a comparative, holistic, multiple-case study …3905/datastream... · traditional business based...
TRANSCRIPT
A COMPARATIVE, HOLISTIC, MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIC THINKING PROTOCOL©
AND TRADITIONAL STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES
AT A SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY.
by
Deborah J. Robinson
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of
The College of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL
May 2012
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express her sincere gratitude to the faculty in the
Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology at Florida Atlantic
University for their support throughout her studies there. In addition, a special note of
gratitude goes to the members of her committee: Dr. John Morris, Dr. Anne Mulder and
Dr. Dianne Wright for sharing their wisdom, knowledge and encouragement of her in
completing this study. Also, the author wishes to acknowledge the key role that Dr. John
Pisapia played in this work. He was there at every step in the process and ultimately his
faith, coaching, and encouragement enabled her to “run for daylight.”
The journey was made possible through the love and encouragement of friends
and family, too numerous to list here, but to whom the author is forever grateful.
v
ABSTRACT
Author: Deborah J. Robinson
Title: A Comparative, Holistic, Multi-Case Study of the Implementation
of the Strategic Thinking Protocol© and Traditional Strategic
Planning Processes at a Southeastern University
Institution: Florida Atlantic University
Dissertation Advisor: Dr. John R. Pisapia
Degree: Doctor of Philosophy
Year: 2012
This study explores the strategic thinking and strategic planning efforts in a
department, college and university in the Southeastern United States. The goal of the
study was to identify elements of strategic planning processes that meet the unique
organizational features and complexities of a higher education institution. The study
employed a holistic, multi-case study approach, wherein three single case studies were
conducted with one unit of analysis. The findings in each case were then compared and
contrasted to provide more evidence and confidence in the findings.
The findings are framed by two constructs: strategic planning and strategic
thinking. The conceptual framework for the study identified the distinction between the
systematic nature of strategic planning and the more integrated perspective of strategic
thinking. Traditional business based strategic planning model uses an analytical process,
vi
logic, linear thinking and a calculating process to develop a plan. Strategic thinking
places a premium on synthesis, systems thinking and a social cognitive process that
results in an integrated perspective of the organization. The outcomes of the strategic
thinking process are described through changes in attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors
of the individuals and the organization.
The results of this study indicate that the use of the Strategic Thinking Protocol©
is suitable for higher education organizations to create a learning environment, to
implement creative and emergent strategies, that result in the organization’s positioning
and responses to a rapidly changing environment. The strategic thinking process in both
the department and college cases were found to be effective in altering the attitudes,
values, beliefs and behaviors of the participants. The integration of the plan is an ongoing
process with strong beginnings in both the department and college cases. The traditional
strategic planning process used in the university case was found not to be an effective
model for higher education organizations. Finally, the inclusion of strategic thinking
elements is an effective change model for higher education institutions.
DEDICATION
This manuscript is dedicated to my son Matthew, who knows what it has taken to
get here. He is a true believer in the pursuit of dreams and not letting anyone or anything
get in the way of reaching them.
≈
In memory of Lionel Mosher, my teacher…you changed the direction of my life.
vii
A COMPARATIVE, HOLISTIC, MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY OF THE
IMPLEMENATION OF THE STRATEGIC THINKING PROTOCOL©
AND TRADITIONAL STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
AT A SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xiii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 5
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 7
Strategic thinking and strategic planning. ................................................... 7
The Study Framework ........................................................................................... 14
Method .................................................................................................................. 17
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................... 19
Role of the Researcher .......................................................................................... 23
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 24
Delimitations ......................................................................................................... 25
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 25
viii
Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 27
History of Strategy and Strategic Planning ........................................................... 27
Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning ............................................................ 34
Strategic Management and Strategic Leadership .................................................. 40
Vision and Vision Integration ............................................................................... 42
Open Systems Theory ........................................................................................... 44
Complexity Theory ............................................................................................... 46
Strategy in Higher Education ................................................................................ 50
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 58
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 60
Research Design .................................................................................................... 61
Sample Plan ........................................................................................................... 61
Site Selection. ............................................................................................ 61
Southeastern University. ............................................................... 62
Southeastern College of Education. .............................................. 63
Southeastern Department of Educational Leadership and
Research Methodology .................................................................. 65
Participant Selection .............................................................................................. 65
Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 66
Interviews. ................................................................................................. 68
Documents. ................................................................................................ 69
ix
Observations. ............................................................................................. 69
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 69
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 74
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 76
Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology,
Southeastern University ........................................................................................ 77
Planning process: The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP). ................... 78
Formation and charge to the navigating committee. ................................. 81
Findings ..................................................................................................... 83
The Department Process Utilized a Strategic Thinking Process. .............. 84
Elements of study framework. ................................................................... 87
Successful Model of Change .................................................................... 104
Department Case Summary ................................................................................. 107
College of Education, Southeastern University .................................................. 108
Planning process: The Strategic Planning Protocol© (STP) ............................... 108
Formation and charge to the steering committee. ................................... 109
Findings ................................................................................................... 110
The College Process Utilized a Strategic Thinking Process. .................. 111
Successful Planning Process ................................................................... 131
College Case Summary ....................................................................................... 133
Southeastern University ...................................................................................... 134
Findings ................................................................................................... 136
The University used a traditional strategic planning process. ................. 138
x
Success of Strategic Planning Process .................................................... 162
University Case Summary ................................................................................... 168
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................ 169
Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................ 170
Cross-Case Analysis ............................................................................................ 176
Activity changes. ..................................................................................... 177
Belief changes. ........................................................................................ 178
Internal horizontal alignment. ................................................................. 181
Value of the process. ............................................................................... 184
Perception of the process. ........................................................................ 187
Summary of Cross-Case Findings ....................................................................... 187
Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 188
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 190
Strategic thinking. ................................................................................... 190
Statement of strategic intent. ................................................................... 193
Complex adaptive systems and complexity theory. ................................ 195
Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP). ...................................................... 197
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 198
Recommendations ............................................................................................... 199
Higher education organizations. .............................................................. 199
Accrediting agencies. .............................................................................. 200
Higher education leaders. ........................................................................ 201
Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 202
xi
Future Research ................................................................................................... 203
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 205
A. Interview Protocol .......................................................................................... 205
B. Interview Request ........................................................................................... 209
C. Sample Adult Consent Form .......................................................................... 210
D. List of Documents .......................................................................................... 212
E. Observation Guide .......................................................................................... 218
F. First Level Coding Table ................................................................................ 219
G. Sample Statement of Strategic Intent ............................................................. 221
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 222
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 The Difference Between Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning ............. 15
Table 2.1 Strategic Thinking Adapted from Bonn (2005). ............................................. 36
Table 2.2 Overview of the Ten Schools of Strategic Management,
(Mintzberg, et al., 1998) ................................................................................. 41
Table 3.1. Participant Distribution by Function and Case .............................................. 66
Table 3.2. Open Coding Frequency Report .................................................................... 71
Table 3.3. Theme and Description Matrix ...................................................................... 73
Table 4.1. STP Questions and Outcomes (Pisapia, 2009) .............................................. 80
Table 4.2. Strategic Thinking/Planning Process Expected Results (Pisapia, 2009) ....... 83
Table 4.3. Findings and Data Sources for the Department ............................................. 84
Table 4.4. Study Framework and Findings for the Department ..................................... 85
Table 4.5. Findings and Data Sources for the College ................................................. 111
Table 4.6. Study Framework and Findings for the College .......................................... 112
Table 4.7. Findings and Data Sources for the University ............................................. 136
Table 4.8. Study Framework and Findings for the University ..................................... 137
Table 5.1. Study Framework and Cross-Case Findings ................................................ 171
Table 5.2. Themes Found In Cross-Case Analysis ....................................................... 177
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Combining strategic intent with execution as adapted from Pisapia (2009) ...14
Figure 2. Diagram of five forces that shape industry competition as cited in (Heracleous,
2003) ................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 3. McKinsey’s “7S Model” as described in (Peters & Waterman, 1982) ............32
Figure 4. Strategic Thinking adapted from Bonn (2005) that reflects the intersection of
the three elements of strategic thinking ............................................. ….……………..…36
Figure 5. Strategic Thinking (Liedtka, 1998b). ................................................................37
Figure 6. The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009) ............................................78
Figure 7. The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009). .........................................109
Figure 8. Sample goal specification .................................................................................154
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Higher education is experiencing environmental disruptions that challenge today’s
higher education leaders and the academy itself to become more agile. It is proposed that
in such times leaders at every level of the organization must act in a strategic way,
meaning they must develop and implement actionable plans (Pisapia, 2009). The historic
manner in which higher education leaders have dealt with such disruptions is through
strategic planning which has not always resulted in actionable plans or increased the heart
beat of those that have to implement it. Higher education has adopted strategic planning
as a “cure-all” for dealing with the challenges that have presented themselves from the
local community to federal and state mandates, funding cuts, and increasing pressure to
produce measurable results. Mintzberg (1994b) suggests that the problem arises from the
application of a linear, simplistic planning system to a complex adaptive system of a
university. A complex adaptive system is a dynamic network of many entities acting in
parallel, while constantly acting and reacting to what other entities are doing. The control
of complex adaptive systems are highly dispersed and decentralized and the behavior of
the system is the result of decisions made every moment by individual entities in the
system (Holland, 1995).
The object of strategic planning is change (Fish, 2004; Pisapia & Robinson,
2010). Planning is a process in which long term goals are transformed into short term
2
tasks and objectives. In traditional strategic planning, the process is heavily dependent on
data analysis and operations research techniques such as SWOT analysis and scenario
planning. It is a process that inventories, sorts, analyzes and assesses substantial amounts
of data. It relies on long-term planning, linearity and rationality. The process results in a
strategic plan which many times displays hierarchies of goals that cascade throughout the
organization all tied to the central plan. There is clear agreement that the idea of strategic
planning is good. Unfortunately, it has been estimated that between 70-90% of all change
efforts fail (Axelrod, Axelrod, Jacobs, & Beedon, 2006; Covey, 2004; Kaplan & Norton,
2004; Mintzberg, 1994a; Sirkin et al., 2005). Although change is unavoidable, planned
change does not appear to be so. Strategic planning worked well in the pre-digital world
where formal structures held organizations together. There is also agreement that it works
less well in today’s more dynamic environments where values, culture, and commitment
to the common good of the organization are the glue that holds organizations together
(Baldridge, 1983; Birnbaum, 2000; Bonn, 2001; Chussil, 2005; Mintzberg, 1994b;
Robbins & Coulter, 2002; Shipengrover, 1996; Stacey 2007).
When strategic planning techniques are implemented in a mechanistic
organization with high levels of certainty and agreement they work well. So why doesn’t
it work in times of uncertainty and ambiguity? More specifically why doesn’t strategic
planning work well in higher education? Birnbaum (1999) and Kezar (2005) point to
distinctive organizational features found in universities: goals which are difficult to
quantify, relative independence from environmental influences, anarchical decision-
making, voluntary collaboration, multiple power and authority structures, and image as
3
opposed to bottom line performance measures which make universities difficult to
change. In addition to organizational features, Pisapia (2006) suggests that failure is due
to leader inadequacies such as:
(a) they are trained in and rely upon a linear thinking mindset, which does not
work in situations characterized by ambiguity and complexity; (b) they are unable
to identify critical societal and institutional forces impacting their environment
and thus do not connect their organizations to the major themes associated with
success; (c) their concept of change is also linear and therefore they overuse
quantifiable parameters in the change process and seek to rationally plan their
way to success; and (d) they do not see their organizations as dependent upon the
actions and views of other organizations and individuals, therefore, they do not
connect with significant forces on their critical paths of success. (p. 2)
While organizational and leader features are important facilitators or barriers, the
reason strategic planning works less well today is essentially due to its most important
feature of a heavy reliance on rational and linear assumptions of cause and effect about
events. This leads to difficulty of predicting in complex environments, results in
narrowing vision, creating a rigidity of the process, destruction of commitment, increase
of politics, shortened tenure of lead administrators, and the process itself becoming more
important than the results. Most scholars suggest that the process by which strategy is
created must be reconceived to meet the needs of a rapidly changing environment (Bonn,
2005; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Mintzberg, 1994c; Scharmer, 2001).
4
Statement of the Problem
Universities that are dependent on state funding must change to reconcile the
perceived gap between funding and meeting the public’s needs. Even those who wish to
remain independent must change to garner more resources. Change is inevitable, but
success is not (Pisapia, 2009). The problem confronting universities is how to transition
from an organization of inward-looking silos to an organization of collaborative outward-
looking departments and colleges that shrink the gap. Clearly the challenge concerns
organizational change that alters the attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors of the
institution, its employees and the public. In response to these important issues, scholars
and institutional leaders are calling for new models and “new thinking” to expand
institutional boundaries and restore the social compact between higher education and
colleges and universities (Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Walsh, 1995).
Higher education institutions are not mechanistic organizations, but complex
adaptive systems that must define viability in an ill defined future. Today, higher
education institutions are challenged to meet the needs of communities and the people
who live in them and serve public purposes; as the gap between the interests of the
university and the interest of society widens, their legitimacy is questioned (Boyer, 1994;
Ghoshal, Bartlett, & Moran, 1999; Magrath,1996). As this gap has expanded, state
appropriations have declined and are projected to continue to decline in the long term. In
response, universities have tightened enrollments, raised tuition, and negotiated new
relationships with their states to become quasi-private institutions (Mortenson, 2004;
Selingo, 2003). The argument advanced for funding declines is that colleges and
universities are not meeting the public’s needs. Scholars suggest that serving society is a
5
compelling obligation, yet the gap is growing between what society needs and what
higher education currently provides (Cherwitz, 2005; Newman, Couturier, & Scurry,
2004).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this multi-case study was to identify the elements of strategic
planning processes that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of a
higher education institution. The primary questions guiding this investigation were: What
were the elements of the strategic planning process used? Did the strategic planning
process follow a strategic thinking or strategic planning model? Did the process used
create an effective model of change for the organization? Additional questions that will
be asked:
Did the way the plan was developed affect its implementation, as perceived by
the participants?
How effective were the strategic planning processes as judged by management
and the participants in the planning process?
