When you work in government you are making decisions all the time. But not all decisions are the same. Some are high-level, policy decisions, and others are operational decisions, the kind that impacts our daily activities. In this week’s blog, we talk about the three-level of decision-making in the public sector and how they relate to each other.
Understanding what these three types of decisions entail, who is responsible for doing what and how they interrelate will help you clarify your role and responsibilities. If you have ever felt that an authority is too involved in the details, or, on the contrary, that you have someone completely disengaged from the day-to-day decisions, this blog can help.
Three-type of decisions
There are three types of decisions in government organizations:
Strategic decisions are at a higher level and define the intent of what wants to be achieved in the long term. Those are generally policy decisions aligned with the national development plan and government plan. Strategic decisions define the what and the why. These decisions are generally made by politicians in a position of authority. Examples of strategic decisions could be policies like the State Policy for Early Childhood in Colombia, De cero a Siempre (From Zero to Forever), or the National Education Policy in India.
Tactical decisions are the decisions and plans made to materialize that long-term vision into a medium-term and annual strategy. The purpose is to translate an intention into action. Tactical decisions explain how the work should be done. These decisions are often made by politicians in a position of authority in a much tighter relationship with civil servants. In some countries, the CEO of an organization will play a prominent role in this type of decisions. Examples of tactical decisions include the Early Childhood Comprehensive Care Strategy in Colombia, which details the political, technical, and management fundamentals to materialize their State Policy.
Operational decisions are the day-to-day decisions to materialize the strategy and plans. These operational decisions are the ones that will enable an organization to achieve outcomes. Operational decisions define how and when the work is actually done. This is where the rubber meets the road. The previous two types were about designing or planning what to do and how. These decisions are directly related to the execution of those strategies and are generally done by civil servants. Unlike the other two, there are several decisions that need to be made in order to actually implement the tactical decisions. Continuing with the example of Colombia, part of the strategy includes the vaccination scheme for infants. All the decisions required to implement from the procurement of vaccines, logistics of the distribution, to the final delivery of the vaccine are an example of operational decisions.
Two different views regarding decision-making in government
Traditional Approach
A traditional approach to decision-making in the public sector tends to be more hierarchical and looks to decisions in a pyramidal way. Under this vision, the head of an organization, like a minister, would be involved in the strategic decisions. Tactical decisions would be made by the upper hierarchy (minister, vice-minister, CEOs, etc). Operational decisions, the day-to-day decisions will be made by civil servants.
For me, the best way to achieve results is if everyone did their part of the job. That means, ministers in charge of strategic decisions and civil servants in charge of operational decisions. While that sounds great in theory, in practice, particularly in governments with lower capability, that’s not always possible or desirable.
As the leader of an organization, a minister is not only responsible for her decisions. Her role is to deliver outcomes and achieve results. Having an excellent strategy that’s not implemented doesn’t achieve that purpose. They need to assure things work at all levels of decision-making, even though that doesn’t necessarily mean doing everything.
An Alternative
An alternative approach is that ministers are involved in strategic and tactical decisions as required. I like to think of these three levels of decisions as a gear, where each piece depends on the other, and all are needed to function.
The head of the organization is in charge of making sure that all the parts of the machine work well, which might mean, in some cases, getting involved in operational decisions. Not to take over the decision-making process, but to orient those decisions and guarantee an adequate allocation of resources.
To sum it up
There are three types of decision-making in government. Strategic decisions define the what and the why. These decisions are long-term and are encapsulated in a policy. Tactical decisions explain how the work should be done. These decisions bring the long-term view into a plan or a strategy for the medium and short term. Finally, operational decisions define how and when the work is actually done. These are the day-to-day decisions that will determine the execution of a project and its success.
These three decisions are closely related, but without adequate operational decisions, the most brilliant strategic decision won’t work. As I said in previous blogs, execution is in the details, those are also at the operational level.
