with the concerns of Adam Smith that emphasized division of labour bringing specialization, which leads to enhanced productivity (Khurana, 2009; Robbins and Coulter, 2012). In doing so the humans are treated as machines while ignoring the demoralizing and inhuman effects of tasks on the workers (Ghuman and Aswathapa, 2010). In addition to that, Taylor also commenced another study “science of shovelling” for determining the optimal weight to be lifted by the workers, thus, the optimal shovels were introduced to increase productivity while reward as increase in the pay was motivator (Ghuman and Aswathapa, 2010).

The major notion of the motivation for employees under scientific management were seen as money (Khurana, 2009). According to Furnham (2012), “money is an effective, powerful and simple motivator but it is not always motivator for everyone because at times it has power to demotivate” (p. 152). Additionally, Katzenbach and Khan (2010) argued that majority of the successful entrepreneurs agreed that major motivation is to be built upon something lasting rather than on the notion of making huge money. Furthermore, “Certainly great professional leaders like Marvin Bower, who built McKinsey & Co., John Whitehead, the former Goldman Sachs senior partner, and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens explained that that their motivation came from the work itself, and that the lasting respect of others was far greater than money as a measure of accomplishment. And very few great artists are in it for the money. Money is a by-product, and usually a secondary one at that, for such achievers” (cited from Katzenbach and Khan, 2010). Nevertheless, for lower level jobs, still money is often use as a basic needs (key motivator), reflecting that the scientific management is still applicable in the modern-day management.

During the same era, Frank and Lillian presented “applied motion study” focusing on reduction in the number of motions in a task in order to increase efficiency to have profit and satisfaction of a worker (Caramerla, 2018). Meanwhile, Henry L. Gantt developed a Gantt Chart to measure the productivity and working efficiency along with the task and bonus system of wages (Sheldrake, 2003). Gantt Chart also offered a graphical daily balance to ensure efficiency in routine manner (Sheldrake, 2003). Both above mentioned works were inspired by the concept of Taylorism.

In the modern day, project management tools and techniques are used by organisations to ensure there is elimination of waste while attainment of most efficient results indicating the use of ‘applied motion’ in operations (Caramela, 2018). Program and review technique (PERT) charts are another modern-day managerial tool offering visual methods to administer time and resources of project (Sullivan, 2017). Nowadays, same scientific management approach is used with modifications as of now multiple websites offer online solutions through interactive sessions, free tutorials and blogs discussion, which are all based on Henry Gantt management theory (Sullivan, 2017). Harrignton Emerson stated twelve principles of efficiency that enable manager in defining objectives, developing scientific methods for evaluation, forming standardized procedures and rewarding employees (Sridhar, 2017).

Administrative Management Theory. Under same classical school of management, the contemporary school of thought to scientific management are the ‘administrative management’ and ‘bureaucratic organisations’ (Robbins and Coulter, 2012; Sridhar, 2017). This school of thought is based on traditional or administrative principles of management while prominent exponents include Henri Fayol, Chester Barnard and Colnel Urwick (Sridhar, 2017). Henri Fayol is considered as the father of modern management for his contribution to the administrative management field primarily focusing on the operational approach through 14 principles of management. “Fayol introduced unified concept by focusing on managerial levels and the organisation as a whole” (Sridhar, 2017).

All business activities could be split into six groups namely; administrative, security, accounting, financial, commercial and technical while focused on the “managerial activities of manager including, planning, organizing, directing, coordinating and controlling” (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). Key principles include “division of work, authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, subordination of individual interest to general interest, remuneration, centralization, scalar chain, order, equity stability of tenure of personnel, initiative and esprit de corps” (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). Fayol's heavily emphasized on rationality, logic and consistency (Sridhar, 2017).

Interestingly, “Taylor worked from the bottom of the hierarchy upward, whereas Fayol worked from the apex downwards, with ‘management centred’ philosophy,” which is the difference between two classical schools of thoughts (Sridhar, 2017). On the other hand, Chester Barnard argued that effective communication is essential for cooperation and there should be a balance between rewards and contributions among workers (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). Colonel Urwick assembled the principles of Taylor, Fayol and other management scholars and suggested that management is a dynamic process to perform organisational activities (Sridhar, 2017).

Bureaucratic Management Theory. With the expansion of organisations, the operations become further complex giving “authoritarian-paternalistic pattern” way that enhances functional specialization within the distinctive layers of management to have smooth operations (Sridhar, 2017). This led to bureaucratic approach toward organisational structure and Max Webber proposed a theory of bureaucracy for organisational efficiency based on organisational systems functioning on set of rules, policies and hierarchy of authority (Ibid). Biggest fain of this approach is that it excludes the conflict or overlapping duties, which offers clear direction so that organisational operations gain efficiency in productivity. The approach offers consistency in patterns to ensure higher precision in tasks to avoid waste of resources (Sridhar, 2017).

This is effectively the theme of modern-day organisations too to have structural and patronized functions in order to avoid wastage of resources and enhance operational efficiency (Brown, 2014). However, the major focus of this theory remains on positions rather than individuals (Sridhar, 2017). Organisations would even continue their functionality even if workers quit, which is visible in modern day to some extent that organisation stays while employees come and go (Brown, 2014). Excessive red tapism and paperwork often creates unpleasant experience as well as delay smooth operations (Sridhar, 2017).

2.3.2. Neo-Classical Theory

Neo-classical school of thought argues that traditional theory and its principles are contradictory, only focused on motivation through monetary rewards and proposed approaches to carry out operations without taken into consideration the time factor, which is subject to alteration (Sridhar, 2017). The physiological and mechanical features being highly emphasized by the traditionalist led to a reaction from neo-classical school that focused more on human-orientation and largely paid attention to drives, time needs, attitudinal and behavioural aspects of workers. Human relations school and behavioural school formed under neo-classical theory (Robbins and Coulter, 2012; Sridhar, 2017).

Human Relation Theory. Elton Mayo is the main champion along with the Frank Roethlisberger and William Dickson of human relations movement that later transformed into organisational behaviour. They argued that inter-relationships within the group members are vital aspects at the organisational settings (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). Their study known as “Hawthorne experiment” proved as paradigm shifter in the management studies.

In actual, “Hawthorne Effect” is a term explaining the phenomenon of individuals work and demonstrate better performance when they are observed (Cherry, 2018). Since the experiment took place at Western Electric's Hawthorne company therefore phenomenon is termed after the location (Ibid). The experiment was conducted to assess whether there is a correlation between productivity and work environments (such as light, break duration and length of day work). It was evident that employee’s productivity tends to enhance due to change during the experiment however, it declines when experiments ends. The experiment proved vital in establishing the key notion that increased attention from the head/supervisor is reason for improved performance (Robbins and Coulter, 2012).

Follow up interviews with the workers revealed that individuals do not leave their attitude, emotions and feelings back home as they do not only work for economic gain. Their motivation to work was not only confined to economic benefits but a good treatment, healthy work environment and autonomy to do things in their own way motivates them to do better at work (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). “The two important conclusions drawn from this experiment were (a) existence of strong informal groups and (b) behaviour of employees at work is significantly affected by non-economic factors” (Sridhar, 2017).

Hence, this work contradicts the earlier work of classical theory that argued employees are economic and rational beings whereas human relations school revealed employees' social person view. Additionally, social person view opposed rational economic view as studies revealed social needs motivate employees, interpersonal relationship develop sense of identity among employees, fatigue and boredom enhance due to repetitive routine and structured tasks, social forces make employees more responsive towards work rather than management control and incentives, and participative management increases employee motivation towards assigned tasks (Robbins and Coulter, 2012).

Due to this theory, the concept of social managers emerged and evolved which is why at present the managers role is visible as coach or helpers to manage employees in workplace. Thus, the recent trends of human relations are widely visible in the modern day of managerial approach. The theory also proved a milestone in looking beyond organisational/environmental factors by exploring the social and individual psychology of workers working in workplace (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). Furthermore, the experiment revealed that individual's psychological needs have a vital role in the individual and collective performances. People orientation is essential as employees given attention performs better irrespective of the working conditions (Ibid).