Significance of the Study
The study is important for several reasons. The claim that strategic thinking
overcomes the limitations of formal strategic planning is widespread in the literature.
There have been several attempts to develop description and prescriptive models of
strategic thinking found in the literature (Bonn, 2001; Liedtka, 1998a; Pisapia &
Robinson, 2010). However, there are fewer empirical studies of the models, their
elements and their relationships with important outcomes of their use. But, the elements
and the link between strategic thinking and plan execution have not been studied before.
6
The findings of this study provide guidance in how to increase strategic thinking
elements in university planning processes and provide empirical support to the study
process, as a useful management tool that integrates the internal and external aspects as
organizations search for a strategy that impacts outcomes. Traditional planning looks
outside to the external environment and limits internal looks to capabilities of the current
organization processes, thus limiting the range of solutions to what they have
experienced.
Furthermore, any attempt to embed strategic thinking within an organization’s
processes is stymied by the lack of a working model of strategic thinking (Amitabh &
Sahay, 2008; Masifern & Vila, 2002). This study potentially provides a strong model that
addresses the unique organizational and participant features of higher education
institutions as opposed to downloading a model created to operate in a for profit
corporation and in more stable times. This study contributes to the literature of effective
change in higher education, by generating an understanding of the difference between
strategic planning and strategic thinking. This study also clarifies differences between
strategic planning and strategic thinking found in the literature among authors such as
Bonn, 2005; Liedtka, 1998b; Mintzberg, 1994b; Morrissey, 1996; O’Shannassy, 2003;
Thakur & Calingo, 1992.
7
Conceptual Framework
The two constructs which frame this study: strategic planning and strategic
thinking are discussed in the following paragraphs. From this discussion, a framework
that identifies the potential elements of strategic thinking and strategic planning, and the
organizational responses to the processes used was extracted to guide the development of
the study purpose, questions and methodology used to determine which elements were
employed and to what effect.
Strategic thinking and strategic planning.
Strategic thinking, often intertwined with strategic management and strategic
planning in the literature, has been offered as the new planning organizer for dynamic
organizations including universities. The literature comparing these two constructs falls
into three categories.
The first category of research deals with the thinking skills of leaders. This
research proposes strategic thinking as a way of thinking about the strategy school and
draws on a large body of research of strategic thinking as an important leader skill in the
management literature. This line of thought is seen in the work of Argyris and Schön
(1978); Baron (1994); Bolman and Deal (1994); Cohen et al., (2000); Daghir and Zaydi
(2005); Dewey (1933); Halpren (1996); Morgan (2006); Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra &
Coukos-Semmel (2005); Schön (1983) and Senge (1990). The focus of much of this work
is on the use of the thinking skills to make sense of their environment such as systems
thinking, systems perspective, focused intent, thinking in time, combination of creativity
and analysis, and hypothesis oriented approaches (Pang & Pisapia, in press).
8
The second category of research centers on strategic thinking as a particular way
of thinking about strategy. For instance, Porter (1980) says it means thinking about
strategic issues. Hansen (1991) suggests that strategic thinking is more a state of mind
than a planning process. Raimond (1996) compared Western and Japanese ways of
thinking about strategy. Bates and Dillard (1993) identified individuals who have that
capability or predisposition. Ginsberg (1994) says strategic thinking is the process to
resolve strategic issues. Mintzberg (1994b) suggests it is a particular way of thinking with
characteristics of its own. To follow this line of thought, strategic thinking is concerned
with synthesizing the forces affecting the organization and is used to overcome the
perceived deficiency of traditional planning models that impede creative thinking.
Strategy in traditional planning models identifies the specific decisions and
concrete actions taken to create a competitive advantage. Strategy in the strategic
thinking sense results in a framework that facilitates the organizations adaptation to a
changing environment and guides the choices leaders make to determine the direction of
the organization. This is an important outcome of strategic thinking (Hansen, 1991; Hax
& Majluf, 1991; Tregoe & Zimmerman, 1980), but strategy does not dictate how the
strategy is to be implemented but rather, is left to leaders to decide. As Tregoe and
Zimmerman (1980) suggest; “if key strategic choices are made in the absence of a
[shared] framework, top management abdicates control and runs the risk of having a
direction which is fragmented in the hands of whoever is making these choices” (as cited
Mintzberg, 1994b, p. 320). Strategy in the traditional model is also executed by front line
managers waiting for a decision from above. It hinders middle management autonomy.
Strategy in the strategic thinking model is executed by front line managers who are
9
aligned with the autonomy to run to daylight and who are accountable to find the best
solutions on the basis of agreed upon purposes and priorities (Pisapia, 2009).
The third category of research deals with the less understood concept of
strategic thinking as a way of doing strategic planning that overcomes the limitations of
traditional planning models and guides practice. The idea is to move away from the
mechanical approach to a more creative approach to strategic planning by incorporating
elements of strategic thinking into the process. There is clarity on the critical nature of
strategic thinking rather than strategic planning to an organization’s success (Bonn, 2001,
2005; Graetz, 2002; Heracleous, 1998).
Liedtka (1998a) and Mintzberg (1994b) are among those who draw a clear
distinction between the systematic nature of pre-identified strategies called strategic
planning and the more integrated perspective of strategic thinking. Mintzberg (1994b),
for example, noted that thinking strategically is distinct from conventional conceptions of
planning. Traditional planning models, he says uses an analytical process, logic, linear
thinking and a calculating style of management to develop the plan. It involves being able
to manipulate words and numbers. Strategic thinking, he suggests places a premium on
synthesis, intuition and integration, and a committing style of management to develop the
plan. In strategic thinking, not only are the data sources different but the analysis of the
data is different than strategic planning.
There is also growing agreement in the literature that strategic thinking and
strategic planning are interrelated and both are necessary for effective change to occur
(Heracleous, 1998; Hussey, 2001; Liedtka, 1998a). Liedtka (1998a) summarizes the basic
understandings:
10
Finally, the literature leaves one with a strong sense that strategic thinking is
clearly incompatible with strategic planning as we know it. Yet, we know that
putting processes in place to ensure that managers attend to strategic issues,
amidst the day-to-day crisis that so capture their focus, is essential. Thus, we
cannot merely abandon all attention to the process of strategy formulation – we
need to know how to transform today’s planning process in a way that
incorporates, rather than undermines, strategic thinking. (p. 121)
Yet, Heracleous (2003) also believes that strategic planning and strategic thinking is two
distinct processes and strategic thinking should precede strategic planning. Pisapia and
Robinson (2010) suggest:
That the fault line is drawn by seeing the purpose of strategic thinking as
envisioning potential futures, discovering innovative strategies to move to the
future state, and internally creating horizontal alignment. The purpose of strategic
planning in this union is to operationalize the strategies and initiatives developed
through strategic thinking. Thus, organizations must first engage strategic
thinking, which creates a common direction and a broad set of initiatives to move
to a future state, and then strategic planning is put into place to develop the
details. (p. 7)
As Laurence (1999) suggests, “thus what is being proposed in large measure . . . is a
dialectical framework within which strategic planning and strategic thinking work in
tandem, rather than one in which strategic planning impedes the flourishing of strategic
thinking” (p. 13). An adaptation of the traditional strategic planning process is to say that
strategic thinking precedes planning. In this vein, strategic thinking generates a picture of
11
what the organization would like to look like in the future and actions are prescribed to
move toward the vision (Roberts, 1987). The result of this adapted model is a clear
indication of what it takes to gain competitive advantage in a changing environment and
the actions needed to be taken to secure it.
In strategic thinking cognitive processes are used to understand both internal and
external environments and the strategies that are developed (Pisapia, 2009). The result of
a strategic thinking process is the creation of an integrated perspective of the
organization; its mission, its values; and the strategy it will use to move in this direction.
In this way, using a strategic thinking process enables organizational leaders to change
the mental models of leaders throughout the organization, to guide the plan’s execution,
and accelerating organizational and individual learning (De Gus, 1988; Johnson, 1992).
As Tregoe and Zimmerman (1980) suggest “individual managers who can carry their
organization’s strategy in their head are always ‘with it’. Every plan that must be
developed, every decision that must be made, can be tested against this mental picture.”
As Doz and Kososen (2009) suggest, what matters is that a collective commitment and
bonding to the outcome of the decision process emerges from the strategic thinking
process.
There is little clear agreement on the core elements related to strategic thinking.
Several proposals have been put forth, but all agree that the activity results in a plan
commonly referred to as a statement of intent. Liedtka’s (1998a) elements of strategic
thinking include a systems perspective, focused intent, thinking in time, hypothesis-
driven, and intelligent opportunism. She says, "A strategic thinker has a mental model of
the complete end-to-end system of value creation, his or her role within it, and an
12
understanding of the competencies it contains" (p. 1). C. Gary Hamel and K. Prahalad
(1994) define strategic intent as something that “conveys a sense of direction. A strategic
intent is differentiated; it implies a competitively unique point of view about the future”
(p. 142). Strategic intent is a management process that:
holds out to employees the promise of exploring new competitive territory.
Hence, it conveys a sense of discovery. Strategic intent has an emotional edge to
it; it is a goal that employees perceive as inherently worthwhile. Hence, it implies
a sense of destiny. Direction, discovery, and destiny. These are the attributes of
strategic intent. (p. 142)
O'Shannassy (2003) also proposed a model, 'Modern Strategic Management Process', in
which strategic thinking is the starting point; "...strategic thinking combines creativity and
analysis which facilitates a problem solving or hypothesis oriented approach” (p. 57).
Bonn (2005) suggests the key elements of strategic thinking are systems thinking,
creativity and vision. She concluded that the "research on strategic thinking should
address the following levels: (a) the characteristics of an individual strategic thinker; (b)
the dynamics that take place within a group of individuals; and (c) the organization
context." (p. 340). She outlines a theoretical framework for strategic thinking that
addresses the cognitive processes of strategic decision making and “argues that strategic
thinking is an integrative process that encompasses a variety of organizational
dimensions spanning multiple levels of analysis” (p. 337). Strategic thinking is a way of
solving strategic problems that combines a rational and convergent approach with
creative and divergent thought processes. It is action oriented and concerned with
identifying how to resolve ambiguity and make sense of a complex world.
13
These scholars would contend that strategic thinking has to be formally managed
through a deliberative process if it is to overcome mental models managers carry in their
heads and are found in the organization’s culture. Pisapia (2009) is one of few authors
who attempt to define the steps involved in a strategic thinking model of change. He
suggests that what works in dynamic times is the leader’s ability to accomplish four
tasks: (a) anticipating changes, challenges and opportunities in internal and external
environments; (b) creating and articulating common values and direction in a
generative/minimum specifications manner; (c) establishing the social capital necessary
to mobilize actions; and (d) building the capacity of their organizations by anchoring the
learning in engaged, self-managed followers/teams. He offers the Strategic Thinking
Protocol© (STP) (a full description can be viewed in Pisapia & Robinson, 2010) which is
grounded in a social cognition/political model of change that seeks to alter mental models
suggested by Eckel & Kezar, 2003 as the most appropriate for higher education. It
employs a generative strategy – multiple interpretations and persuasion, informal
negotiation, and coalition building to develop an actionable strategy that frames the
values and aspirations of the organization and identifies a road map to its future. Pisapia
uses two key tools to run his protocol: a) strategic listening to the external environment
through data, values, and narrative, and b) surfacing and sharing assumptions,
understandings and passions through strategic conversations which break the pattern of
debate, and the strength of a one input perspective. The protocol results in a blueprint for
organizational behavior and initiatives that will move the organization towards its
aspiration. As seen in Figure 1.1, Pisapia (2009) proposes that a successful strategy is the
result of a combination of effective intent with excellent execution. His premise is that
14
organizations that follow the strategic thinking and strategic execution protocols he
describes will be able to identify a shared direction, values and priorities for action and
develop social capital and organizational capacity to meet the unique organizational
features and complexities of loosely coupled organizations such as higher education
institutions. The STP has been used in a state education agency, two public schools and at
the department and college level of a university; but it has not been empirically tested.
Strategic Intent
Effective Ineffective
Excellent
Execution
Poor
Figure 1. Combining strategic intent with execution as adapted from Pisapia (2009).
The Study Framework
The study framework was drawn from the theoretical literature as presented in
Table 1.1 which displays the elements of a strategic thinking process drawn from the
literature review. It offers an overview of the differing dimensions of strategic thinking
versus strategic planning. These dimensions include: vision of the future, strategic
formulation and implementation, managerial role in strategy making, control managerial
role in implementation, strategy making and process and outcomes. Table 1.1 provides an
overview of these differentiations:
Long Term
Success
Maybe
Successful for a
while
Success Unlikely
Failure
15
Table 1.1
The Difference Between Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning
Strategic Thinking Strategic Planning
Change Model Social Cognitive; elements of
Political and Cultural.
Structural and hierarchical;
relegation of external
environment to minor role.
Vision of the
Future
Only the shape of the future can be
predicted.
A future that is predictable
and specifiable in detail.
Strategic
Thinking Skills
Synthesis, systems thinking,
reflection, reframing.
Linear, analytic, planning is
isolated process.
Strategic
Listening
Used through formal collection of
perspectives, data, analysis and
synthesis.
Used through formal
collection of data and
analysis.
Strategic
Conversations
Strongly evident – participants
understand the large system and
how they connect to it.
Not used – needed
information is obtained –
plan is crafted and
disseminated for
implementation.
Managerial Role
in Strategy
Making
Lower-level managers have a voice
in strategy-making, as well as
greater latitude to respond
opportunistically to developing
conditions.
Senior executives obtain the
needed information from
lower-level managers, and
then use it to create a plan
which is, in turn,
disseminated to managers for
implementation.
Managerial Role
in
Implementation
All managers understand the larger
system, the connection between
their roles and the functioning of
that system, as well as the
interdependence between the
various roles that comprise the
system.
Lower-level managers need
only know his or her own
role well and can be
expected to defend only his
or her own turf.
(continued on next page)
16
(Table 1.1 continued)
Strategic
Formulation and
Implementation
Formulation and implementation are
interactive rather than sequential and
discreet.
The roles of formulation
and implementation can be
neatly divided.
Control Relies on self-reference – a sense of
strategic intent and purpose
embedded in the minds of managers
throughout the organization that
guides their choices on a daily basis
in a process that is often difficult to
measure and monitor from above.
