@ARTICLE{26543117_764582672_2022, 
	author = {Brajesh Mishra and Avanish Kumar}, 
	keywords = {, regulatory identity, regulatory philosophy, regulatory purpose, regulatory priorities, regulatory practices, regulatory projectionsstrategic outcomes},
	title = {EXPLORING CONNECTEDNESS BETWEEN REGULATORY IDENTITY AND STRATEGIC OUTCOMES},
	journal = {Public Administration Issues},
	year = {2022},
	number = {6},
	pages = {96-121},
	url = {https://vgmu.hse.ru/en/2022--6/764582672.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {This study aims to extend the concept of organizational identity, the soul of organizational culture, and its five characterizing attributes, namely, purpose, philosophy, priorities, processes, and projections, to the regulatory space. It has been done through a thematic review of previous articles. Although a few academic articles in the public policy arena have dealt with one or two of these attributes, there is a lack of a holistic evaluation of the regulatory framework covering all these five attributes of regulatory identity. After building an understanding of how these elements have evolved in public policy and regulation domains, we have hypothesized that processes and projections of the regulatory framework need to be aligned with the core regulatory identity (constituted by purpose, philosophy, and priorities) for achieving strategic outcomes. On the other hand, a change in the long-term strategy should trigger a reassessment of organizational priorities followed by the realignment of the core regulatory culture to guide decision-making and organizational actions. Finally, since the regulatory processes or practices, both internal and external, are the actions that keep the regulatory identity alive, therefore, they should be aligned with the core identity and culture of the regulatory framework.},
	annote = {This study aims to extend the concept of organizational identity, the soul of organizational culture, and its five characterizing attributes, namely, purpose, philosophy, priorities, processes, and projections, to the regulatory space. It has been done through a thematic review of previous articles. Although a few academic articles in the public policy arena have dealt with one or two of these attributes, there is a lack of a holistic evaluation of the regulatory framework covering all these five attributes of regulatory identity. After building an understanding of how these elements have evolved in public policy and regulation domains, we have hypothesized that processes and projections of the regulatory framework need to be aligned with the core regulatory identity (constituted by purpose, philosophy, and priorities) for achieving strategic outcomes. On the other hand, a change in the long-term strategy should trigger a reassessment of organizational priorities followed by the realignment of the core regulatory culture to guide decision-making and organizational actions. Finally, since the regulatory processes or practices, both internal and external, are the actions that keep the regulatory identity alive, therefore, they should be aligned with the core identity and culture of the regulatory framework.}
}