In summation, the greater output is resultant of employees' satisfaction of needs and desires. As the theory focused on better communication and concept of powering the employees to participate in decisions results in organisational success. These are largely evident in the present day too as now the organisations such as Google, LaFosse and Pets at Home uses the concepts of human relations to ensure greater output (Goldfingle, 2012). Although, this study rejected the concept of Taylorism's degree of specialization, structured programme and rigid hierarchical control but it does not oppose all ideas of classical school, therefore, it is regarded as neo-classical school. Interestingly, Sridhar (2017) concluded the notion of human relations approach as, “this school emphasized that treat employees as if they are important and give the workers the feeling of participation” (p. 10).

2.3.3. Behavioural Schools of Thought

As stated earlier, the Hawthorne experiment led to the inclined interest in behavioural science within the management, leading to transform human relations approach into modern behaviourism (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). Psychological considerations remain key aspect while suggesting that primary economic objectives are attained through completion of emotional needs. Interestingly, Sridhar (2017) stated that behavioural schools could also be taken into consideration under the modern organisational humanism within modern management theory. Thus, this indicates that most of the aspects of behavioural schools are relevant to the modern-day management theories.

There is number of scholars such as, Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg, Kurt Lewin, Mary Parker Follet and so on who have contributed to behavioural school (Haynes, 2013; Robbins and Coulter, 2012; Rogers, 2006; Sridhar, 2017). However, not all of them could be specifically classified as neo-classical theorists because several of those scholars have contributed to modern management theories either in general perspective, modern humanism, or social system theory. Some of the most widely studied are discussed in this report.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory. Abraham Maslow categorized as well as prioritized the total five types of employee needs. The pyramid of needs had the most basic needs at the bottom and term them as “physiological needs” such as, sleep, eating, water, sex, breathing and other physical needs (McLeod, 2018; Robbins and Coulter, 2012). With the attainment of these needs, second need arises namely, “safety needs” as the previous needs do not remain motivators. The basic safety, protection, stability and no fear remain the concerns of the individual. If a person's safety needs are not satisfied then they work as motivators (McLeod, 2018).

On the other hand, Robbins and Coulter (2012) argued that Maslow explained that security needs include the protection from physical as well as emotional harms that arise physiological needs are met. “Belonging and love needs/social needs” develops after the physical and safety needs of an individual have been satisfied (McLeod, 2018). This is a need of an individual that he/she wants a social support and acceptance, love, and friendship in the society (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). It is also considered as the prime motivator for the individual after physical and security needs remain no longer motivators, and therefore, he/she develops a meaningful relationship with others.

The internal esteem attributes including, autonomy, self-respect and achievement need external esteem like attention, recognition, and status work as motivators for the individuals under “esteem needs” (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). In order to attain this need, individual is required to develop self-confidence so that glory, fame, status and reputation could be achieved (McLeod, 2018). The esteem needs are often the key motivator for employees working in the organisations. “Self-actualization needs are related to attainment of one's own potential, growth and self-fulfilment that drive him/her to become what he/she is capable of becoming” (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). Maslow argued that after the satisfaction of one need, individuals inclined to another level of need while only one type of need works at a time (Robbins and Coulter, 2012).

Theory X and Theory Y. Douglas McGregor in his book, “human side of enterprises” published in 1960 argued that there are two types of individual in the organisation, respectively X and Y types (Robinson, 2010). Theory X managers have a negative view of workers and perceive them as untrustworthy, lazy, and lacking the initiative to take responsibility (McGregor, 1960; Robinson, 2010). Therefore, such types of managers are more autocratic and rigid in their respective approaches. The employees are seen to have low or no motivation to take initiative on their own, thus, require set of directions to execute tasks. On the other hand, Theory Y managers view employees are trustable and have the potential to take a charge of responsibility.

Furthermore, the employees are highly self-motivated (Robinson, 2010). The Y type managers are participative and democratic in their style and thus motivate employees by involving them actively in their routine tasks (Ibid). In modern era also there are examples of theory Y managers. For instance, WL Gore and Associates is an organisation that highly encourages managers to work as coach in encouraging employees to be creative and self-initiators. Festejo (2012) argued that employees tend to perform better when allowed to exhibit their creativity with no restriction.

Smith (2010) argued that for lower/operational level employees Theory X managers/supervisors are more effective because the productivity to achieve specific unit production is attained when there are directions given from the top. Grandey (2004) argued that Theory X managers mainly focus on task accomplishment while Theory Y is keen on fulfilling employees' motivational needs but still the focus is on achieving productivity rather than measuring the well-being of employees. Furthermore, Theory Y also comes under the criticism that it is a deliberate approach to take more out of employees so that there is increased productivity (Grandey, 2004). Care for employee is subject to their productivity at work and economic benefits of the organisation. Barnett (2017) argued that in the 21st century still the theory is practically visible as there is higher focus on self-managed workers and as a result they are involved in such programs so that they are more creative and willing to take initiatives, which are aligned with the aspects of Theory Y.

2.3.4. Modern Management Theories

The complexities, connectedness and context are the three main features of the organisation that have shaped the modern management theory (Haque, Aydin & Uysal, 2017; Sridhar, 2017). In addition to that, the individual and organisational diverse needs, aspirations, motives and potential equally play their part in the modern management theory (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). Thus, this is the reason for flux, interdependence, ambiguity and multiplicity are the elements that have expanded the complexities in the dynamics where organisations operate and functions (Maznevski and Medenhall, 2004). The consequence of these aspects is that having one universal management principles template for all types of organisations and individuals become rather impractical and inapplicable (Sridhar, 2017). Hence, such complexities drive the organisations to develop flexible strategies and managerial principles to deal with work and workers at workplace. In addition to that, the modern management theory considers complex employee views that are opposing to rational economic man view of classical theory and neo-classical theory’s social person view (Sridhar, 2017).

Organisation-centre was the theme of classical theory revolving around efficiency along with functional approach following deductive reasoning. On the other hand, person-centric approach was focus on neo-classical school emphasizing on experimental descriptive aspects following higher deductive reasoning. Nevertheless, revisionists followed behavioural and quantitative dimensions while adopting inductive reasoning with rigorous complete experimentations. The modern school of management largely considered logic and viewed management applicability to distinctive situations (Sridhar, 2017). In the era of digitalization and computer usage, quantitative methods were used to assess the role of management in modern day organisations (Hodgetts and Altman, 1981).

System Theory. As discussed earlier, both; classical and neo-classical theory have largely focused on one aspect at the expense of other. For instance, the ‘efficiency’, ‘structure’ and ‘task’ are the core theme of classical theory whereas ‘people’ is centre theme of neo-classical theory. Considering the limitations of both, modern theory intakes the balanced root to investigate the management practices. The first theory in modern school of management is system theory that offers a holistic view – “organisation as a whole” (Sridhar, 2017).

System as an entity reflects coherent whole (Ng, Maull and Yip, 2009), implying an exchange of dialogue between "holism" and "reductionism" (Mele et al. 2010). Thus, it conveys the multidisciplinary viewpoint from several context including, economic, society, nature, information technology and institutions (Mele et al. 2010). The management’s problems are tackled through the integrated approach where focus remains on systems serving people. The prominent authors of this theme include; Chester Barnard, George Homans, Philip Selznick and Herbert Simon (Sridhar, 2017). Two or more interdependent parts constitute a system where all interlinked parts function to make things work. In fact, organisation is viewed as a human body where all parts function together to function properly. Hereby, interdependent parts are very significant and indicates that the emphasis of the managers or supervisors shall not be limited to one specific single cause but consider the holistic view as different factors combine cause problem (Sridhar, 2017). Open and closed are two types of systems.

According to Sridhar (2017), “An open system interacts with its environment such includes; all biological, human and social systems whereas several mechanical and physical systems are regarded as closed systems”. Interestingly, organisation as a closed system is view of traditional organisational theorists whereas organisation treated as an open system is a viewpoint of modern theorists (Sridhar, 2017). It reflects that modern-day organisations are consistently interacting with their environment on regular basis. In other words, “an organization is an open system that interacts regularly with external forces namely, government agencies, suppliers and customers” (Sridhar, 2017). These different stakeholders affect the practices of the organisations.