Asserts control through
measurement systems,
assuming that organizations
can measure and monitor
important variables both
accurately and quickly.
Alignment Horizontal – to gain synchronization
among team.
Vertical – to insure team
compliance.
Strategy Making Sees strategy and change as
inescapably linked and assumes that
finding new strategic options and
implementing them successfully is
harder and more important than
evaluating them.
The challenge of setting
strategic direction is
primarily analytic.
Process and
Outcome
Sees the planning process itself as a
critical value-adding element.
Focus is on the creation of
the plan as the ultimate
objective.
Value
Specification
Strong component – creates self-
reference point in minds of
participants. Uses values to control
and coordinate activity.
Not strong component –
uses measurement to
control and coordinate
activity.
(continued on next page)
17
(Table 1.1 continued)
Minimum
Specification
Minimum specifications. Maximum specifications.
Strategic Fitness Fit to external and internal
environment - process adds value to
plan.
Fit to external environment –
plan is ultimate objective.
Chunking
Change
Small incentives building on each
other.
Large stand-alone initiatives.
Source: Adapted from Liedtka, 1998a and Pisapia, 2009.
Method
This study explores three recent planning efforts at a university in the
southeastern part of the United States (hereafter: Southeastern University). Two of the
efforts utilized the strategic thinking process (department and college), and the other
(university) followed a traditional strategic planning process.
The university case which utilized the traditional strategic planning method was
completed in 2006. The strategic planning process resulted in a plan that was detailed,
with goals, objectives and sub-objectives. Measures for each were established and the
expectation was that each college, department and unit would use the plan to create unit
plans. The process was led by internal administrators and an external consultant that
followed the traditional, political and cultural models of change. Little attempt was made
to change mental models or utilize multiple perspectives of those affected by the plan.
Value specification was not a core activity. The resulting plan relied on maximum
specification with large initiatives. A total of 12 goal areas and 35 objectives were
created. Transparency was afforded through sharing final drafts and requesting comment.
A dashboard of indicators was established to measure the implementation of the plan.
18
The administrative staff and Board of Trustees were satisfied with the outcome of
planning.
The department case which utilized the STP was completed in December 2009
and is in its second year of implementation. The protocol process resulted in a set of 7
flexible priorities for targeted areas that the department will address to accomplish the
identified aspirations and mission over the next 3 to 5 years. The process was led by an
internal consultant and followed the strategic thinking, social cognitive and political and
cultural change models. Value specification was a central activity and the formulation
and implementation were interactive, rather than sequential or discrete, with minimum
specifications resulting. The college case which also utilized the STP was begun in
January 2010 and will be completed in September 2011.
This study presents findings from two case studies of the application of the
protocol at a public 4-year, comprehensive research university in the southern United
States. The results of the case studies were then compared to the results of a case study of
a traditional strategic planning process utilized at the university level based on the
conceptual framework of the study.
The utilization of strategic management and strategic leadership to effectively
execute meaningful change and goal accomplishment, calls for an understanding of the
purpose of each model, the differences between them, empirical knowledge about the
models and the current research that supports the implementation of strategic
management and strategic leadership in effectively implementing change in colleges and
universities.
19
Definition of Terms
Alignment: is when a group of individuals function as a whole…a commonality of
direction emerges, and individual’s energies harmonize. There is less waste energy. In
fact, a resonance or synergy develops and there is commonality of purpose, a shared
vision, and understanding how to complement one another’s efforts (Senge, 1990).
Analysis: is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to
gain a better understanding of it. Approach problems holistically, make intuitive
assumptions, seek patterns and draw conclusions (Pisapia, 2009).
Complex Adaptive System (cas): describes a loosely organized academic field.
Complexity science is not a single theory – it encompasses more than one theoretical
framework and is highly interdisciplinary, seeking the answers to some fundamental
questions about living, adaptable, changeable systems. A complex adaptive system is a
dynamic network of many entities acting in parallel, while constantly acting and reacting
to what other entities are doing (Holland, 1995).
Complexity Theory: is a cluster of ways of thinking that have developed from branches
of ‘new science’ concerned with the behavior of natural systems such as: chaos theory,
dissipative structure theory, quantum physics and complex adaptive systems theory
(Tosey, 2002).
Coupling: subsystems in the university that are related to each other through shared
organizational elements. If these subsystems are tightly connected to each other, a change
in one would directly affect them all (Birnbaum, 1988).
Creativity: is defined as the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain
(Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996).
20
Effective Strategy Formulation: is a strategic planning process that incorporates the
elements of strategic thinking and is an interactive process rather than sequential and
discreet. Lower level managers have a voice in strategy making and greater latitude to
respond opportunistically to emerging conditions, both internally and externally (Liedtka,
1998a; Bonn, 2005).
Excellent Strategy Execution: is defined in this study as the successful implementation of
the guiding principles and organizational outcomes defined in strategic planning that
utilizes the elements of strategic thinking. Control of the process relies on self-reference –
a sense of strategic intent and purpose throughout the organization, alignment of
objectives is horizontal, all managers understand the larger system and the connection
between their role and functioning of the system, and sees strategy and change as
inescapably linked, and assumes that finding new strategic options and implementing
them successfully is harder and more important than evaluating them (Morrill, 2007;
Pisapia, 2009).
Innovation: is defined as the successful implementation of creative ideas within the
organization (Amabile et al., 1996).
Open Systems Approach: a systems approach to organizational management that builds
on the principle that organizations, like organisms, are “open” to their environment and
must achieve an appropriate relation with that environment if they are to survive
(Morgan, 2006).
Organizational Outcomes: are defined in this study as the goals and objectives that are
resultant from the strategic thinking and/or strategic planning process.
21
Presencing: to sense, to tune in, and act from one’s highest future potential – the future
that depends on us to bring it into being. Presencing blends the words “presence” and
“sensing” and works through “seeing from our deepest source” (Scharmer, 2009).
Reflection: the ability to use perceptions, experience and information to make judgments
as to what has happened in the past and is happening in the present to help guide future
actions (Pisapia, 2009).
Reframing: is the examining of the same situation from multiple vantage points using
different frames to gain insight and new options for action, Also, it is the ability to switch
attention across multiple perspectives, frames, mental models and paradigms in order to
generate new insights and options for actions (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Pisapia, et al.,
2005).
Strategic Execution: utilizes transforming actions, coalition building, negotiation,
building networks and promoting consensus (Pisapia, 2009).
Strategic Formulation: includes decision making and strategic intent, but couples it with
the capabilities necessary for motivating organizational members to join in the pursuit of
the organization’s intent (Pisapia, 2009).
Strategic Intent: envisions a desired leadership position and establishes the criterion the
organization will use to chart its progress. It is also an active management process that
includes: focusing the organization’s attention on the essence of winning; motivating
people by communicating the value of the target; leaving room for individual and team
contributions; sustaining enthusiasm by providing new operational definitions as
circumstances change; and using intent consistently to guide resource allocation
(Prahalad & Hamel, 1989).
22
Strategic Leadership: is the ability (as well as the wisdom) to make consequential
decisions about ends, actions and tactics in ambiguous environments. Strategic leadership
marries management with leadership, politics with ethics, and strategic intent with tactics
and actions (Pisapia, 2009).
Strategic Management: focuses on strategy formulation through planning and decision
making based on creating a mission statement, goals, sub-goals, and action plans
(Pisapia, 2009).
Strategic Planning: is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and
making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy, including its capital
and people. It is a rational, linear, top-down structured process; whereby organizations
develop mission and goals (Ansoff, 1980; Porter, 1980).
Strategic Planning Elements: includes four basic elements: scanning the external
environment, assessing internal strengths and weaknesses, analyzing data drawn from
both the institution and its environment, and identifying major directions that promote
institutional vitality (Birnbaum, 2000).
Strategic Thinking: is defined as a “way of solving strategic problems that combines a
rational and convergent approach with creative and divergent thought processes” (Bonn,
2005, p. 337).
Strategic Thinking Elements: includes a focus on intent, links past, present and future, is
hypothesis driven, and whose outcome is an integrated perspective on the enterprise
(Liedtka, 1998a, 1998b).
Strategy: comes from the Greek strategos “office or command of a general”. A
definition related to current theory and practice is that strategy is a plan, or the equivalent
23
– a direction, a guide, a course of action into the future, a path to get from here to there
(Mintzberg, 1994b).
Synthesis: is the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole;
the combining of often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole; deductive reasoning.
Systems Thinking: is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has
been developed to make patterns clearer and to support effective change. The tools
include personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and building a learning
organization through adaptive and generative learning (Senge, 1990).
University: an institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities
constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award masters degrees and
doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor’s degrees.
Vision: a sense of direction that provides the focus for all activities within the
organization (Bonn, 2005; Prahalad & Hamel, 1994; Liedtka, 1998a).
Role of the Researcher
The researcher is a Caucasian, 50 year old, female doctoral candidate at Florida
Atlantic University. The researcher was employed at the Southeastern University from
2004-2007, and was employed there at the time the strategic planning process took place
at the university. She was not a member of the committee, nor did she participate in the
planning process. During her tenure, she attended several Board of Trustee Strategic
Planning Committee meetings, where she observed or co-presented information on
departmental activities. The meetings were open to the public. The researcher has over
seventeen years of senior university advancement experience at both public and private
colleges and universities, and has led and participated in strategic planning efforts at the
24
departmental, college and university levels at all of these institutions. Through this
personal experience the researcher has observed and formed opinions on the overall
effectiveness of strategic planning in higher education and believes that incorporating
elements of strategic thinking into the traditional planning model will increase the
effectiveness of strategic planning efforts in higher education.
Limitations
The study was limited to 1 institution of higher education in the southeastern
United States. The focus of the research was to compare the application of Strategic
Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009), as used in two planning processes, to a planning
process that did not use the protocol and to identify elements of strategic thinking utilized
in the planning processes. The themes, findings and conclusions are not generalizable to
any other institution of higher education.
Survey results and interviews with participants were limited to those members
that were identified as official members of the strategic planning and navigating
committees. Additional participants that have either retired, not served in a role for the
entire process, left the institution, are unavailable or unwilling to be interviewed were not
included in the sample. It was assumed that all participants sampled in the study were
candid in their answers and accurate in their recall of their perceptions. However, due to
the length of time elapsed between the university process and this study some participants
noted that they did not accurately recall their perceptions and some portions of the
process, and those comments have not been included in the study. Although a significant
amount of data was collected which was triangulated through the use of documents,
observations and interviews, not everyone that participated in the process or who
25
experienced the results of the process was interviewed. The additional data may have
altered, or added to the findings, particularly in the area of implementation of the plan in
two cases.
Delimitations
There were several factors that bounded the research for this study. This study
does not attempt to define the degree of relevance or importance of the strategic plans
developed at the department, college or university levels. The focus of the study is on the
planning process itself and how that process meets or does not meet the criteria of the
strategic thinking model, not on the outcomes of that process. Although the inclusion of
an outcomes line of questioning and research identified other factors that contributed to
the understanding of strategic thinking versus strategic planning, it was beyond the scope
of this study.
Chapter Summary
At a time of great change, increased accountability and continued calls for
incremental change in higher education, the need for an effective model to expand
institutional boundaries and restore constituent’s confidence in the values, mission and
roles of colleges and universities is needed. The use of a traditional strategic planning
model of change is ineffective in higher education. Therefore, it is important to assess the
Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP) to determine if the application of the STP is more
effective in meeting the unique organizational needs and complexities of higher
education.
This chapter introduced the study of the STP in the strategic planning process in
a department and college setting, in comparison to a traditional business strategic
26
planning process at a public university. Also in this chapter is the purpose, significance,
definitions, role of the researcher, delimitations and limitations, theoretical framework of
the study, and description of Pisapia’s (2009) STP. Chapter 2 discusses the historical and
current literature in the field of strategy, strategic planning, strategic thinking, strategic
management and strategic leadership which builds the context of the field and the study.
Chapter 3 presents the methodical approach used in the study. Chapter 4 presents
individual case findings and Chapter 5 outlines conclusions and recommendations, based
on the findings of the study.
27
Chapter 2
Literature Review
This study is marked by an analysis of two models of strategic planning; a
strategic thinking planning process and a traditional business model of strategic planning.
The processes are based on two very different philosophies and their application to higher
education. Therefore, it is important to examine the history of strategy; the differences
between strategic planning and strategic thinking; the differences between strategic
management and strategic leadership; a description of the use of strategy in higher
education, and analysis of the use of strategic planning/thinking in higher education. This
chapter looks to answer from the literature the following questions:
1. What are the differences between strategic management and strategic
leadership?
2. What are the differences between strategic planning and strategic thinking?
What empirical evidence supports each model?
3. How does higher education develop its plans for the future?
4. What implications does the research present for higher education leaders?
History of Strategy and Strategic Planning
The term strategy comes from the Greek word strategos “office or command of a
general” and has been widely credited to the writing and teachings of Sun Tzu and related
to the successful waging of war over 2500 years ago. Sun Tzu’s strategies were heavily
28
influenced by Taoist thought, which emphasizes the interrelatedness and relativity of
everything in the world (Chen, 1994). Taoist thought encompasses the five qualities:
wisdom (zhi), sincerity (cheng), benevolence (ren), courage (yong) and strictness (yan).
“Of the five elements, none is ever predominant; of the four seasons, none lasts forever;
or the days, some are long and others short; and of the moon, it sometimes waxes and
wanes. Hence, there are neither fixed postures nor constant tactics in warfare. He who
can modify his tactics in accordance with the enemy situation and thus succeed in
winning, may be said to be divine” (Chen, 1994, p. 46).
In more recent history, strategy has evolved from use in the planning and
execution of warfare, to the realm of business and is now utilized extensively in higher
education institutions. Kiechel (2010) describes the definition of strategy as a “struggle
between two definitions, strategy as positioning and strategy as organizational learning”
(p. 7). In the 1960s Igor Ansoff founded the design school of strategic management. His
premise was that the “purpose of strategy was to match a company’s capabilities to the
opportunities in the environment” (Ansoff, 1980, p. 26). In Strategic Success Hypothesis
he proposed that an organization will optimize its success when the aggressiveness of its
behavior and its openness to the external environment are both aligned with the
turbulence level of the organization’s external environment (Ansoff, 1991, p. 459).