Mele et al. (2010) argued that system theory applications in management could be found in several dimensions such as it focuses on complexity, adaption, relationships, environment, quality, value and knowledge. The organisation viewed as learning system reflects the vision of knowledge produced through set of skills and competencies (Nonaka and Tacheucki, 1995). “Knowledge is at the core of an autopoietic process of resource generation, creating resource-behaviour-resource cycles where cognitive schemes allow the entire system to function” (Mele et al. 2010, p. 130). Considering value approach, “the organisation is viewed as a holistic system with higher degree of integration between the factors intervening in the process of value creation” (Grant, Shani and Krishnan, 1994). It indicates the that sub-systems such as R&D activities, routine research, feedback, and quality management are results of network (Polese, 2004) resulting from different system actor's (stakeholders) contribution (Alter, 2008). The focus of organisation on quality links the system thinking with the concept of total quality management (Kim and Burchill, 1992). The focus on quality strengthens the relationship between different parts of system enhances tendency to achieve goals (Mele and Colurcio, 2006). If an organisation is a system at micro level, then at macro level environment is a system (Mele et al. 2010). The action of employees amplifies for survival when operating at micro and macro level. In a viable systems approach (Barile and Polese, 2010) in order to survive in the continual dynamic process organisation, need to adapt to internal changes (following adaptation). This reflects that the modern organisations to larger extent still follows the earlier theorists' notion of focusing on “set of skills and competencies”, “quality”, and “specialization” to ensure tasks are carried out in effective and efficient manner.

Contingency Theory. Effectiveness is contingent as it depends on the interplay between managerial applications and behaviours and particular situation (Fielder, 1970). Organisational behaviour is studied through contingency theory approach by elaborating on contingent factors namely, culture, technology and external environment affecting the functionality and design of the organisation (Islam & Hu, 2012). Sridhar (2017) argued that modern-day organisations are more complex and therefore one specific managerial strategy could not be applied to all types of situations. Hence, the emphasis of contingency approach is on the adaption of managerial strategies as per the need of situation.

In other words, each situation should be viewed separately, and the plans should be made while taking into consideration a wide range of internal and external factors to administer the context, connectedness and complexities of the dynamic environment. Based on the scenario, a best fit of the managerial approach for the situations should be implemented. This theory emphasises on the postulate that organisational outcomes are resultant of a fit between two or several factors (Van de Ven & Drazin, 1985; Islam & Hu, 2012). Nevertheless, the focus of this theory remains on the organisational design (Luthans & Stewart, 1977).

Interestingly, Sridhar (2017) explains that as per this approach, theorists have made an attempt to assimilate several thoughts of various management schools because it was obvious that alone those concepts and principles would not be universally applicable under all situations. Thus, it could be argued that considering the contingent approach, the practices of modern-day organisations have roots in the earlier schools of management because the integration of various schools of management is combined to enable the managers to effective managerial practices in distinctive situations. As a result, this theory also stressed on the importance of development of managerial skills to deal with situational factors (Sridhar, 2017).

One of the notable works is of Hersey & Blanchard's (1969) “Life Cycle Theory of Leadership”, which argued that the role of manager/supervisor reduces with the increase learning capabilities and efficiency of the employees. In other words, as the situation vary, so does the role of manager also change because of the maturity of the employees and change in the organisational dynamics. In other words, practical selectivity and situational sensitivity should be developed by the managers (Sridhar, 2017). Presently, the contingent approach is practiced ensuring there is structural organisation while leading the workforce through motivating them (Sridhar, 2017). On the other hand, planning information decision systems, control systems, development of communication channels, decentralized decision-making and employee training and development are some of the potential areas where contingent approach is evident (Sridhar, 2017).

Thus, it indicates that the theory focuses on the behavioural motivation, which is the focus of neo-classical school and the results of such motivation are driven by the interactions with the different environmental factors. Those factors play their part in motivating employees to demonstrate individual excellence so that organisational goals are attained in effective and efficient ways, hinting towards focus on task-orientation (reflecting the traditionalists’ school of thought).

Contingency approach argues that flexibility in leadership style and acting according to the needs of situation lead to influence employees do well in workplace (Islam & Hu, 2012). It indicates the motivational factor of Herzberg’s theory that interpersonal relationship leads to productive workforce. Therefore, the root of this approach is largely linked with the earlier school of thoughts of management. Sridhar (2017) stated that the champions of this theory confirmed that environment is complex and dynamic, which requires flexibility in the organisational design and structure and therefore, bureaucratic structure could not be effective in such situation.

Although, this approach has widened the scope of leadership practices but the theory comes under the criticism that this approach is more straightforward while situations could be tricky as number of factors could emerge in the middle of process and in search of perfect solution there could be wastage of invaluable resources such as time and money. At times there could be superficial decisions due to time limits rather than going deeper into the situation. Since, it takes a situational context, there is a problem that what leaders do is based on the situation. Hence in hindsight what may appear viable in a particular situation might not be the best for the company in a long run because of change in the situation. Thus, this approach is not feasible in all situations.

Management Science. Core concept of the Management Science school of thought is “Operational Research Teams to deal with complexities, connectiveness and context” (Sridhar, 2017). One should not confuse management science with scientific management classical school as the two are different. Nevertheless, management science intakes quantitative approach evolved from scientific management techniques’ applications (Sridhar, 2017). Due to the organisational complexities, a modern-day manager requires more calculative approach and information to take rationale and effective decisions (Luthans & Stewart, 1977). Hence, this approach proposes the quantitative techniques for making such decisions (Luthans & Stewart, 1977).

Different quantitative tools and high-speed computers are used for dealing with voluminous data to be computed in a manner so that information is analysed to give appropriate options for making decisions (Sridhar, 2017). Operations Research Teams included scientists from interdisciplinary groups during the World War II so that complex problems of war could be tacked in appropriate manner (Sridhar, 2017). Under this approach, mathematical models were constructed to deal with real life problems while altering the variables’ values so that the effect of change could be calculated for making rationale decision-making (Sridhar, 2017). Quality control tools, inventory-control, PERT, CPM, simulation models, queuing theory, and linear programming tools are used under this approach because of the higher emphasis on rational and objective decision-making (Sridhar, 2017).

“Objective rationality reflected the capacity and readiness to undertake a largely scientific, which is unemotional and based on reasoning linking the means with ends while considering the impact of decision on environment in totality aspect” (Sridhar, 2017). Thus, it could be argued that this approach is more focused on perfection and precession by expressing the relationship between variables through quantitative mode.

2.4. Issues arising from review of management theories

The first objective of the study was to review extant conceptual and empirical literature on existing management theories and models with intent of establishing existing gaps in their contribution toward guiding managers in decision making and organizational management. The reviewed literature has revealed existing gaps with reference to the comprehensive nature of the existing management theories. A summary of the gaps in literature is tabulated as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Limitations in management theories

3. Military Management

The term Management was earlier defined as the effective and efficient coordination of resources in order to achieve desired objectives.   All organizations have objectives that are the desired targets that the manager hopes to achieve.  The manager must plan, organize, direct, control and coordinate activities in order to realize the organization’s objectives.

The Primary Purpose of management is to convert resources into results. A resource by itself can do nothing; it remains sterile until it is managed. Management, therefore, is  the  conversion of  sterile and inert  resources into productive results.

It is now easy to understand that management is of vital concern to Military Commanders. They  have  certain resources in the form of weapons, firepower, trained personnel and various means of transport and communication at their disposal. The process of utilizing these resources in action to achieve the given objective is the process of management. Management therefore, implies creating the right condition, for the right job, to be done the right way, at the right time to ensure that the desired results are achieved.

Taking a broader view, the scope of military management turns out to be the study of all matters related to the following:

a.  Creation of combat forces.

b.  Maintenance and support of combat forces.

c.  Employment of combat forces as an instrument of national power in pursuit of national strategic objectives.

All these activities require action to produce due results from given resources. The process underlying such action is the universal management process which must be guided by principles and theories.

The decision regarding employment of forces commences with planning which is dependent upon guidance from a higher headquarter in form of a strategic intent. The concept of strategic intent is described in the section that follows.

3.1. The Concept of Strategic intent

Strategic intent is a pivotal concept in business as well as military strategy. Introduced by Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad in 1989, strategic intent is a critical foundation in the strategic management process. It emphasizes the importance of having a clear and powerful vision that guides an organization towards sustainable competitive advantages in a fiercely competitive environment.

Strategic intent clarifies an organization’s purpose and the goals it strives to achieve. This clarity is essential in today’s business and security landscape, where merely identifying temporary advantages is insufficient. A well-defined strategic intent helps organizations set a stable course and pursue long-term success amidst ongoing environmental challenges.

Strategic intent encapsulates the aspirations and ultimate goals an organization aims to achieve. It represents a clear vision of what the organization seeks to become and the industry leadership position it aims to secure.

Originating from the insights of Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad in 1989, strategic intent acts as a compass, guiding the firm’s direction by defining its long-term objectives and the strategies to achieve them. At its core, strategic intent answers critical questions like “What does the organization aim to accomplish?” and “Why are these goals important?” This concept goes beyond mere planning, it’s about setting a benchmark for leadership in the industry and charting a course towards that pinnacle.

Understanding strategic intent is crucial because it aligns the organization’s resources and energies towards a unified and clear goal, ensuring that every action and decision contributes to the broader vision of long-term success and industry leadership.

3.2. Critical Role of Strategic Intent in Organizations

Strategic intent is crucial in guiding an organization towards achieving its long-term goals. It provides a cohesive sense of direction, fosters a culture of discovery, and instills a shared sense of destiny among all organization members. Here’s why each of these aspects is vital:

Sense of Direction. Strategic intent gives the entire organization a clear and unified direction. It outlines the company’s long-term vision concerning future markets and competitive positioning.

Sense of Discovery. This component encourages a continuous pursuit of innovation and exploration within the company. With a well-defined strategic intent, employees feel motivated to explore new competitive territories and develop unique approaches that differentiate the organization from its competitors. This sense of discovery not only keeps the workforce engaged but also drives the organization to adapt and evolve in a changing business environment.

Sense of Destiny. Strategic intent also has an emotional dimension, it cultivates a feeling of belonging and purpose among employees. When team members believe in the goals and the value of their efforts, they are more likely to commit wholeheartedly to the organization’s mission. This shared sense of destiny helps in mobilizing the entire organization towards achieving its strategic goals.

3.3. Hierarchy of Strategic Intent

Strategic intent is not just a singular concept but a structured hierarchy that includes several key components. Each level builds upon the last to create a comprehensive roadmap guiding an organization towards its ultimate objectives. Here’s how each element fits into the hierarchy of strategic intent:

Vision. At the top of the hierarchy is the vision, which articulates the organization’s long-term aspiration. The vision sets a broad, ambitious image of what the organization aims to become in the future. It serves as a guiding star for all strategic planning, aligning every action and decision with the organization’s ultimate purpose. For instance, a company might envision itself as the leader in renewable energy technology.

Mission. The mission statement clarifies the organization’s fundamental purpose and separates it from other entities. It answers the question of why the organization exists and outlines the unique path it will follow to realize its vision. The mission provides a clear direction and framework for all operational and strategic decisions. It typically encapsulates what the business does and its reason for existence.

Goals. Goals are specific targets that the organization aims to achieve within a set timeframe. These are more concrete than the vision and are designed to be measurable and achievable, guiding the organization towards its larger aspirations. Goals help to translate the lofty aspirations of the vision into practical, actionable benchmarks.

Objectives. Objectives drill down further into how the goals will be achieved. They are typically short-term or medium-term achievements that are crucial stepping stones towards meeting the broader goals. Objectives are specific, measurable, and time-bound, providing clear milestones that motivate and guide employees.

Plan. The plan details the steps the organization will take to meet its objectives and achieve its goals. It involves strategic actions, resource allocation, and timelines. Planning is an essential activity that encompasses the development of strategies to utilize resources effectively and address anticipated challenges. It ensures that every part of the organization is synchronized towards achieving the set objectives.

3.4. Evidence on application of concept of Strategic Intent in Military Context

Principles of War. There are ten principles of war. However, the principle of interest in relation to the concept of strategic intent is the first principle on Selection And Maintenance Of The Aim: This is the master principle. In the conduct of war, and therefore in all military activity, it is essential to select and define the aims clearly. Within his strategic directive, a commander may have several courses of action open, each of which would fulfil the aim. The selection of the best course will lead to the mission and outline plan being issued, the mission being a statement of the aim and its purpose. The aim passed on to subordinate commanders must be precise or expressed in unambiguous terms and attainable with the forces available. Once decided the aim must be circulated as widely as security allows so that all can direct their efforts to achieve the aim (Horton Academy, 2016).

Mission Command. This is a philosophy of decentralized command intended for situations which are complex, dynamic and adversarial. It underpins the Manoeuvrist Approach and has four enduring tenets: timely decision-making; the importance of understanding a superior commander’s intention; a clear responsibility on the part of subordinates to fulfill that intent; and determination on the part of the commander to see a plan through to a successful conclusion (Horton Academy, 2016). 

The underlying requirement is the fundamental responsibility to act, or in certain circumstances to decide not to act, within the framework of the commander’s intent. This approach requires a style of command which promotes decentralized command, freedom and speed of action, and initiative. Mission Command is a central pillar of Joint and Army doctrine. It has the following key elements:

a.       A commander gives his orders in a manner that ensures that his subordinates understand his intentions, their own missions, and the context of those missions.

b.      Subordinates are told what effect they are to achieve and the reason why it needs to be achieved.

c.       Subordinates are allocated sufficient resources to carry out their missions.

d.      A commander uses a minimum of control measures so as not to unnecessarily constrain his subordinates’ freedom of action. e. Subordinates then decide for themselves how best to achieve their missions.

The commander’s intent binds the activities of a dispersed force into a whole while maximizing his subordinates’ authority to act.

Concept of Operations. This is applicable during issue of orders or general plans on how a mission is to be executed. It is a clear and concise statement of the line of action chosen by a commander in order to accomplish his mission. The Concept of Operations represents the most important element of orders after the Mission. In it, the commander expresses his Intent (what is to be achieved and why), his Scheme of Manoeuvre (where, when and with whom he intends to conduct his selected course of action in order to accomplish his mission) and the Main Effort.

The Commander’s Intent is a concise expression of the purpose of the campaign or operation, the desired results and how operations will progress towards achieving the desired end-state. At the tactical level, the Commander’s Intent should be focused on the effect that he wishes to achieve on the enemy. The intent tells the subordinate exactly what effects his commander is trying to achieve and why (Horton Academy, 2016). 

Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). The nature of the crisis, and the military response necessary, will determine the size and shape of the joint forces required and the command arrangements necessary to support them. There are four levels of response after emergence of a conflict:    

Table 2: Levels of Conflict

a.          Grand Strategic Level. This is the level at which the intent to apply national resources to achieve national policy objectives is set. The purpose of grand strategy is to direct and provide overall coherence to national, alliance or coalition policy, including all military and non-military aspects.

Grand strategy is the province of governments, whether acting independently or in concert with other governments through a multinational organisation, an alliance established by a treaty, or an ad hoc coalition.

National Security Command (NSC) composed of the President and the Cabinets is the highest decision-making authority at the Grand Strategic Level. The NSC issues the National Strategic Guidance (NSG) which is cascaded down to the Military Strategic Level.

There is a range of options open to governments to achieve a strategic objective of which military force is but one; diplomatic and economic resources will invariably be employed as well, or even instead of, military force. The grand strategic level decides on the resources to be allotted to achieve the desired objectives, gives broad political guidance as to their employment and imposes the limitations that are deemed necessary.

A successful national strategy sets out a path using the diplomatic, economic and military instruments of national power to achieve the long-term aims of the nation and protect its vital interests (Horton Academy, 2016).

b.       Military Strategic Level. This is the application of military resources to help achieve grand strategic objectives. The military strategic authority will consider the realistic contribution that military force can make to the achievement of grand strategic objectives and set such activity in hand. The National Military Authority (NMA) composed of the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) and Service Commanders is the highest military decision-making body at the military strategic level.

The NMA appoints the Joint Commander (JC) as the military strategic commander to exercise operational command of all the forces in the theatre of operations. The NMA issues the Military Strategic Directive to the JC who subsequently issues Mission directive to the Joint Task Force Commander (JTFC).

The military strategic directive will encompass advice from the office of the president through the cabinet office and defence council; to ensure that it is in accordance with defence policy and includes the necessary guidance on accounting for the expense incurred. The JC should receive a balanced set of objectives (ends), directives (ways) and resources (means).