Ansoff and the corporate strategy consultants and scholars; Bruce Henderson, founder of
the Boston Consulting Group (BCG); Bill Bain from Bain & Company; and McKinsey &
Co.; all embraced and utilized strategy as “position” process. Position is all about where
the business is in relation to competition by looking at your costs versus theirs, and who
has the lead in experience.
29
This “planning view” of strategy, which was developed in the 1960s at Harvard
purported that strategy was a rational, linear, top-down, structured process; whereby
organizations developed missions and goals. The process involved extensive analysis of
both the internal operations and external environment, from which identified changes
were implemented through formal control structure (Ansoff, 1980; Porter, 1980).
In the mid-1980s Harvard’s Michael Porter defined strategy as “positioning” or
the choice that the organization makes “of where you want to complete, in what industry
and from what spot within that industry, and how-on price, with distinctive price, or by
finding a niche” (Kiechel, 2010, p. 7). Porter (1980) developed his five forces framework
based on the industrial organization (IO) model of management. Industrial organization
was developed from the work of two other Harvard economists, Edward Mason in the
1930s and Joe Bain in the 1950s. The IO model is a group of models that illustrates the
effects that forces have on different industries. The models explain why in some
industries there is a lack of competitors versus others, hence why they are more
profitable. Porter based this new perspective on competition and strategy, utilizing the IO
model because it was “detailed and nuanced enough to explain the situation of particular
companies” and from this “… the first set of ideas that became the five forces framework
for looking at an industry” (Kiechel, 2010, p. 125). Porter (2008) stresses that
“understanding the competitive forces, and their underlying causes, reveals the roots of
an industry’s current profitability while providing a framework for anticipating and
influencing competition (and profitability) over time” (p. 80). The five forces framework
(Figure 2) was adopted and was widely spread throughout the business community by
consultants, businesses and business schools to develop strategies for their organizations.
30
While Porter had his critics, he remained steadfast to the idea that strategy was about
choosing one option and sticking with it and hence ensconced himself as the head of the
“strategy as positioning” school (Kiechel, 2010).
Figure 2. Diagram of five forces that shape industry competition as cited in (Heracleous,
2003).
By the early 1980s McKinsey & Co. expanded on the importance of strategy to
business. Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman (1982) two of their consultants,
published In Search of Excellence. Their study identified seven factors that made the
companies in the study highly successful. Their theory became known as the “7S Model”
of strategy development. Each factor begins with the letter “s”; skills, staff, style,
systems, structure, strategy, and shared values (Figure 3). The book immediately became
a New York Times best-seller and was broadly incorporated into business planning at the
Threat of new entrants
Power of buyers
Threat of substitutes
Power of Suppliers
Rivalry among industry
competitors
31
time. As widely accepted and promoted as these early practitioners and their models
were,
academics and consultants have preached the revered McKinsey “7S Model” that
aligns strategy, structure, systems, superordinate goals, staff, skills, and shared
values, because we know that purposeful, efficient, organizational action cannot
be achieved if these factors work at cross-purposes with each other. Yet, once
aligned, the factors become powerful impediments to change. As we come to
accept oft-repeated admonition that the only sustainable source of advantage is
the ability to learn faster than your competition, the desire to develop a capacity
for learning, for continuous change, for flexibility and opportunism, begins to
collide head-on with our desire to align the 7S’s. Unaligned, these factors work at
cross-purposes; aligned, they drive out potentially needed change. (Liedtka,
1998b, p. 2)
32
Figure 3. McKinsey’s “7S Model” as described in (Peters & Waterman, 1982).
There is agreement among researchers including Ansoff (1980), Porter (1980),
and Peters and Waterman (1982), who promoted and defined strategic planning processes
that functioned as “exclusively top-down, and ignore[d] the role of emergent strategy”
(Heracleous, 2003, p. 17). In the early 1990s McGill’s Henry Mintzberg published The
Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (1994b) opening an entirely new dialogue on strategy
formation, strategic management, organizational success and leadership. The importance
of Mintzberg‘s (1994b) research was the finding that “strategy making to be a complex,
interactive, and evolutionary process, best described as one of adaptive learning…the
process was often significantly emergent, especially when the organization faced
unpredicted shifts in the environment, and all kinds of people could be significantly
involved in the creation of new strategies” (p. 110). Mintzberg’s five dimensions of
strategy include: intended strategy that may remain unrealized; deliberate strategy where
Strategy
Skills
Staff
Style
Systems
Structure
Shared
Values
33
resources are invested in the intended strategy; realized strategy whether intended or not;
unrealized strategy that is intended but remains unrealized and emergent strategy that
rises out of the grassroots of the organization (Heracleous, 2003). Mintzberg (1994b)
believed that no organization that is already in existence can base its strategy as if it were
not operating. He argued that no strategy ever works as planned. Therefore, learning
from past mistakes and responses requires the organization to adjust its strategy. He
further defined strategic planning as: a) future thinking; b) controlling the future; c)
decision making; d) integrated decision making; and e) a formalized procedure to
produce an articulated result, in the form of an integrated system of decisions. Mintzberg
(1994b) surmised that “strategic planning” cannot be synonymous with strategy
formulation but is much broader and emergent in nature.
Also critical of the planning school of strategic planning were researchers Hamel
and Prahalad (1994), who argued that an organization cannot know exactly what the
future will hold, so planning for the long-term, to begin at one specific point in the future,
is unrealistic. The short and long term occur at the same time and organizations must be
aware of what is happening in the “now” and understand what strategies are acting on the
short and the long term. ‘Whereas the broad direction of an industry’s future evolution
may be predictable, the precise routes along which it will evolve in terms of technology,
standards, specific products, and services cannot be fully anticipated” (p. 134). The
planning school of strategy formation and strategic planning has been widely
incorporated into business and higher education organizations. But, the current social and
economic climates point towards a different approach to strategy formation and execution
in higher education today.
34
The importance of the history of the development of strategy and strategic
planning in higher education is evidenced in the unsuccessful application of the business
model to the university setting. Just as businesses were incorporating strategic planning
into their business planning efforts, so too was higher education, but with lackluster
results. “We…believe that the conventional view of strategy - as a plan, or a set of
explicit intentions preceding and controlling actions - is too narrow to permit satisfactory
understanding of strategy formation in the university setting” (Hardy, Langley, Mintzberg
& Rose, 1983, p. 407). This linear approach to strategic planning “stands almost totally at
odds with what really happens” (p. 407) in universities, and has created an entire research
agenda to better understand and attempt to predict how higher education might
effectively implement the formation and implementation of strategies, to meet the ever
changing demands and expectations of both internal and external constituencies today.
Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning
Strategic thinking can be described as double-loop learning and strategic planning
as a form of single-loop learning. Argyris (1977) suggests that single-loop learning
occurs when the problem is identified and then corrected, but without any critical review
of the underlying variables that may have caused the error to occur. Double-loop
learning, he suggests, occurs with the correction of problems by examining and altering
the governing variables, as well as, the actual actions themselves. Peter Senge’s (1990)
levels of learning are defined as “adaptive” and “generative” learning. Adaptive learning
is about using existing frames of reference to solve problems and closely aligns with the
concept of single-loop learning. Generative learning is about being creative and finding
new ways to view the world: double-loop learning. Although there are differences in
35
terminology, both Senge (1990) and Argyris (1977) agree that double-loop and
generative learning as a “central concept common to them all involves on the one hand
thinking and acting within a certain set of assumptions and potential action alternatives or
on the other hand challenging existing assumptions and action alternatives, potentially
leading to new and appropriate ones” (Heracleous, 2003, p. 44).
There is agreement among researchers including Bonn (2005), Heracleous (2003),
Liedtka (1998a), Pisapia (2009), Senge (1990), and Scharmer, (2009) that systems
thinking, creativity and vision are key elements of strategic thinking. Systems’ thinking
provides clarity of patterns and supports effective change, thereby increasing creativity.
Vision helps provide meaning and gives a sense of direction in the decision making
process. Strategic thinking is at the intersection of these three elements (Bonn, 2005).
Strategic thinking is not just an individual activity, but is influenced by the individual’s
environment and social interactions. “
Hence, an understanding of strategic thinking in a complex organizational setting
requires that we go beyond a focus on individuals and carefully examine the
group context and its influence on an individual’s strategic thinking
ability…strategic thinking within a group is not the simple aggregate of all group
members’ strategic thinking ability, but a function of the interplay between
strategic thinking abilities of individual group members, the perceived diversity
between the negotiated belief structures of senior manager groups, and
organizational influences. (p. 342)
36
Bonn’s theoretical framework of strategic thinking incorporates a multi-level approach
to strategic thinking that defines strategic thinking as an integrative process that crosses
inter-organizational boundaries and spans multiple levels of analysis (Figure 4 and Table
2.1).
Figure 4. Strategic Thinking adapted from Bonn (2005) that reflects the intersection of
the three elements of strategic thinking.
Table 2.1
Strategic Thinking Adapted From Bonn (2005)
Decision makers with high strategic thinking abilities will show a greater diversity in
representational systems than decision makers with low strategic thinking abilities.
Senior manager groups that are heterogeneous in terms of job related forms of diversity
have higher strategic thinking abilities than senior manager groups that are heterogeneous
in terms of non-job related forms of diversity.
Task related conflict increases the diversity in representational systems of individual
senior leaders.
Task related conflict increases the strategic thinking capabilities of senior manager
groups.
Relationship related conflict decreases the strategic thinking capabilities of senior
managers groups.
The involvement of middle managers in strategic decision-making process fosters
strategic thinking within the organization.
37
The involvement of middle managers in the strategic decision-making process increases
an individual’s diversity in representational systems.
Organic organization structures foster strategic thinking within an organization.
Reward systems that include a high proportion of long term qualitative performance
measures in the pay matrix of total compensation foster strategic thinking within an
organization.
The need to make complex judgments and multiple assessments is the hallmark of
strategic thinking (Kutschera & Ryan, 2009). Strategic thinking is built on the premise
that the strategic thinker has knowledge of the entire system of the organization,
understands the connection within the organization and knows the value of these
linkages. A systems perspective also demands that the strategic thinker has knowledge of
the external environment as well as the internal environment of the organization. “The
strategic thinker sees vertical linkages within the system from multiple perspectives”
(Liedtka, 1998a, p. 122), and see Figure 5.
Figure 5. Strategic Thinking (Liedtka, 1998b).
More recently, Fairholm and Card (2009) define the five foundational concepts of
38
strategic thinking as holistically-focused, looking to ensure that meaning and purpose are
diffused throughout the organization so that appropriate goals and tactics can be
developed to meet the real needs of the organization. Their research found the critical
importance that purpose, meaning and values as foundational elements of strategic
thinking are to managing organizational change. They suggest five unique statements
about strategic thinking that helps to focus the planning process on the purpose, meaning
and values of the organization. “View oneself as an organizational philosopher more than
a technical expert” (p. 24) allows one to ask important questions about why the
organization exists and where does the organization fit on a grander scale. “Distinguish
strategic planning from strategic thinking,” (p. 25) demands synthesis of information and
ideas, rather than analysis to allow for flexibility, innovation and creativity to be
incorporated in the planning process. “Adopt a values, vision, and vector orientation
rather than goals, objectives, metrics mentality,” (p. 25) which is linked to leadership and
good management and will eventually lead to goals and accountability measures.
Visions operationalize the values set; making sense for others what the value
really mean or what they can do for us now and in the future. Vectors
operationalize the magnitude and direction of vision-driven action and are akin to
the idea of group missions. Voice is shorthand for that which makes leadership
relationship work – the nature of the interaction (or lack thereof) between leader
and led – and emphasizes a voluntary one based on the level of alignment with the
values, vision, and vector at play. (p. 26)
The fourth foundational statement “concentrate on the flow of information and the quality
39
of relationships that emerge rather than the control of information,” (p. 26) expresses the
strategic thinking element of free flowing information that allows for honest assessment.
When information is controlled and restricted, trust between individuals is restricted.
Strategic thinking needs an environment that is characterized by mutual trust,
interpersonal interactions and is harmonious and united (Fairholm & Fairholm, 2000;
Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Lastly, “learn[ing] to accept and work with ambiguity and the
qualitative nature of organizations, rather than try[ing] to control and quantify all
organizational endeavors,” (p. 27) recognizes the concept that all change is related to
people. Strategic thinkers are adept at understanding how change affects people in the
organization and in managing those reactions to keep the organization on track to meet its
goals and objectives.
The point here is to understand that strategic thinking and strategic planning are
distinct processes in conception and execution. Although there has been extensive
research conducted on strategic planning (Ansoff, 1980; Birnbaum, 2000; Dooris, 2003;
Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Hardy, et al., 1983; Kotler & Murphy, 1981; Mintzberg, 1994b;
Mintzberg & Rose, 2003; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Porter, 1980; Stacey, 2007), there
has been no research in the application of a strategic thinking protocol to the process of
strategic planning. Therefore, the need to assess the effectiveness of such an application
is the central purpose of this study. Identifying the processes, comparing and contrasting
the perceptions of the participants, and assessing implementation of the Strategic
Thinking Protocol© may build upon the strategic thinking frameworks already presented.
40
Strategic Management and Strategic Leadership
Having defined strategy, strategic planning and strategic thinking, it is equally, if
not more important, to understand the elements of successful execution of strategy in
organizations and in particular, in higher education. The costs of failed implementation
efforts are enormous to an organization and include wasted resources of time and money,
low faculty and staff moral, a diminished trust and faith in senior administrators, and ends
up creating an even more change resistant organization (Heracleous, 2003). The
utilization of strategic management and strategic leadership to effectively execute
meaningful change and goal accomplishment, calls for an understanding of the purpose
of each model, the differences between them, empirical knowledge about the models and
the current research that supports the implementation of strategic management and
strategic leadership in effectively implementing change in colleges and universities.
There is agreement in the literature that strategic management incorporates the
historical practices of business planning and strategy (Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998;
Heracleous, 2003; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998; Mintzberg & Rose, 2003), yet
the elements of strategic management differ from the traditional, linear approach in the
execution of strategy. Strategic management is described as revolving around the discrete
phases of formulation, implementation and control, carried out in cascading steps
(Mintzberg, et al., 1998). In Mintzberg’s Strategy Safari (1998), strategic management is
further broken down into ten schools of strategic management (Table 2.2), the perceived
benefits and drawbacks to each school, the authors’ look at the broader connection to
strategic leadership, and the difference between strategic management and strategic
leadership.
41
Table 2.2
Overview of the Ten Schools of Strategic Management, (Mintzberg, et al., 1998)
Design School Developed at Harvard
External and internal appraisal and analysis SWOT
Model
Does not allow for emergent strategies
Looks for a grand overall strategy to “appear”
Planning School Elaboration of the design school through the process of
highly programmed execution. Responsibility for the
execution of the plan stays with the CEO.
“Plans by their very nature are designed to promote
inflexibility – they are meant to establish clear
direction, to impose stability on an organization” (p.
64).
Positioning School Michael Porter (1980) and Sun Tzu examples. Perfect
for consultants use.
Critique of the school is that it is based on focus,
context, process and the strategies. Process is about
staying in your company and analyzing, instead of
getting out and learning about what others are doing.
Entrepreneurial School Views strategy formation as a visionary process.
(Prahalad & Hamel, 1994).
Recognizes the role of strategic thinking in strategy
formation.
Strategy exists as a leader’s vision.
Cognitive School Sees strategy formation as a cognitive process that takes
place in the mind of the leader.
Learning School Defines strategy formation as an emergent process.
Emergent strategy opens the door to strategic learning
because it acknowledges the organization’s capacity to
experiment (Mintzberg, et al. 1998).
Power School Strategy formation is a process of negotiation. Due to
the ever present politics in the organization.
Cultural School Strategy formation is a collective process. Strategy is a
process of social interaction, based on the beliefs and
understandings shared by members of the organization.
It is all about culture.
Environmental School Strategy formation as a reactive process.
The organization must react to the environment,
leadership then becomes a passive element and
organizations end up clustering together in distinct
ecological-type niches.
Configuration School Strategy formation as a process of transformation.
Encompasses the work of the other schools.
42
“The key to strategic management, therefore, is to sustain stability or at least adaptable
strategic change most of the time, but periodically to recognize the need for
transformation and be able to manage that disruptive process without destroying the
organization” (p. 305). Although Mintzberg and his colleagues concluded that the
formation of strategy is a process of transformation as outlines in the configuration
school of strategic management, they understood the relationships and building blocks
presented by the earlier schools of strategic management. Having a solid understanding
of the growth and evolution of strategic management is critical to understanding the more
recent research and application of strategic leadership implementing effective strategic
organizational change.
Vision and Vision Integration
Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) define strategic change as an attempt to change
current modes of cognition and enable the organization to take advantage of important
opportunities or cope with consequential environmental threats. They developed a
conceptual overview of sensemaking and sensegiving from an ethnographic study in a
large, public, multi-campus university. The researchers found that a “captivating vision”
is a key feature in the “initiation of a strategic change because it provides a symbolic
foundation for stakeholders to develop an alternative interpretive scheme” (p. 446). In the
most recent study, Gioia and Thomas (1996) found a relationship between image and
vision. Whereas “the top management team believed that altering image was the path to
altering identity, the projection of a compelling future image would destabilize identity
and ‘pull’ it into alignment with the desired future image (p. 24).
43
The critical role that vision plays in effective strategic management and strategic
leadership occupies a substantial portion of study of successful implementation of
strategic change. Kotter (1996) found that without the development of and
communication of a strategic vision, organizations cannot implement strategic change.
Bolman and Deal (2008) compared Kotter’s vision creation to the step in the symbolic
frame that creates a “hopeful vision of the future that is rooted in the organization’s
history” (p. 395). Dooley (1997) theorized that the first step in change strategy in a
complex adaptive system “must focus on developing a shared vision” (p. 91). Hamel and
Prahalad, (1994) and Pisapia’s (2009) statement of strategic intent; creates the vision and
incorporates a shared understanding of where the organization wishes to go. The
statement of strategic intent serves as the guiding plan for the future and how to get there.
Values and vision are closely connected concepts in strategic leadership. “To focus
strategy in a vision is to learn again in a compelling way that leadership is about the
human condition” (Morrill, 2007, p. 142).
The development of a shared vision for the organization is vital in a learning
organization that strives for a generative learning environment. As mentioned earlier in
this chapter, generative learning is about finding new and creative ways to view the
world, or in this case the organization. “Generative learning occurs only when people are
striving to accomplish something that matters deeply to them. In fact, the whole idea of
generative learning – ‘expanding your ability to create’ – will seem abstract and
meaningless until people become excited about some vision they truly want to
accomplish” (Senge, 1990, p. 206). But for all of the research that has found a critical
link between vision and successful management of change, it is also essential for the
44
strategic leader to understand what is of value to others in the organization. Vision cannot
be pushed down from “on high” but rather must be built from within the organization and
communicated by the leadership. This is where the literature on strategic management
and strategic leadership begin to diverge in their definitions. A large portion of the
literature on strategic management defines who is responsible for strategy as the chief or
leader (Mintzberg & Rose, 2003), whereas strategic leadership requires integrative and
systems thinking, quantitative reasoning, collaborative decision making, effective
community sensitivity to narratives and values, and a capacity to work in structured
group processes (Morrill, 2007, Pisapia, 2009).
The integration of vision deep into the organization aligns organizational behavior
toward the accomplishment of the vision. Ocascio and oseph (2008) and Vil and
Canales (2008) propose that integration requires a rationalized process of executive
decision making; coupled with decision making channels from different organizational
levels are important to achieving collective engagement in strategic planning. “Successful
business strategies result, not from rigorous analysis, but from a shared understanding
and a particular state of mind…what is internalized in the heads of people is more
important than what ends up on paper” (Vil & Canales, 2008, p. 276). Where the goals
of the organization are to accomplish the future vision, integration activities need to vary
in order to have integrative effects on the organization as a whole (Jarzabkowski &
Balogun, 2009).
Open Systems Theory
Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s (1972) general systems theory described the
organization as a system where automated control systems can maintain the systems
45
behavior at a desired level or to reach a desired goal. Systems are affected by external
forces that force the system to adjust in order to maintain equilibrium. Morgan (2006)
further explored the “open systems approach” in organizations, using the metaphor of an
“organism” to describe organizations as open systems. The theory “builds on the
principal that organisms are ‘open’ to their environment and must achieve an appropriate
relationship with that environment in order to survive” (p. 38), yet are also interrelated
sub-systems and alignment that must occur between those subsystems of the
organization.
The concept of loose coupling in educational organizations was defined by Karl
Weick (1976) as a situation in which elements are responsive, but retain evidence of
separateness and identity (p. 3). Later research by Birnbaum (1986), on loose coupling, is
also critical to understanding the effectiveness of strategic planning in higher education.
Coupling allows for changes and adaptations in units of the university, not just the entire
university. All departments do not need to focus on the same elements in the external
environment. In other words, when the national standards for accounting certification are
changed, the College of Business’ department of accounting can make changes that in
turn do not cause disruption to other departments in the college, even in the case of major
restructuring. Birnbaum (1999) also espoused that leaders are important as a class. As
individuals, most university leaders have less influence the majority of the time than they
are willing to believe. Loose coupling allows for greater organizational learning,
flexibility, and ability to respond to external conditions, leading to improved decision
making (Senge, 1990). Higher education is part of an open system and “higher education
clearly must be responsive to changes in the environment. At the same time, we should
46
not lose sight of the fact that intersections in an open system are a two-way street, and
that, within limits, we can also influence the environment that then influences us (p. 19).
Other researchers have defined the university as a “professional bureaucracy”
(Birnbaum, 1988; Mintzberg & Rose, 2003) where highly trained experts carry out the
work that is complex, but rather stable and established through professional training.
“This enables the operating work to be “pigeonholed”, that is, divided up, with each
portion attributed to individual professionals who can work free of the need for much
adaptive mutual adjustment with their colleagues. This is loose coupling with a
vengeance: just consider the independence of departments, of teaching, and research
(even from each other), of courses, and of professionals themselves as individuals” (p.
284).
Complexity Theory
Continuing the metaphor that higher education is an “organism” (Morgan, 2006),
it is important to better understand the concept of complexity theory and complex
adaptive systems and how these concepts relate to the successful facilitation of change in
universities and colleges. The development of complexity theory in leadership research is
not as extensive in the literature as general systems theory, but it is beginning to be
shown to have an effect in the leadership efforts in complex adaptive systems. In 1995,
ohn Holland’s Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity he introduced
Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) as a theoretical framework applicable to a multitude of
settings and environments, including education. CAS describes a loosely organized
academic field. Complexity science is not a single theory – it encompasses more than one
theoretical framework and is highly interdisciplinary, seeking the answers to some
47
fundamental questions about living, adaptable, changeable systems. A CAS is nonlinear;
it is made up of a large number of active elements that are diverse in form and capability,
and is both self-organizing and learning. Holland identified the seven basic elements that
make up every CAS to include:
Aggregation: By aggregating; similar items into categories and then treating them
as similar. Aggregation allows for the construction of models in the system. In a CAS “we
decide which details are irrelevant for the questions of interest and proceed to ignore
them” (Holland, 1995, p. 11). Aggregation also refers to what we do, versus how to
model a CAS: “it concerns the emergence of large-scale behaviors from the aggregate
interactions of less complex agents” (p. 11).
Tagging: The use of tagging forms boundaries within the CAS. Tagging allows
the individual to ignore certain details, while paying attention to others. An example
would be of a banner or flag to rally individuals that have similar persuasions or interests.
The university has multiple examples of tagging from the Greek societies, to social clubs
and the universities colors and seal.
Nonlinearity: Linearity is best explained through mathematics. “Linearity means
we get a value for the whole by adding up the value of its parts” (p. 15). “Nonlinearities
can interfere with linear approach to aggregates…nonlinear interactions always makes
the behavior of the aggregate more complicated than it would be predicted by summing
or averaging” (p. 23).
Flows: There are two properties of flows, multiplier effect and recycling effect.
The multiplier effect is “particularly evident when evolutionary changes occur, and it
48
typically jeopardizes long-range perditions based on simple trends” (p. 25). A recycle
effect is dependent on the system’s ability to capture and recycle critical resources.
Diversity: Is not accidental or random, but rather is a product of progressive
adaptations in the system.
Internal models: This is the mechanism for anticipation. There are two kinds of
internal models, tacit and overt. “A tacit internal model simply prescribes a current
action, under an implicit prediction of some desired future state, as in the case of
bacterium. An overt internal model is used as a basis for explicit, but internal,
explorations of alternatives, a process called look-ahead. The quintessential example of
look-ahead; is the mental exploration of possible moves sequences in chess prior to
moving the piece” (p. 33).
Building blocks: Human beings have the ability to deconstruct a complex scene
into distinct parts. Humans search the scene looking for pieces that we recognize and then
relate to the situation at hand. We reuse old information and add it to a new scenario for
understanding.
There is little published research on the implications of complexity theory and
CAS to leadership theory and the process of leadership, particularly in a university
setting, but Dooley (1997) attempted to “forge a unified description of complex adaptive
systems from several sources” and utilize the framework of CAS to better understand
organizational change in a business setting. Although, the earlier research discussed in
this chapter has confirmed that higher education operates in a very different manner than
the typical business model, there are some similarities that can be gleaned from this
research that could help to better understand the issue of change in a university setting;
49
that has been defined as a complex system. The key elements of the CAS model of
organizational change is a process where “agents scan the environment and adapt
accordingly (organic), using schema to interpret reality and context, and trigger decisions
and actions (cognitive), while competing and cooperating with other agents for resources
and information (organismic)” (p. 76). The nature of change in a CAS is that there is no
consistent pattern of change. The organization’s actual state “is essentially hidden in its
complexity as a whole from any single person’s view, exceeding human potential,
intellectual, and analytical capabilities; the perceived organizational state is an amalgam
of images, stories, thoughts, beliefs, and feelings” (p. 91). Therefore, to implement
effective change strategy in a CAS, a shared vision must be developed and an individual’s
perspective on the current state of the organization must be altered. The process must also
cultivate inquiry, learning, experimentation, divergent thinking, and the creation of a
mechanism to generate rapid feedback loops.
Contrasting general systems theory to complexity theory gives further
understanding and guidance to creating effective leadership models under complexity
theory. “There are three inter-related building blocks of CT (complexity theory) – non-
linear dynamics, chaos theory, and adaptation and evolution” (Schneider & Somers,
2006, p. 354). Non-linear dynamics is based on the hypothesis that small actions in one
part of a system can generate different and disproportionate change in another part.
Commonly referred to as the “butterfly effect” is the concept that a butterfly flapping its
wings in North America can influence and change the weather pattern in South America
(Kauffman, 1995). Properties of a system may emerge from its parts, rather than just
being imposed by the environment (Holland, 1998). The theory of chaos has its roots in
50
quantum theory, has been extensively researched and incorporated into complexity
theory, wherein disorder is natural, yet there are structures within the randomness that
remain the same (Snyder, Acker-Hocevar, & Snyder, 2008). Adaptation and evolution are
based on Darwin’s theory that evolution is dependent on the process of natural selection
i.e., survival of the fittest. Organizations can evolve, but “highly ordered systems are too
rigid to coordinate new behaviors and likewise tend to fail” (Schneider & Somers, 2006,
p. 355).
Although this line of research is still emerging, it expands our understanding of
the barriers and ever expanding issues that leading effective change can present in a
complex system such as higher education. Exploring the connections between systems
and complexity theory, strategy formation and strategy execution in higher education lays
the groundwork for this study in assessing the implementation of the strategic thinking
protocol in a university setting to identify factors that create an effective model of change
in higher education.
Strategy in Higher Education
Even in its earliest evolution, the justification for incorporating strategic planning
designs in higher education highlighted the lack of long term planning and the
institution’s need to react to the crisis of the economic and social issues in the late
seventies and early eighties (Keller, 1983; Kotler & Murphy, 1981). Early attempts to
introduce and implement strategic planning in higher education were met with
inconsistent results and failure in most institutions. Early on, Kotler and Murphy (1981)
defined a Strategic Planning Process model for higher education around the same time
the premier business consulting firms of McKinsey & Co. and the Boston Consulting
51
Group, were widely implementing strategic planning processes in the business world.