The military strategic directive will include the following:

a.      Grand strategic situation (brief political survey) and related military strategic alliance/coalition goals.

b.     The desired end-state; that state of affairs which needs to be achieved at the end of the campaign to terminate or resolve conflict on favourable terms.

c.      Political, diplomatic, financial and legal limitations on the use of force, including UN resolutions, when applicable.

d.     Military objectives; Military end-state; Military concept of operations; Constraints and Definition of theatre/area of operation

c.       Operational Level. This level is concerned with the direction of military resources to achieve military strategic objectives. The operational level provides the link between the national and military strategic objectives and the tactical employment of forces. The focus at this level is on the design and conduct of operations using operational art, the application of creative imagination by commanders and staffs, supported by their skill, knowledge, and experience to design strategies, campaigns, and major operations, organize and employ military forces.

JTFC and component commanders use operational art to determine when, where, and for what purpose major forces will be employed and to influence the adversary disposition before combat. It is at this level that campaigns and major operations are planned, sustained, sequenced and directed. The responsibility falls under the JTFC to determine the campaign plan necessary to achieve the desired military strategic end state within the Joint Operations Area (JOA).

d.       Tactical Level. Tactical level involves the application of military resources to achieve operational objectives. The tactical level focuses on planning and executing battles, engagements, and activities to achieve military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces (TFs). These battles and engagements are planned and fought within the overall campaign or major operation designed by the operational level (Horton Academy, 2016).

3.5. Issues arising from the literature review on military management

The second objective of the study was in part to establish existing gaps with reference to theoretical anchorage of the military decision-making process tools. It is evident from the review that the application of the concept of strategic intent in military planning indicates its centrality in guiding the planning and conduct of military operations. It brought out the fact that a strategic intent is a roadmap for resource allocation and capability development. It identifies potential gaps between current capabilities and future needs, and outlines strategies to bridge these gaps. This ensures that the military organization dreams big and has the practical means to turn those dreams into reality.

The review showed that management is inherent in military command. Taking a broader view, the scope of military management turns out to be inclusive of all matters related to the following: Creation of combat forces; Maintenance and support of combat forces; including employment of combat forces as an instrument of national power in pursuit of national strategic objectives. The process of military management therefore, which is dependent upon well designed decision-making tools such as campaign plans  and the combat estimates, is one that ought to be guided by existing management theories and principles.

It is however worth noting that these decision making tools are not grounded in any management principles and theories. They continue to dangle loosely and precariously within the management domain, leaving management scholars with no option but to work towards anchoring them in management thought. This can only be possible by proposing a suitable and comprehensive theory aimed at properly situating the decision making tools within the management practice and scholarship context.

4. Public Policy

The concept of public policy is not universally defined or understood in a singular manner. Its interpretation varies significantly depending on the context, geographical location, and specific circumstances surrounding the subject matter at hand. Consequent upon this, diverse conception of public policy exists, with some constraining it to the tangible actions undertaken by government, others focusing on governmental intentions, and yet others encompassing both the actions and inactions of government. (Dye, 2004). However, for the purpose of this study, public policy is contextualized as “a statement of intent, anchored on a set of principles and decisions, that defines the course of action that the Government will be committed to in achieving specific developmental goals in the interest of the Public.” Public policy can also be described as a guiding framework of government intentions for addressing a set of national or sector specific issues. Further, it can be viewed as a statement of commitment by the government, which articulates basic principles to be pursued to attain specific goals. The public policy-making process is contextualized within political, economic, socio-cultural, governance, global, technological, legal and environmental spaces (GoK, 2024).

Public Policy Analysis

Literature abound on the explanation of what public policy analysis connotes, Eminue (2009) perceived public policy analysis as any type of analysis that generates and presents information in such a way as to improve the basis for policy makers to exercise their judgment. Conversely, Chandler and Plano (1988, p. 96) posit that policy analysis involves “a systematic data-driven approach that offers alternatives to relying solely on intuition when assessing the impacts of policies or policy options.

Specifically, within the realm of public policy analysis, the emphasis lies on elucidation rather than prescription, conducting a rigorous investigation into the origins and impacts of public policy while amassing dependable research findings of general applicability. (Dye, 2004). From the foregoing, it can be deduced that policy analysis is the systematic study of the causes, processes, formation, implementation and consequences of public policy.

4.1. Public Policy Making Process

This section explains the public policy making process to enable the users appreciate and understand the requirements for each stage and how it is conducted. The section provides a structured way in examining how public policies are formulated, adopted, implemented, and modified. The public policy development process is explained here below:

Problem Identification and Agenda Setting. This stage starts with the identification of the existence of a public policy issue that requires government intervention and action to address the issue. During problem identification, it is important to specify the issue, describe how it came about, the magnitude of the issue, state who is affected and the root cause of the problem. Problem identification involves both state and non-state actors.

Identification of policy issues is very crucial because the policy issue may manifest itself in various forms and may require a thorough analysis of the causes and effects to come up with all the dimensions of the problem to develop appropriate interventions. At the end of the process, a listing of all public policy issues identified through analysis and proposed solutions to the issue forms the policy agenda universe. It is from this Policy Agenda Universe that “policy agenda” is agreed through negotiation, persuasion and compromise by the stakeholders. The policy agenda can be viewed as “agenda setting” where all policy issues and proposed solutions are identified by policy actors and agreed upon for prioritization by the government.

Agenda setting process is lengthy and sometimes requires a lot of persuasion and negotiation with different stakeholders pushing for their proposed solutions to enter the policy agenda based on their interest. This is because benefits and costs of addressing the policy issue falls disproportionately on different actors and therefore there will be winners and losers. It requires stakeholder mapping based on their interest, power and influence, and their areas of operation. The process is done in stages with each set of stakeholders meeting to discuss and pick issues that qualify to get into the policy agenda of the government in addressing the public policy issue identified.

Policy Formulation. The policy formulation also referred to as policy design involves actual drafting of the public policy document to provide effective and acceptable course of action for addressing the identified problem, and is based on the policy agenda selected. The main activities undertaken at this stage are generating the policy options through policy analysis and drafting all the sections of the policy in question.

Public Policy Approval. This is the process through which a proposed policy is formally accepted and authorized by the relevant governing body or authority. During this stage, decision- makers review and consider the proposed policy’s content, objectives, potential impacts, and feasibility. They may gather input from experts and stakeholders to ensure that the policy is well-informed and addresses the intended issues.

Public Policy Implementation. Policy implementation is the process of translating public policy statements into actions. This entails actualizing the public policy implementation matrix through development of annual work plans and budgets for the implementation of the policy actions. It also involves carrying out sensitization to the public to create awareness of the public policy. Communication is also carried out in this stage where the concerned entities develop communication strategies to disseminate the public policy contents to various stakeholders and the public and where possible, in the language the public can understand.

Public Policy Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning . Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Learning (MERL) are interconnected processes used to assess the progress, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the implementation of public policies. This process is crucial for ensuring that activities outlined in the policy are implemented on time, by respective MDAs and the Counties. It also helps to track and ensure goals of the policy are achieved and lessons learned are used for future improvements of the policy. The MERL contributes to evidence-based decision-making in policy development, improved accountability, enhanced transparency and the overall effectiveness of policy implementation. The processes of MERL and what it entails are elaborated below.

a.    Monitoring. This involves regular and systematic collection of data and information to track the implementation of the activities and outputs outlined in the public policy implementation matrix. This also helps identify early warning of potential problems or risks and bottlenecks in the implementation of the policy and provides appropriate remedy.

b.    Evaluation. It is a systematic and objective assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and impact of a policy action implementation. It involves collection of data and evidence on policy to determine whether the policy goals have been achieved and to inform the review or relevance of continual implementation of the policy.

c.    Learning. It involves drawing insights and lessons from the monitoring and evaluation processes. Learning informs decision-making, helps identify best practices, and guides adjustments for ongoing and future activities of the public policy.

d.    Reporting. It involves communicating the findings, results, and lessons learned from the monitoring and evaluation processes. The reports are shared with both state and non-state actors to provide information on the achievement of the policy actions and to ensure transparency and accountability.

Policy Review. The process of policy review is informed by the results of monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the policy actions. If policy actions, activities and objectives have been achieved as outlined in the policy, decision makers will recommend continual implementation of the policy. If the results show that the policy goals are not being achieved however, the decision makers may recommend policy review or termination of the policy implementation altogether.

4.2. Theoretical Approaches to Public Policy Making

Comparative public policy studies have usually tried to show why one explanation of policy is correct and others are false. To be worthwhile, empirical policy analyses need to combine different approaches. The more sophisticated the conceptualization and measurement of the dependent (policy) variables, the more likely it is that a satisfactory policy explanation will require more than one theory. Hence, in the following section, you will study some of the important theories used in the study of Public Policy.

The Incremental Theory. The incremental theory of decision making posits that decisionmakers use previous activities, programs, and policies as the basis for their decisions and focus their efforts on incrementally increasing, decreasing, or modifying past activities, programs, and policies (Dye 2013). This method of decision making contrasts sharply with the rational model of decision making which involves conducting a thorough analysis of all possible options and their consequences and then evaluating their advantages and disadvantages (Lindblom 1959). Instead, they rely on “successive limited comparisons” to simplify decision making (Lindblom 1959, 81). Successive limited comparisons consist of comparing a limited number of options that are not too different from the current solution or practice (Kleindorfer et al. 1993; Beach 1997) and differ only marginally from each other (Pal 2011). The incremental theory of decision making or more simply, incrementalism, is presented as decision theory that avoids many of the problems of the rational-comprehensive theory and, at the same time, is more descriptive of the way in which public officials actually make decisions. Incremental can be summarized in the following manner.

            a.     The selection of goals or objectives and the empirical analysis of the action needed to attain them are closely intertwined with, rather than distinct from, one another.

b.    The decision maker considers only some of the alternatives for dealing with a problem, and these will differ only incrementally from the existing policies.

c.     For each alternative only a limited number of important consequences are evaluated.

d.       The problem confronting the decision maker is continuously redefined. Incrementalism allows for countless ends-means, means- ends adjustments that have the effect of making the problem more manageable.

e.    There is no single decision or right solution to the problem. The test of the good decision is that various analysists find themselves directly agreeing on it, without agreeing that decision is the most appropriate means to the agreed objective.

f.     Incremental decision making is essentially remedial and is geared more to the amelioration of present, concrete social imperfections than to the promotion of future social goals.

Lindblom contends that incrementalism represents the typical decision making process in pluralist societies such as United States. Decisions and the policies are the product of give and take and mutual consent among numerous participants in the decision making process. Incrementalism is politically expedient because it is easier to reach agreement when the matter in dispute among various groups is only modifications of existing programs rather than policy issues of great magnitude or an “ all or nothing” character. Since decision maker operate under conditions of uncertainty with regard to future consequences of their actions, incremental decisions reduce the risk and cost of uncertainty. Incrementalism is also realistic because it recognizes that decision maker lack the time, intelligence and other resources needed to engage in comprehensive analysis of all alternative solutions to existing problems. Moreover people are essentially pragmatic, seeking not always the single best way to deal with a problem but modestly, “something that will work.” Incrementalism, in short, yields limited, practicable, and acceptable decisions.

Group Theory. Group theory is a variant of pluralist theory notably with two variants; the total group view led by Arthur Bentley (1870- 1957) and moderate group view led by David Truman (1913-2003). The idea of group pressure was systematically articulated into a theoretical framework in the 20th century. Those who led this advancement were Arthur Bentley in his work “The process of government” subtitled “The study of social pressure,” David Truman in his work “Governmental process” and Earl Latham (1939-2013) in his book “The group basis of politics” published in 1952 (Eminue, 2009).

The group theory of politics posits that public policy and group struggle are inseparable due to the fact that what may be called public policy is the equilibrium reached in this group struggle at any given moment. Group theory analysis therefore represents a balance which the contending factions or groups constantly strive to win in their favour. Consequent upon this, public polices reflect the activities of groups (Anderson, 2003). In essence, group theory in public policy domain attempts to analyse how each of the diverse groups in a society tries to influence public policy to its advantage at the policy formulation level.

Group theory in relation to public policy recognised public policy as a reflection of the interest of dominant groups, as groups gain and lose power and influence, public policy will be altered in favour of the interests of those losing influence. Corroborating the foregoing, Latham argues that what we perceive as public policy is essentially a transient balance achieved during inter-group struggle. Once this equilibrium shifts in favor of new groups, a new policy emerges or the existing policy undergoes modification. Politics, fundamentally, involves a dynamic equilibrium formed through the contestation among diverse groups (Latham, 1965).

The major proposition of this theory in relation to public policy is that power to dominate and influence policy decision is dependent on group solidarity and power as a result, the ability of a group to tilt the policy of government to its favour depends on a number of factors as captured by Anyebe (2018, p.25) prominent among them are: wealth, organisational skill, leadership quality, bargaining skill, access to decision-makers and a modicum of luck.

It is pertinent to note that ultimately, no group has monopoly of influence over government policy due to the fact that different groups are constantly striving to shape public policies in their favour, either independently or in collaboration with other groups that share similar interests. The tactics employed in this struggle include coalition building, compromises, exchanging favours, and conflicts among groups. In this dynamic environment, the majority or more influential people typically prevails in having their preferred policies enacted. However, even the minority or less dominant group manages to have their perspectives acknowledged, albeit temporarily (Anyebe, 2018, pp. 11-12).

Group theory focuses on one of the major dynamic elements in policy formation, especially in pluralist societies such as the United States, but it seems both to overstate the importance of groups and to understate the independent and creative role that public officials can play in the policy process. Indeed, many groups have been generated by public policies. The American farm Bureau Federation, which developed around the agricultural extension program, is a notable example, as is the National Welfare Rights Organization. Public officials also may acquire a stake in particular programs and act as an interest group supporting their continuance. In the United States some welfare-agency employees, including social workers, prefer current programs, with their emphasis on supervision and services (as well as benefits), to a guaranteed annual income, which would probably eliminate some of their jobs.

Another shortcoming, of group theory is that in actuality many people (e.g., the poor and disadvantaged) and interests (such diffuse interests as natural beauty and social justice) are either not represented or only poorly represented in the group struggle. As Professor E.E. Schattschneider remarks about the under organization of the poor, “the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with strong upper-class accent.” Those who are not represented will have little voice in policy making and thus their interests are likely to be unarticulated therein.

Finally, from a methodological perspective, it is misleading and inefficient to try to explain politics and policy making solely in terms of interests and the group struggle. This bias leads to neglect of many other factors, such as ideas and institutions, which abound and which independently affect the development of policy. The reductionism or uncaused explanation that results when all political phenomena are crammed into the group concept should therefore be avoided.

Elite Theory. C. Wright Mill (1956) is perhaps, the leading representative of the Elite-Mass Model. Approached from the perspective of elite theory, public policy can be regarded as reflecting the values and preferences of governing elite. The essential argument of elite theory is that public policy is not determined by the demands and actions of the people or the “masses” but rather by ruling elite whose preferences are carried into effect by public officials and agencies.

Elite – Mass theory has been summarized by Professors Thomas Dye (2004) and Harmon Zeigler as follows:

a.       Society is divided into the few who have power and the many that do not. Only a small number of persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide public policy.

b.    The few who govern are not typical of the masses that are governed. Elites are drawn disproportionately from the upper socio-economic strata of society.

c.       The movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and continuous to maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing circles.

d.    Elites share consensus on the basic value of the social system and the preservation of the system. The United States, the elite consensus includes private enterprise; private property, limited government, and individual liberty.

e.     Public policy does not reflect demands of masses but rather the prevailing values of the elite. Changes in public policy will be incremental rather, than revolutionary. Incremental changes permit responses to events that threaten a social system with a minimum of alteration or dislocation of the system.

f.     Elites may act out of narrow self-serving motives and undermining mass support and interest. In order to please the public they may initiate reforms, curb abuse, and undertake public-regarding programs to preserve the system and their place in it.

g.       Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence form apathetic masses. Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites.

Elite theory focuses our attention on the role of leadership in policy formation and on the reality that, in any political system, a few govern the many. Whether elites rule and determine policy, with little influence from the masses, is a difficult proposition to handle. It cannot be proved merely by assertions that the “establishment runs things,” which has been a familiar plaint in recent years, Political scientist Robert Dahl argues that to defend the proposition successfully one must identify a controlling group, less than a majority in size, that is not a pure artefact of democratic rules of minority of individuals whose preferences regularly prevail cases of differences of preferences on key political issues.