The planning processes of the time were systematic, linear and followed the numerous
business models of strategic planning discussed earlier in this chapter. The process was
hieratical; in that the goals were generally generated at the top of the organization. “The
strategic planning process is a sequential one where the goals and broad assumptions go
from the top down, but the detailed plans come from the bottom up” (p. 472). The stages
were followed sequentially; conducting an environmental analysis, threat analysis,
opportunity analysis, and resource analysis. The next steps included goal formulation,
creation of a mission statement, and organizational objectives. Only then did the
organization begin strategy formulation. The limitations of this model, cited by the
researchers themselves, were that the model only defined parts of the process and did not
address the critical issues of the implementation of those developed strategies.
George Keller’s release of Academic Strategy in 1983 opens with the statement
“experts predict that between 10 percent and 30 percent of America’s 3100 colleges and
universities will close their doors or merge with other institutions by 1995” (p. 3). Not
only has that prophecy not come to fruition, but as of 2007, higher education institutions
have multiplied to 4,314 colleges and universities in the United States (U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, 2007). Keller continued his dire
predictions that student enrollments would decline significantly, and colleges and
universities would be forced to close, merge, or adapt to the changing environment.
Although his predictions have proven not to be completely true, the argument at that
time, of a “crisis” in higher education formed the justification and backdrop for
52
incorporating strategic planning in higher education and was taken up by institutions
across the country in the late 1970s and 1980s.
Academic strategic decision making was defined as a process that a college,
school or university and its leaders were active in determining, rather than passive about
their position in history. The process looked outward and was focused in keeping the
institution in step with the changing environment. It recognized that higher education was
subject to economic market conditions and to increasingly strong competition;
concentrated on decisions, not on documented plans, analysis, forecasts and goals; was a
blend of rational and economic analysis, political maneuvering, and psychological
interplay, was participatory and highly tolerant of controversy; and concentrated on the
fate of the institution above everything else (Keller, 1983).
In the early 1990’s strategic planning processes in higher education were
incorporated into the criteria for accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools (SACS), which is still the case today. The process was not identified as
strategic planning per se, but was described as a “systematic, broad based, interrelated
planning and evaluation process” (sacsorg/staff/mjohnson/SCI-CR%202.5-msj.pdf) that
universities and colleges had to adopt, then deliver the supporting documentation that
proved those efforts had been incorporated in the institution’s planning efforts for
accreditation purposes. Barker and Smith (1997) researched a dozen case studies in the
1990’s that examined the implementation of strategic planning processes in colleges and
universities across the U.S. They found that just as planning was being widely adopted in
higher education, strategic planning was “being disparaged for being too linear, for
relying too heavily on available hard information, for creating elaborate paperwork mills,
53
for being too formalized and structured, for ignoring organizational context and culture,
and for discouraging creative, positive change” (Dooris, 2003, p. 27).
By the end of the decade, strategic planning had been mainstreamed and “higher
education had moved beyond a focus niche and competitiveness to encompass ideas such
as reengineering, business transformation, and continuous quality improvement” (p. 28).
Yet, other research on strategic planning implementation in higher education, identified
university and college administrators as poor strategic planners, utilizing old business
model strategic planning rhetoric and adhering to an outmoded corporate bureaucracy
that has been abandoned by successful corporations (Barrow, 1996; Hardy et al., 1983;
Tierney, 1988). “Strategic plans usually incorporate contradictory objectives, as
administrators attempt to soften political resistance with concessions to internal and
external constituents that often have competing visions of higher education” (Barrow,
1996, p. 78). Also, administrators in higher education tend to be short-term and strategic
plans are long-term. Each new administration begins its own planning process and “the
result is a strategic planning and restructuring movement that creates chaos rather than
change” (p. 78). So, how is the strategic planning process utilized in higher education
today? Is it effective and what is the research telling us about where strategy formation
and the effective implementation of those strategies need to be in higher education?
Mintzberg and Rose’s (2003) case study of strategic planning at McGill
University and Dooris’ (2003) case study at Penn State examined processes at both
institutions over extended periods of time; McGill from 1829 to 1980, and Penn State
from 1983- 2002. Mintzberg and Rose (2003) found that McGill University appeared to
have a bifurcated system of strategic management…one system concerns a mission that is
54
infused throughout its operations, and the second is more aggregated, and sometimes
more centralized and more integrated, influential in its indirect impact (p. 286). The
study’s guiding research question: Where is strategy in all this? Or, perhaps more to the
point, where is strategy as pattern, whether or not intended, and where are intentions? (p.
282), explored the long-term strategic decisions of the institution. The finding and
conclusion that “something has been going on in this institution beyond the formal
leadership, namely a rather complex social system, at least by standards of most of the
literature of strategic management...and dramatic change – turnaround, renewal,
restructuring, and all the rest – would thus hardly seem to be the appropriate focus of the
effective leader of a university. But the other side of the coin is that those leaders who
can influence process by a significant way – by making strong appointments, establishing
key procedures, and encouraging cultures of quality – can have a great long term impact
on the institution, probably far longer than most corporate managers” (p. 285), provided
additional opportunities for continuing research in strategy formation and strategic
planning in colleges and universities.
Penn State’s annual system-wide strategic planning process “has, in its broad
strokes, followed a basically consistent approach: a participative, top-down/bottom-up,
annual process that connects planning and budgeting” (Dooris, 2003, p. 29). Goals and
directives come from the top, whereas bottom-up “refers to the importance, and relatively
high autonomy, of the university’s 34 individual strategic planning units” (p. 29) with the
effect that strategic planning cascades throughout the university. The researcher
attempted to answer the question of how well strategic planning worked at the university
and cited the growth of the institution’s reputation as a member of the Big Ten, the
55
addition of a law school, reorganized feeder campuses into a system of colleges, creation
of a new honors college, expanded facilities, and increased gifts to the university as
evidence of the success of strategic planning. However, Dooris concluded that, “no one
can prove whether this university (or ultimately, any organization) is more or less
successful because of strategic planning than it would have been without it. Nonetheless,
the evidence of Penn State’s experience does suggest that the university’s long-term
commitment to strategic planning – clearly defined in its broad parameters, but flexible
and adaptive in its details – has been productive” (p. 31).
Much of the research of strategic planning in higher education reveals that the
external environment is highly influential on the internal behaviors of colleges and
universities. “A university is in the business of responding to such forces, or creating and
disseminating conceptual knowledge about what is happening in society. As a result,
change is the business of the university; that is why we probably saw no significant
strategic change; “at a micro level, everything in the university is always changing”
(Mintzberg & Rose, 2003, p. 287). The conclusion in this research was that with a
rapidly changing external environment and an internal loosely coupled, complex systems
environment; institutions of higher education are hungry for an effective process of
successful strategy formation and implementation.
Kezar (2001) acknowledges change as a human process. She suggests combining
change processes to develop a systematic and systemic process of change. One that works
with individuals, is sensitive to the distinctive characteristics of higher education, is
context-based, achieves balance of internal and external forces, and is open to leveraging
change through a better understanding of organizational change in higher education and
56
the application of those change models. Kezar (2001) suggests that three types of change
models: political, social-cognition and cultural, form the more recent basis of strategic
planning models in higher education.
There is broad agreement that organizations are collections of assorted
individuals and interest groups, with differing values, beliefs, information, interests and
perceptions of reality (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Morgan, 2006; Scharmer, 2009).
Transcending those differences, to implement change is addressed in similar, yet
differing tactics and actions. Senge (1990) advocates for building a shared vision that is
“over and above self-interest, [as] people truly want to be part of something larger than
themselves. They want to contribute toward building something important” (p. 275), and
in doing so, transcend the political environment of organizations. Through the use of
transforming actions, and utilizing political actions that include coalition building,
negotiations, network building, and promoting consensus to accomplish objectives,
leaders can address and overcome the political issues of the organization (Pisapia, 2009).
Also, “by recognizing that organization is intrinsically political, in the sense that ways
must be found to create order and direction among people with potentially diverse and
conflicting interests, much can be learned about the problems and legitimacy of
management as a process of government and about the relation between organization and
society” (Morgan, 2006 p. 150). Kim and Mauborgne (2005) recognize that the
conventional theory of organizational change rests on transforming the mass, requiring
steep resources and long time frames that few organizations have the luxury of being able
to afford. “The more likely change becomes, the more fiercely and vocally these
negative influencers – both internal and external- will fight to protect their positions, and
57
their resistance can seriously damage and even derail strategy execution process” (p.
166).
The social cognition theories explore how people within organizations influence
processes and how learning occurs within organizations or how people make sense of
their environments (Argyris, 1994). French and Raven (1959) proposed the theory of
social influence and power in that “we assume that any change in the state of a system is
produced by a change in some factor upon which it is functionally dependent” (p. 312).
Vroom and Jago (1974) also viewed decision making as a social process. When a
problem presents itself in an organization, there are alternative processes that that can be
used to solve the problem. Their research of power in organizations and the role of that
power in change were expanded by Kanter (1979), who defined power as a critical
element in effective managerial behavior. “Organizational power can grow, in part, from
being shared. By empowering others, a leader does not decrease his power; instead he
may increase it – especially if the whole organization performs better” (p. 73).
Although a comprehensive review of organizational cultural theory is beyond the
scope of this study, it is important to understand the role that culture in organizations
plays in the leading and managing of change. Culture and the understanding of the role of
culture in organizational change, is a critical component of the success or failure of
organizational change (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1993; Senge, 1990; Tierney,
1988). The research of how institutional culture affects change processes and strategies
focuses on understanding the process of institutional transformation. Kezar and Eckel
(2004) conducted a multi-case study across six universities to identify whether “change
processes [are] thwarted by violating cultural norms or enhanced by culturally sensitive
58
strategies” (p. 436). Their findings challenge the conventional beliefs of change process,
“namely, that one can follow a general principle or approach and not be aware of how
distinct organizational cultures impact process” (p. 437). The researchers define
comprehensive change as a change that is pervasive, affecting numerous offices and units
across the institution; deep, touching upon values, beliefs and structures, it intentional
and occurs over time (p. 437).
To reiterate, colleges and universities are different from for-profit organizations in
their design, processes, systems and cultures. The one size-fits-all approach to strategic
planning created in the 1960s, widely implemented in the business world in the 1970’s,
and subsequent introduction and adaptation into higher education in the 1980s until now,
has not proven to be an effective process in the formation and implementation of strategic
change. However, the reality of the environment that higher education is operating in
today demands ever greater change and adaptation to that environment, a new approach
to strategic leadership and a new model of strategic thinking and planning.
Chapter Summary
In compiling this review, there was a mix of historical theory and practice of
strategic planning in for-profit organizations, and not-for profit colleges and universities.
The definition of; and implementation of strategic thinking in conjunction with strategic
planning, helps to place this study in the larger context of the field. Also discussed are
some recent and current authorities that are advancing the field of strategy, strategic
thinking and strategic planning in higher education. While this review attempted to give
a comprehensive understanding of strategic thinking, its focus was ultimately to
understand the possible usefulness of the Strategic Thinking Protocol© model in the
59
effective formation and execution of strategy in a university setting. In researching and
building this review, there were nearly unlimited relevant studies, articles, and documents
that were excluded, particularly in the application of strategic planning in for-profit
organizations.
60
Chapter 3
Methodology
The purpose of this qualitative “holistic multiple-case” study was to identify the
elements of a strategic planning process that meet the unique organizational features and
complexities of a higher education institution. The rationale for the qualitative approach
with the topic of this research is that the elements of strategic thinking (from an empirical
perspective) have not been studied before. The study employed a Type 3 design, that Yin
(2003) calls "holistic multiple-case." A holistic multiple-case study refers to research
with more than one case study but with only one unit of analysis. Multiple cases are
examined because they provide more evidence than a single case and add confidence to
the findings (Hakim, 1987; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003). Informing the choice
of this methodology was that a qualitative methodology is most appropriate when the
researchers are attempting to establish meaning from the views of participants. Creswell
(2003) states “if a concept of phenomenon needs to be understood because little research
has been done on it, then it merits a qualitative approach” (p. 18).
The study sought to answer the primary research questions: What were the
elements of the strategic planning process used by the department, college and
university? Did the strategic planning process follow a strategic thinking or strategic
planning model? Did the process used create an effective model of change for the
organization? In addition several second level questions were asked: What was the effect
61
of the way the organization developed the plan on the implementation of the plan as
perceived by the participants? And, how effective were the strategic planning
implementation processes as judged by the participants in the planning process?
The remainder of this chapter will outline the research protocols this study followed;
the research design, the sample plan, data collection, data analysis, case summaries, and
the role of the researcher.
Research Design
The researcher decided to use a Type 3 multi-case study as an approach based on
the following assumptions. First was the belief that the research questions could be best
answered through the dimensions of a compare and contrast process, which a multi-case
design provides, to provide a test of the ideas in the conceptual framework. Also, case
study designs rely on multiple sources of evidence: direct observation, analysis of
archival documents and interview of the participants in the process of strategic planning.
“However, the most important advantage presented by using multiple sources of evidence
is the development of converging lines of inquiry, a process of triangulation and
corroboration” (Yin, 2003, p. 115).
Sample Plan
Site selection. The selection of the site for this study incorporated the critical multi-
case study concept (Miles & Huberman, 1994) related to the issue of generalizability.
Since the researcher is generalizing from one case to another on the basis of a match to
the conceptual framework and not across a larger universe, it was important that the cases
were selected on conceptual grounds, not on representational grounds (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The unit of analysis is the department, college, and the university’s use
62
of the strategic thinking and strategic planning processes. These three cases studies were
drawn from one higher education institution; Southeastern University. The Strategic
Thinking Protocol© (STP) developed by Pisapia (2009) guided the department and
college planning processes. The university strategic plan was completed in 2006 and
used a traditional business strategic planning process. The departmental strategic plan
was completed in December 2009 and the college’s strategic planning process was begun
in January 2010, and was completed in September 2011.
Convenience and opportunistic strategies also played a role in the
consideration of the selection of the site. Southeastern University was in close
proximity to the researcher’s home and work, allowing for ease of access to
participants and observations in real-time of the college planning process. Where
opportunities might arise to follow new leads or take advantage of unexpected
data, the researcher desired the ability to do so. Once the sites were selected the
researcher made a determination to maintain the confidentiality of the sites, in
addition to the individuals. A brief profile of each site is detailed below.
Southeastern university. Southeastern University opened in 1964 and was the fifth
university in a newly created state system designed to serve the first wave of the baby
boom generation students. The university offered only upper level division and graduate
work, believing that freshmen and sophomores would be served by the growing
community college system. The university’s charter class was 867 students.
From the early 60’s through the early 70’s the university offered bachelor
degrees in business, education, humanities, science and social science.
Intercollegiate athletics began in 1969 and thus the transformation of the
63
university to a more traditional institution than was originally envisioned began.
During the mid-1970’s and into the late 1980’s the institution enjoyed a period of
fairly stable presidential leadership (2 president’s in 15 years) that resulted in a
substantial growth of philanthropic support for the academic enterprise, as well as
the physical plant. Enrollment grew to just over 11,000 students and 41,000
graduates. The university also opened its first branch campus in a nearby county
and expanded its academic offerings to include a full-four year degree in 1980.
The period of greatest physical plant and academic growth occurred from
1990-2002 with the building of four additional branch campuses and the addition
of over three dozen new degree programs. Enrollment reached 23,000 students
and the university expended over $500 million in new facility construction across
all campuses. The endowment also increased from $18 to $150 million in assets.
Most recently, the university has expanded to encompass a stronger research
profile with just over $40 million a year in research revenues and a growing
reputation across the state. The university completed its last strategic plan in 18
months and it was adopted by the Board of Trustees on January 18, 2006. A new
president was hired in 2010 and has already begun the process of updating and
revising this current strategic plan.
Southeastern college of education. The College of Education opened its doors to
students in 1964 and has a current enrollment of over 3,200 students. It is the fourth
largest college at the university with nearly one-third of its students over the age of 30.
This reflects the college’s commitment to individuals seeking a second career in
education and students pursing advanced degrees or certifications. The student population
64
is predominately in-state residents and there are 132 full-time faculty and 48 staff
members. There was no mention of the number of part-time or tenured faculty members
in the archival documents or on the college’s public web-site.
Providing a broad program of degrees and certifications to students is a
“point of pride” that is listed on the college’s website. Programs are varied from
teacher education and training to exercise science. The college is nationally
accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE), the American College of Sport Medicine, National Strength and
Conditioning Association, and others. The college includes two elementary lab
schools; a high school; environmental education center located on 150 acres of
undeveloped land; a holocaust and human rights education center; center for
communication and autism related disorders; an exercise science department, and
the university’s third largest enrollment by major; elementary education. The
college’s Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology
ranks third in graduate enrollment in the university.
The college is served by a dean who was appointed in the spring of 2009.
Although the Dean is new to this role, he/she has been in administration in the
college since 1988. The new leader follows a period of reported strife and
infighting under the previous leadership, and is working to rebuild trust and a
collegial atmosphere in the college. The college has undertaken a strategic
planning process to review the mission and goals of the college under the Dean’s
direction
65
Southeastern department of educational leadership and research methodology.
The Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology graduated its first
master degree level graduates in 1966. The first doctoral degree was conferred in 1973.
There are a total of over 4000 alumni across all departmental degree offerings. There are
14 full time faculty members, 6 visiting and 14 adjuncts teaching in the department.
Programs include a Master of Educational Leadership in program areas: the K-12 school
sector, higher education, and adult and community education. The department also offers
a Specialist in Educational Leadership in K-12 Schools and Adult and Community
Education, and a Doctor of Philosophy in all program areas.
The Department Chair instituted a strategic planning process in August 2009
and the department completed the process in December 2010. During the planning
time period, the economy in the United States was in the midst of a recession and
state budget allocations were being cut each year. The department has worked to
maintain the quality of its teaching, scholarship and service in the community, but
recognizes the need for planning to help manage change and build a vision of the
future.
Participant Selection
Participants were selected for the study based on their involvement with the
strategic planning process at each site. All participants served as members of their
respective strategic planning committee. Although the names given to the actual
committees varied, the roles and responsibilities for each member were similar
across all three cases. Participants in the department and college planning
processes consisted mainly of tenured faculty members and one administrator in
66
each case. The participants in the university case study were predominately senior
level administrators, with a faculty and trustee representative. Table 3.1 lists the
distribution of the participants across the three cases.
Table 3.1
Participant Distribution by Function and Case
Department College University Total
Administrators 1 1 4 6
Dean 0 1 0 1
Alumnus/Trustee 0 0 1 1
Faculty 4 3 1 8
Staff 0 0 1 1
Total 5 5 8 17
Data Collection
Data collection was obtained through three primary sources: interviews, direct
observations, and documents. The data were collected in two phases. In the first phase,
a pilot study was conducted in November 2010 by the researcher. The purpose of the
pilot study was to gain experience in conducting qualitative research, and to test
components of the data collection and analysis protocols. The site of the pilot study
[Sun Coast State College (pseudonym)] was selected after a search of several colleges
and university web-sites, in close proximity to the researcher. The sites were then
reviewed for evidence of a recently completed strategic planning process, provided
access to public documents related to strategic planning, a clearly identified and
67
accessible group of five or more participants for face-to-face interviews, and exclusion of
the site from the researcher’s future dissertation study.
Sun Coast State College is a public, decentralized, multi-campus, baccalaureate
degree granting institution in the southeastern United States. The researcher selected a
sample of five participants that were identified as key members of the strategic planning
steering committee. The participants included the Vice President of Academic Affairs,
Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, Manager of Outcomes Assessment,
Associate Dean of Communications, and the Dean of Curriculum and Planning. All of the
participants were Caucasian females over the age of 50 and had been employed by the
college from six to twenty years.
The pilot study informed the design of this study through the refinement of the
interview protocol and the identification of initial and process coding schemes. A
standardized questionnaire was used in the pilot study, but was later refined for this
study. Some questions were eliminated and others added. As part of the data analysis
in the pilot study, interview transcripts were coded with an initial set of twenty-eight
codes. The codes then were grouped into five subgroups that directly related to the five
distinct areas of the questionnaire: roles participants played in the strategic planning
process, assumptions participants held toward planning, the process used, effectiveness of
the process, and the effectiveness of the implementation. The subgroups groups were then
analyzed to assess the data in relationship to the comparative sections of the conceptual
framework (Figure 1) that includes a vision of the future; strategic formulation and
implementation; managerial role in strategy making; control; managerial role in
implementation; strategy making and process; and outcomes. Codes for this study were
68
adapted from the pilot study with deletions and additions to create an initial code list for
this study.
The second phase of data collection began in January 2011 and consisted of
interviews, document collection of all three cases, and included direct observation of
the college planning process. The university concluded their strategic planning process
in 2008 and the department in 2010, eliminating observation as a data collection
strategy in those two cases.
Interviews. Structured in-depth interviews were the primary data collection method
utilized in all three case studies. The interviews were structured and focused on the
questions outlined in the Interview Protocol (Appendix A). Participants were contacted
via email requesting a meeting time and outlining the research project (Appendix B). At
the time of each interview all participants read and signed an Adult Consent Form
(Appendix C) prior to the commencement of the interview. All interviews were
approximately one hour in length and were digitally recorded with each participant’s
permission. The researcher kept field notes during the interview and manually recorded
observations immediately following the interview. Interviews were then transcribed and
to validate the accuracy of the transcription, shared with the participants to allow them
the opportunity to read the transcriptions and make any corrections, update their
responses and comment at that point in time. Merriam (1998) refers to this method of
triangulation as a “member checks - taking data and tentative interpretations back to the
people from whom they were derived and asking them if the results are plausible” (p.
204), as a method to enhance internal validity. All but one participant (U6) responded to
the request for review and approval of the transcript. U6 was contacted repeatedly via
69
email and phone messages to respond if there were any changes. There was no response
and the researcher assumed there to be no changes in the transcription.
Documents. The second source of data collection came from a review of documents
in all three planning processes that were available to the public on the university, college
and departmental websites. A document analysis was conducted of historical and current
strategic planning documents created in 2006 – 2008 for the university process; strategic
planning documents created during the college wide strategic planning process from
January, 2010 – August, 2010; and documents that from the department’s strategic
planning process that occurred from August, 2008 – December, 2009. A list of the
documents can be found in Appendix D.
Observations. The third source of data came from direct observations of the
college’s planning process. The purpose of the observation was to gain insight into the
process, topics, keywords, and key concepts to identify elements of strategic thinking in
the planning process. The researcher observed 5 different college-wide strategic thinking
sessions, for a total of 10 hours of observation. These observations of strategic planning
related meetings utilized an observation guide (Appendix E). After each observation,
notes and memos were recorded.
Data Analysis
Yin (2009) defined data analysis as it “consists of examining, categorizing,
tabulating, testing, or otherwise recombining evidence, to draw empirically based
conclusions” (p. 126). Utilizing the conceptual framework (Liedtka, 1998a; Pisapia,
2009) elements of strategic thinking versus strategic planning, the researcher created a
coding process to identify from the raw data the differing dimensions (Figure 1.1). Data
70
analysis for this multi-case study analysis was based on the conceptual framework
contained in the literature review. The researcher employed a cross-case synthesis model
of analysis. Cross-case synthesis treats each case as a distinct study and then aggregates
findings across a series of individual studies (Yin, 2009) and “requires standardization of
instruments so that findings can be laid side by side in the course of analysis” (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 35). To provide the standardization of instruments the researcher
used the same first-level codes (Appendix F) across all three cases.
Data coding and analysis was a two-step process and was aided with the use of a
computer software program: HyperRESEARCH©. The software is designed to
accomplish qualitative analysis tasks of coding of text; coding of multi-media sources
including audio; video and graphics; retrieval of coded text based on researcher defined
parameters; creation of customized reports; testing of propositions based on researcher
identified codes or combination of codes; hypothesis testing; and statistical analysis
through frequency of codes and displays of results.
For this study the researcher utilized the coding, retrieval and customized report
functions of the software. Use of the hypothesis testing capacity of the software was not
utilized as it “requires the researcher to examine the directionality of his or her codes and
to consciously code for the presence or absence of a given phenomenon” (Heese-Biber &
Dupuis, 2000, p. 322). As stated earlier in this chapter, the coding table for this study was
refined through the use of a pilot study. After transcripts of the interviews were member
checked by the participants, the files were converted to text files and the researcher then
used an open coding process to identify concepts and dimensions in the source files. As
the open coding progressed across all three cases, the researcher kept a manual research
71
(continued on next page)
journal to enter emerging ideas, concepts, and themes that emerged from the initial
coding process. The open coding process resulted in 1083 pieces of data coded (Table
3.2).
Table 3.2
Open Coding Frequency Report
1st Round
Code
Description Department
Case
College
Case
University
Case
AC Activity Change 18 9 10
AS Actionable Strategy 5 6 6
BC Beliefs Change 14 14 12
BO Bonding to Outcomes 4 6 10
BR Breadth 5 10 24
CB Coalition Building 6 7 3
CC Collective Commitment 12 7 9
CCA Combination: Creativity and
Analysis
1 0 0
CH Change Desired 4 1 13
CR Creativity 0 0 0
CT Connectedness 12 13 13
DA Use of Data 14 16 12
DC Destruction of Commitment 0 0 1
DePo Decrease in Politics 1 0 0
DP Depth 8 12 28
EE External Environment 30 30 40
FA Facilitator 6 5 2
FI Focused Intent 1 3 0
GS Generative Strategy 1 0 0
HD Hypothesis Driven 0 0 0
HH Hierarchical 1 2 15
HI Horizontal Integration 17 0 0
IE Internal Environment 0 31 39
IF Inward Focus 2 3 0
IMG Image 6 3 9
IMP Implementation 0 4 33
INFN Informal Negotiation 5 0 0
ING Integration 6 1 0
72
(Table 3.2 continued)
INT Intuition 1 0 0
IO Intelligent Opportunism 2 0 0
IP Increased Politics 1 0 1
LA Liner Assumptions 1 0 0
LG Logic Based 1 0 0
LI Linkage of Strategy and
Change
6 8 8
MI Multiple Interpretations 1 1 0
NAR Narrative 1 0 0
NV Narrow Vision 0 0 0
OL Outward Looking 6 0 0
OUT Outcomes 3 5 26
PF Predict the Future 4 7 8
PR Process 13 13 55
PS Persuasion 0 0 1
RL Role 11 6 24
RP Rigidity of Process 6 0 3
RT Rational Thinking 4 1 0
SA Surfacing Assumptions 6 7 0
SC Success of Process 27 13 20
SHA Sharing Assumptions 2 3 0
SI Strategic Intent 1 0 0
SL Strategic Listening 1 1 0
SP Systems Perspective 14 13 3
ST Systems Thinking 6 1 3
SY Synthesis 6 12 0
TT Thinking in Time 3 1 0
VA Values 13 11 9
VELN Vertical Integration 2 0 0
VI Vision 4 6 10
Total 325 292 466
The development of a thematic code in social science research is probably one of
the most frequently used approaches (Boyatzis, 1998) and created the foundation used for
the second step of data analysis. It is proposed in this study that the use of a strategic
thinking process to formulate strategy in higher education would create an effective
model that envisions potential futures, changes activities of the organization, creates
73
internal horizontal alignment through altering beliefs of the participants, increases the
connectedness of the participants to each other and the organization, and is perceived as
adding value to the organization. Therefore, the researcher sorted the open coding result
into a two dimensional matrix which correspond to the phenomena the researcher
observed and the predicted themes of the conceptual framework. Open coded source data
was entered into the matrix (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3
Theme and Description Matrix
Theme Description First Level
Codes
Coding Results
Department College University
Activity Changes of
Individual/Group
AC , AS,
DePo, GS,
HH, LI
34 25 40
Beliefs Changes
Individual/Group/Organization
BC, IMG,
MI, SA,
SHA
29 28 24
Internal Horizontal Alignment BO, BR,
CB, CC,
CT, DC,
DP, HI,
VELN
47 50 88
Envisions Potential Futures FI, IF, INT,
IO, PF, VI
14 14 20
Perceived as Adding Value INFN, ING,
VA
24 12 9
Perceived as Successful
Process
CH, EE,
FA, IE,
IMP, IP,
LA, LG,
OL, OUT,
RT, SC
100 95 176
Other NAR, PS 1 0 1
(continued on next page)
74
(Table 3.3 continued)
Characteristics of Process CCA, DA,
FI, PR, RL,
RP, SI, SL,
SP, ST, SY,
TT
77 66 110
After all the open coding was sorted into the matrix, the data were analyzed and
coded for common patterns and themes in each case. The themes were then analyzed to
identify any levels of congruence across the participants with-in each case. From the
dominant themes initial findings emerged. Documents and observations were then coded
and analyzed to determine if the data from this source supported or refuted the themes
identified in the interview data.