Institutional Theory. The study of government institutions (or organizations) is one of the oldest concerns of political science. This is not surprising, since political life generally revolves around governmental institutions such as legislatures, executive, courts, and political parties; public policy, moreover, is authoritatively determined and implemented by these institutions.

Traditionally, the institutional approach concentrated on describing the more formal and legal aspects of governmental institutions: their formal structure, legal powers, procedural rules, and functions or activities. Formal relationships with other institutions might also be considered, such as legislative-executive relations. Usually little was done to explain how institutions actually operated as opposed to how they were supposed to operate, to analyze public policies produced by the institutions, or to discover the relationships between institutional structure and public policies:

Subsequently, political scientists turned their attention in teaching and research to the political processes within governmental or political institutions; concentrating on the behaviour of participants in the process and on political realities rather than formalism. In the study of the legislatures, interest shifted from simply describing the legislature as an institution to analyzing and explaining its operation over time, from its static to its dynamic aspects. Thus in the academic curriculum the course on the legislature often came to be about the legislative process.

Institutionalism, with its emphasis on the formal or structural aspects of institutions, can nonetheless be usefully employed in policy analysis. An institution is in part, a set of regularized patterns of human behaviour that persist over time and perform some significant social function or activity. It is their differing patterns of behaviour that really distinguish courts from legislatures, from administrative agencies, and so on These regularized patterns of behaviour, which we often call rules or structures, can affect decision-making and the content of public policy. Rules and structural arrangements are usually not neutral in their effects; rather, they tend to favor some of the senate rules (and traditions, which often have the effect of rules), such as those relating to unlimited debates and action by unanimous consent, favour the interests of legislative minorities over majorities. Many actions in the senate, such as bringing bills up for consideration and closing off debate on them, are done by unanimous consent. Thus one senator, so inclined, can block action by the senate.

Institutional theory focuses on institution and how they matter in policymaking, so the most general way of explaining how institutions affect policy output is by seeing how the institutions (explained through various trends) empower and constrain actors in policymaking (March and Olsen, 2008, p. 3).

In summary, institutional structures, arrangements, and procedures often have important consequences for the adoption and content of public policies. They provide part of the context for policy making which must be considered along with the more dynamic aspects of politics, such as political parties, groups, and public opinion, in policy study. By itself, however, institutional theory can provide only partial explanations of policy. It has little to say about what drives the policy process.

Rational Choice Theory. The rational-choice theory, which is sometimes called social choice, or formal theory, originated with economists and involves applying the principles of micro-economic theory to the analysis and explanation of political behaviour (or non-market decision-making). It has now gained many adherents among political scientists.

Perhaps the earliest use of rational-choice theory to study the political process is Anthony Downs’s Economic Theory of Democracy published in 1957. In this influential book, Downs assumes that voters and political parties act as rational decision-makers who seek to maximize attainment of their preferences. Parties formulated whatever policies would win most votes, and voters sought to maximize the portion of their preferences that could be realized through government action. In attempting to win elections, political parties moved towards the centre of the ideological spectrum to appeal to the greatest number of voters and maximize their voting support.

Thus, rather than Rational choice theory both alerts us to the importance of self-interest as a motivating force in politics and policy making, and provides a better understanding of decision-making processes. Many contend, however, that politics is not merely as devoid of altruism and concern for the public interest as the rational-choice theorists assume. The adoption of “good public policy,” for example, is frequently a goal of members of congress and public-interest groups.

Political Systems Theory. The political system theory is most closely associated with the work of David Easton (1953). According to this model, public policy is the response of the political system to demands arising from its environment. The political system as defined by Easton composed of those identifiable and interrelated institutions a activities in a society that make authoritative decisions allocation of values) that are binding on society. The environment consists of all those socio-cultural, economic, and political conditions or factors within and outside the boundaries of the political system which shape the political process, and whose activities are influenced by the political system.

Figure 1: Systems Analysis  by Easton David (1965)

The political system receives inputs from the environment. Inputs consist of demands and supports. Demands are the claims made by individuals and groups on the political system for action to satisfy their interests. Support is rendered when groups and individuals abide by the rules or laws of the country, pay their taxes, and accept the decisions and actions of the authoritative political system made in response to demands. These authoritative allocations of values constitute public policy. The concept of feedback indicates that the political system receives information about the policy outcomes.

The political systems theory has certain limitations. First, it does not explain the origin of public policies, nor is it concerned with how decisions are made and policies developed within the political system. Again, it is not concerned with evaluation of past and present policies. Nonetheless, systems theory is a useful aid in organizing our inquiry into formation. Systems theory draws our attention to the influence of puts on the content of public policy.

Public policy may be viewed as a political systems response to demands arising from its environment. The political system, as Easton defines it, comprises those identifiable and interrelated institutions and activities (what we usually think of as governmental institutions and political processes) in a society that make authoritative allocations of values (decisions) that are binding on society. The environment consists of all phenomena – the social system, the economic system, the biological setting – that are external to the boundaries of the political system. Thus at least analytically one can separate the political system from all the other components of a society.

Inputs into the political system from the environment consist of demands and supports. Demands are the claims for action that individuals and groups make to satisfy their interests and values. Support is rendered when groups and individuals abide by election results, pay taxes, obey laws, and otherwise accept the decisions and action undertaken by the political system in response to demands. The amount of support for a political system indicates the extent to which it is regarded as legitimate, or as authoritative and binding on its citizens.

Outputs of the political system include laws, rules, judicial decisions, and the like. Regarded as the authoritative allocations of values, they constitute public policy. The concept of feedback indicates that public policies (or outputs) made at a given time may subsequently alter the environment and the demands arising there from, as well as the character of the political system itself. Policy outputs may produce new demands, which lead to further outputs, and so on in a never-ending flow of public policy.

The usefulness of systems theory in studying public policy  is limited by its highly general and abstract nature. It does not, moreover, say much about the procedures and processes by which decisions are made and policy is developed within the “black box” called the political system. Indeed, systems theory depicts government as simply responding to demands made upon it, and its results are sometimes characterized as “input-output studies.” (For an illustration, see the discussion in the section headed socioeconomic conditions.) Nonetheless, this approach can be helpful in organizing inquiry into policy formation. It also alerts us to some important facts of the political process, such as these: How do inputs from the environment affect the content of public policy and the operation of the political system? How in turn does public policy affect the environment and subsequent demands for policy action? ‘How well is the political System able to convert demands into public and preserve itself over time?

The Economic Approach. The econometric approach, sometimes called the public choice approach or the political economy approach, is primarily based on economic theories of politics in which human nature is assumed to be “rational” or motivated preference gain. This approach assumes that people pursue their own fixed weighted preferences regardless of collective outcomes. Essentially, it integrates the general insight of public research with the method of public finances. For examples, it assume that the preferences of individuals are narrow and diverse, which requires that these individuals aggregate, or “logroll” their preferences into majorities that can command governmental action. For examples, john Chubb has used such an approach to study policy implementation.

The Participatory Approach. The participatory approach, recently associated with Peter Deleon and others, is closely related to the post positivist challenge and involves a greater inclusion of the interests and values of the various stakeholders in the policy decision-making processes. It is presumably closer to what Harold Lasswell (1971), called the “policy sciences of democracy”, in which an extended population of affected citizens would be involved in the formulation and implementation of public policy through a series of discursive dialogues. It would involve extensive open hearings with a broad range of concerned citizens, in which these hearings would be structured in such a way as to prompt individuals, interest groups, and agency officials to contribute to policy design and redesign. The declared purpose of participatory policy analysis is to gather information so that policy makers can make better (i.e., more completely informed) recommendations and decisions. As an approach to analysis, it encourages consideration of a greater number of players and values in the policy making process and to thus have a better catalogue of the various perspectives being brought to bear on the policy under consideration.

4.3. Issues arising from review of public policy making theories

The second objective of the study further sought to establish existing gaps with reference to theoretical anchorage of the project planning logic models and public policy formulation process. The reviewed literature has revealed existing gaps with reference to the comprehensive nature of the existing theories which guide public policy making process. A summary of the gaps in literature is as shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3: Gaps in public policy making theories

5. The Call for a Theoretical Framework

The third objective of this study was to propose a comprehensive theoretical model, management theory and supporting principles as a basis upon which the above decision making tools and process would be anchored. According to Nachmias and Nachmias (2008), a theoretical framework supports a theory in a research study, introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists. It permits the researcher to evaluate assumptions more critically, forces the researcher to address questions of why and how, connects the researcher to existing knowledge and permits the researcher to intellectually transit from simply describing a phenomenon that have been observed to generalizing about various aspects of that phenomenon. The current study proceeds to suggest a theoretical framework, a theory of management and principles that will guide the application of the proposed theory. A new theoretical model offers an opportunity to theorize and put forward propositions at the abstraction level that can be empirically investigated as hypotheses with factual data (Nachmias & Nachmias, 2004).

5.1. The Proposed Intent Focused Management Theory

The Intent Focused Management Theory was developed on the premise that the continued application of the Campaign Planning Tool and the Combat Estimates as decision making tools within military organizations had no theoretical anchorage from the Management Scholar’s point of view. Further, lack of comprehensive models and theories to guide project planning and public policy formulation by Non-Governmental organizations and the public sector respectively was a matter that had to be addressed through scholarship.

It was in view of the a foresaid that this theory was proposed for the purpose of filling the existing knowledge gaps relating to theoretical anchorage and comprehensiveness of the military decision making process, public policy formulation and project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation within various institutions.

In light of the theoretical and empirical gaps identified in the review, this study presents a theoretical framework that will assist in finding out the influence of management theories in decision making and organizational performance. The proposal is presented using a number of tools including comprehensive multi-sectoral and single agency logic models, theoretical frameworks, theoretical propositions and guiding principles.

Figure 2: Intent Focused Theory Logic Model

Figure 3: Intent Focused Theoretical Framework

Figure 4: Simplified Intent Focused Theoretical Framework

5.1.1. Identifying a strategic intent

Strategic intent clarifies an organization’s purpose and the goals it strives to achieve. This clarity is essential in today’s business and security landscape, where merely identifying temporary advantages is insufficient. A well-defined strategic intent helps organizations set a stable course and pursue long-term success amidst ongoing environmental challenges.

Strategic intent encapsulates the aspirations and ultimate goals an organization aims to achieve. It represents a clear vision of what the organization seeks to become and the industry leadership position it aims to secure. Thus, the paper proposed that;

Proposition 1: Identifying a strategic intent, which clarifies the goals, purpose and endstate to be achieved sets the stage by giving a reference point upon which decision are made. It provides a roadmap for decision making.

5.1.2. Aligning management functions to strategic intent

Understanding strategic intent is crucial because it aligns the organization’s resources and energies towards a unified and clear goal, ensuring that every action and decision contributes to the broader vision of long-term success and industry leadership. All employees in an organization must ensure that their activities from the planning function to the controlling function are aligned with the desired endstate which is derived from the intent. Any deviation will derail the achievement of the overall goals and objectives. Thus, the study proposed that;

Proposition 2: Aligning all management functions with the strategic intent focuses effort on key areas hence facilitating achievement of the broader organizational goals.

5.1.3. Dynamic nature of management environment

The practice of management is carried out within the context of a dynamic and unpredictable environment. Environmental dynamism describes the rate and unpredictability of changes in a firm’s external environment (Dess and Beard, 1984). When firms face highly dynamic environments, operators face vague value-judgment standards and discouraging environments for the selection of operational strategies; these factors may force operators to rapidly make strategic decisions using limited diagnostic observations of the company’s operational environments, so as to establish dynamic capabilities.

Milliken (1987) considered environmental dynamism as speed of product changes, the changing frequency of customer preference and operational environment. According to Zahra and Covin (1995), business firms under turbulent environments need to continuously renew product/service so as to respond to environmental change. Thus, these businesses will be better able to satisfy customers’ continuously changing preferences, making timely and effective responses to competitors’ tactics. More dynamic environments require them to maintain higher levels of dynamic capabilities with better resource configurations, so as to effectively respond to changes in customer needs as well as technological transformation in order realize higher levels of performance during heightened periods of competition. This calls for flexible business plans that can quickly adapt to changing customer preferences. Thus;

Proposition 3: The functions of  management are executed within the framework of a dynamic and unpredictable environment. This calls for critical environmental analysis and flexibility in planning leading to development of adaptable strategies and plans.

5.1.4. Information requirement during planning

The level of change in external operating environment may be to an extent that can have a major impact on achievement of the overall goals. In such cases, planners need not to proceed with planning, but must seek guidance and clarification from their superiors on the best way forward. This ensures that planning is intent guided and in line with the aspirations of the organization’s leaders. Failure to seek clarification may result in unintended outcome which might not serve the interests of the stakeholders and management as well. Upon getting guidance, planners can proceed aligning all their actions and decisions with the adjusted intent leading to overall success. Thus, the study proposed that;

Proposition 4: Whenever changes occur in the environment which may have an impact on the endstate, planners must seek clarification up. This ensures that planning is intent guided and in line with the aspirations of the organization’s leaders leading to achievement of the desired objectives.

Proposition 5: Resumption in the planning process must adhere to the intent as guided. This is to ensure that the interests of management as well as stakeholders is taken into consideration, hence organizational success.

5.1.5. Intent Focused Theory

The theory is summarized as follows:

a.  A Strategic Intent clarifies the purpose, goals and endstate.

b.  All management functions must be intent driven.

c.  The functions are executed within the framework of a dynamic and unpredictable environment.

d.  Whenever changes occur in the environment which may have an impact on the endstate, planners must seek clarification up.

e.   Resumption in the planning process must adhere to the intent as guided.

5.2. Principles of Intent Focused Management Theory (UD - AIR)

The Intent Focused Management Theory will be guided by the following principles:

a. Understand strategic intent, own mission and operating environment.

b. Determine strategic pillars, alternative and best course of action.

c. Allocate resources.

d. Implement in line with intent.

e. Review the process.

The principles can be summarized using the acronym UD-AIR. To be referred to as Frankline Omuse 5 (five) principles of management.

5.3. Application of Intent Focused Theory

The theory is a useful decision making tool for the following categories of organizations:

a. Military organizations campaign planning departments.

b. Government Multi - Sectoral planning departments for programmes with Lead Agency and Supporting Agencies.

c. Public policy making bodies.

d. Large Bureaucratic Corporations dependent on formal organizational planning

e. All Institutions dependent on Strategic Planning for decision making.

f. Intent focused theory is key in guiding managers execution of management functions in all types of organizations.

5.4. Application in academia

The theory will be of great importance in academia as it redefines the general practice of decision making in both the public and private sectors. It will be of particular importance to the following categories of training institutions:

a.  Military and security studies training institutions.

b.  Project planning training institutions.

c.  Public policy studies schools.

d. Management training institutions. 

5.5. Benefits of Intent focused management theory

The theory will be beneficial in management practice in the following manner:

a. Realization of value for money due to optimum utilization of resources occasioned by strict adherence to strategic intent and desired endstate during project implementation.

b. Well guided decision making resulting in quality policies that are beneficial to the stakeholders and citizens in general.

c. Efficiency and effectiveness since the theory guides management practice from planning to control.

d. This theory will act as an accountability theory by stakeholders of any organization in whatever industry for holding managers, leaders, administrators and policy makers accountable for the resources allocated to them or put under their stewardship with intent of accomplishing organizational goals/objectives.

5.6. Conclusion and direction for future research

In conclusion, the objectives of this paper were: to review extant conceptual and empirical literature on existing management theories and models with intent of establishing existing gaps in their contribution towards guiding managers in decision making and organizational management; to establish existing gaps with reference to theoretical anchorage of the military decision making process tools, project planning logic models and public policy formulation process; and to propose a comprehensive theoretical model, management theory and supporting principles as a basis upon which the above decision making tools and process will be anchored. A review of extant literature on management theories was carried out where gaps were realized. Literature on military decision making tools and public policy making theories too, established gaps in theoretical anchorage and theoretical comprehensiveness respectively. This was the basis upon which the Intent Focused Theoretical Framework, Theory and guiding principles were proposed. The main limitation of this study concerned the propositions, which all constituted theoretical propositions that are yet to be empirically tested and validated using data from a field survey. In view of these limitations, future research needs to consider the propositions advanced by this theoretical work with a view to undertaking an empirical investigation to validate the claims made using original data.

Funding: Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent Statement/Ethics Approval: Not applicable.