Each with-in case finding was analyzed across the three cases to identify any level
of convergence of themes and findings. Yin (2009) defines this process as an important
tool in qualitative research, “An important caveat in conducting this kind of cross-case
synthesis is that the examination of the word tables or cross-case patterns will rely
strongly on argumentative interpretations, not numeric tallies” (p. 160). This results in the
researcher being able to develop strong and plausible arguments, which are supported by
the data.
Chapter Summary
This study utilized a qualitative, Type 3 “holistic” multi-case research design to
evaluate the research questions of the study. The goal was to analyze and then compare
and contrast three strategic planning processes of a department, college and university
from one institution. A pilot study refined the interview protocol for this study, guiding
75
the questions and initial coding process of the data collected. Participants were all
members of the strategic planning teams in each case. Collected data was triangulated
through the use of interview responses, archival document analysis and observations. The
researcher used a qualitative software program (HyperRESEARCH©) to code the data
and sort the data into recurring themes. From the coding process and theme identification,
an initial set of findings emerged and are discussed in the Chapter 4.
76
Chapter 4
Findings
The following chapter presents the research findings of this “holistic” multi-case
study that attempted to identify the elements of strategic planning processes that meet the
unique organizational features and complexities of a higher education institution. This
chapter presents the findings pertaining to each “with-in” case study: Department of
Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, Southeastern University; College of
Education, Southeastern University; and Southeastern University. The chapter also
presents the findings that emerged from a compare and contrast analysis of the three
cases to test the ideas of the conceptual framework. In all cases, the data emerged from a
two-step data coding and analysis process of the transcribed text of seventeen interviews
over the course of three months between April 2011 and July 2011, an analysis of
documents pertaining to each planning process, and observations of the planning
processes. Findings and supporting evidence are presented sequentially in each case, with
a discussion of the findings at the end of each chapter. Finally, results of the analysis
were sent to key participants to check consistency of the interpretations to help validate
the findings. The combination of triangulated data, member checks and participant
validation limited the possibility of researcher bias.
To protect the anonymity of each participant, each is referred to throughout the
study as participant 1, 2, 3, etc., with a case indicator code preceding each number (D =
77
department, C = college, U = university). The researcher has attempted to ensure an
additional level of anonymity by not connecting participant responses to identifying roles,
such as President or Vice President. At the beginning of each case, there is a brief
description of backgrounds and roles of the participants collectively to give a frame of
reference for experience, responsibilities and roles within the organization and the
strategic planning process used in each case.
Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, Southeastern
University
The Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology (hereafter
referred to as the department) undertook a strategic thinking/planning initiative in August
2009 under the leadership of the Chair of the department. The Chair joined the
University in 1989 as Chair of the department of teacher education. Then in 1994 he/she
became Associate Dean for the College of Education, returned to the faculty in 2003 in
the Department of Education Leadership and subsequently took on the role of
Department Chair in 2007. The researcher asked the Chair to recall how he/she decided
to begin a strategic planning process and the selection of the use of the Strategic Thinking
Protocol© to guide the process.
I [was] frustrated that our college and our university did not have a strategic plan
that I thought was viable. They were not thinking strategically. They were not
acting strategically. And yet, as a department, I did not feel that we were in any
structure that enabled us to act strategically. In one of our annual retreats I
proposed…we had a faculty member doing consulting all over the place on it…to
78
convince them, that if he will lead the process…that we would undergo a strategic
thinking and strategic intent process.
Planning process: The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP). The strategic
thinking process is described in the following paragraphs to orient the reader to how it
was used by the department. Strategic thinking is the ability to analyze influencing
factors both inside and outside the organization, to discover strategic direction that should
guide the organization’s decision-making and resource allocation for a period of 3 - 5
years. Using this definition, Pisapia, (2009) created a six step process to develop and
execute a statement of strategic intent (Appendix G). The process has two phases:
strategic thinking and strategic execution (Figure 6).
Strategic Thinking Strategic Execution
Figure 6. The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009).
In the strategic thinking process quantitative and qualitative data are collected from
internal and external environments. Quantitative data comes from the institution
(university database) and qualitative data are gathered from interviews and listening
sessions with individuals outside of the department. Pisapia (2009) calls the process, the
strategic thinking protocol (STP).
Navigating
Team
Intent Convene
Quality
Committee
& Action
Teams
79
The STP (Figure 6) follows a look, listen, and learn sequence. It is coordinated by
a facilitator and a navigating team which acts as a synthesizing agent and crafts a
recommended statement of strategic intent. A key understanding of the process is that all
organizational members receive the same information as the navigating team. This
guideline provides transparency, allowing all members to understand the problems facing
the department and assist them in participating in crafting the direction that will be taken.
A web site is created to house the data gathered and the decisions made in the process of
creating the statement of intent.
The STP uses two main processes, strategic listening and strategic conversations
to create a statement of strategic intent. Strategic listening is used to receive perception
and quantitative information from the external and internal environment. All
organizational members are invited to participate in the listening process. At a typical
session, representatives from the organization’s major stakeholders are invited to share
their perceptions of the opportunities and threats facing the organization in an interview
process. The facilitator begins the questioning using a standard interview protocol so that
comparisons are readily made across the stakeholders. Then the questioning is opened up
to members of the organization who have been listening. At the end of each strategic
listening session, a summary is created and shared with all members of the organization
and feedback is solicited.
The strategic conversations process is structured around 5 questions in a
sequenced meeting structure (Table 4.1). What do others expect of us? What business are
we in? What do we expect of ourselves? What is our aspiration? What are our priorities?
The conversations begin as a call by the facilitator for organizational members to offer
80
their perspectives through an email. These perspectives are collated, synthesized by the
navigating team and shared with all organizational members via email and then face to
face feedback by convening a conversation. In the conversation, the facilitator uses a
dialogue rather than discussion approach with all members able to voice their
perspectives and opinions. At the end of each of the conversations the navigating team
assesses all feedback and proposes a synthesizing statement regarding the conversation to
the full membership. The result of the first conversation is a group understanding of what
the environment expects of the organization. The output of the second conversation is a
mission statement. The third conversation produces the core values statements; the fourth
conversation produces the aspiration statement. The fifth conversation produces the
priorities that will move the organization closer to the aspiration.
Table 4.1
STP Questions and Outcomes (Pisapia, 2009)
Conversation Outcome
What do others expect from us? Clear understanding of expectations for the
organization.
What business are we in? A mission statement
What do we expect from ourselves? A core values statement
What is our aspiration? An aspiration statement
What are our priorities? A statement of initiatives to move the
organization closer to its aspiration
When the protocol has been completed, the navigating team proposes a statement
of intent containing the mission, values, aspiration and priorities that will guide the
organization over the next 3-5 year planning period. The statement of strategic intent is
81
adopted through normal organizational channels and becomes policy. At this point, the
strategic thinking phase is over and the navigating committee is disbanded and the
organization enters into the strategic execution phase.
The strategic execution phase is entered into when the statement of intent
becomes the policy of the organization. Since strategic execution is not the focus of this
study it is only briefly described here. Two mechanisms are utilized: a quality committee
and action teams. The quality committee is created and charged with developing a
reporting mechanism to continuously review the implementation of the approved
statement of intent. They identify the indicators of progress toward the aspiration of the
organization, monitor and guide the implementation teams working on each of the
identified priorities, and annually assess movement toward the aspiration. Self-organizing
action teams are created around each priority identified in the statement of intent. These
teams are responsible to identify and implement initiatives that will move the department
toward its aspirations.
Formation and charge to the navigating committee. The navigating committee
was comprised of six individuals (all tenured). Membership included the Chair of the
department, four faculty members and the facilitator. Participants represented the various
programs in the department. The combined years of experience in the department among
the participants interviewed for this study was 46 years, with one faculty member just
joining the department two years before the study, but he/she had over 25 years of
teaching and research experience at the university. D5 described the committee and that
there was no adjunct or part-time faculty on the committee.
82
So in a sense there is no diversity at all on the navigating committee except for
programmatic differences: a higher education rep, an ACE representative, a K-12
representative, a research methodology representative and you had a structural
reporting secretary . . . the facilitator, but it was homogenous and it did not reflect
the new make-up of the department.
The initial charge to the navigating committee was to execute the STP and clearly
define expected results at the end of the process. The first step was for the committee to
meet prior to the opening day of classes in August 2009, review the accreditation report
and the university and college priority initiatives. This initial meeting was to be followed
by monthly meetings to develop a statement of strategic intent, guiding core values, and
priorities for action. The committee met monthly from August, 2009 – November, 2010
to conduct listening sessions, discuss five strategic conversation questions, provide
feedback to the entire department on what they believe they heard in these sessions, and
draft a written statement including: mission, core values, aspiration, and priorities for
action. The goal of the process was to produce a written statement of intent that included
the following elements listed in Table 4.2.
83
Table 4.2
Strategic Thinking/Planning Process Expected Results (Pisapia, 2009)
Mission Statement To contain no more than three crisp, clear, and compelling
themes in one sentence.
Aspiration To contain a stretch statement of what the department
should look like in 3-5 years. The aspiration specifies a
clear, concrete, measurable end but not the means to that
end.
Guiding Principles Definition of what the department stands for and how it
will act in the daily flow of activity. When these values are
agreed upon no faculty and staff should be exempt from
accountability to these values.
Priorities/Initiatives Priorities focus the department on what it needs to do to
achieve its aspiration. They are NOT pre-identified goals.
They are best guesses of the areas the organization should
explore to work towards its aspirations. The priorities
should set clear direction for administrators and faculty to
adjust their work priorities toward over the next two years
and thereafter. Responsibility for the initiatives will be
distributed, and individuals or group responsible should be
held accountable for their success.
Presentation A draft of the statement of strategic intent with mission,
aspiration, guiding principles and priorities/initiatives
should be presented to the full department for discussion
and eventual adoption. Once agreed upon, this common
vision should be used to make hiring decisions, develop
working relationships, and allocate resources.
Findings
The results of the data analysis in this case support the primary finding that the
department process followed a strategic thinking model of planning. The analysis also
supports a secondary finding that the process created a successful model of change as
perceived by the participants in the process. Table 4.3 outlines the elements of the study’s
conceptual framework, with a brief description of what was found in the analysis of the
data and described in more detail. At the time of the study, the department had
progressed through the first four steps of the STP and was actively working through the
84
fifth step of the process: the formation of a quality control committee. The purpose of this
study was to identify the elements of a strategic planning process that meet the unique
organizational planning features of a higher education organization. Therefore, data on
the implementation steps of the STP was not collected.
Table 4.3
Findings and Data Sources for the Department
Primary Finding:
Department process
utilized a strategic
thinking process.
Secondary Finding: The
STP provided an effective
model for change in the
department.
Interviews 5/ 5 participants 4/ 5 participants
Observations N/A N/A
Document Review 9/9 Documents 9/9 Documents
The department process utilized a strategic thinking process. The primary
finding of the study is derived from analysis of the archival documents and interviews
with the participants that served on the navigating committee of the department. The
study framework (Figure 1) served as the guiding matrix for the development of codes,
themes and analysis. The researcher then created a third matrix, using the study
framework, and compared the data against the framework (see Table 4.4). The analysis
of the data supported the finding that the process utilized the elements of strategic
thinking to create a statement of strategic intent for the department that provides a
strategic direction that should guide the department’s decision making and resource
allocation for the next 3-5 years.
85
(continued on next page)
Table 4.4
Study Framework and Findings for the Department
Department Case Data Analysis Supports the Following
Elements of Process Change Model Used a social-cognitive model of
change, including political and cultural
elements.
Vision of the Future Beliefs of participants were that only
the shape of the future can be
predicted.
Strategic Thinking Skills Used synthesis, systems thinking,
reflection and reframing.
Strategic Listening Evidenced through formal collection
of perspectives, data analysis and
synthesis.
Strategic Conversations Strongly evident – participants
understand the larger system and how
they connect to it.
Managerial Role in
Strategy Making
Lower level managers have a voice in
strategy making.
Managerial Role in
Implementation
Department Chair and Program
managers understand the larger
system, the connection between those
roles and the functioning of that
system, as well as the independence
between the various roles that
comprise the system.
Strategic Formulation
and Implementation
Not measured in study.
Control Relies on self-reference – a sense of
strategic intent and purpose embedded
in the minds of the managers
throughout the department that guides
their choices on a daily basis in a
process that is often difficult to
measure and monitor from above.
Alignment Horizontal – gained synchronization
among team.
86
(Table 4.4 continued)
Strategy Making Did not find that participants viewed
strategy and change as inescapably
linked nor assumptions that finding
new strategic options and
implementing them successfully is
harder and more important than
evaluating them.
Process and Outcome Sees the planning process itself as a
critical value-adding element.
Department did not focus on the
creation of the plan as the ultimate
objective.
Value Specification Strong component – creates self-
reference points in the minds of the
participants. Uses values to control
and coordinate activity.
Minimum Specifications Statement of strategic intent functions
as a guiding document. Lacks
measurable components and has
minimum specifications.
Strategic Fitness Not conclusive that process was a fit
to external and internal environment.
Did find the process adds value to the
plan.
Chunking Change Not measured in this study.
Findings
Finding #1: Type
of Planning
Process Used
14 out of 16 elements
measured and 11 of 14
used in the planning
process. Evidenced in the
analysis of the data.
Strategic Thinking
Finding #2: Type
of Change Created
and Effectiveness
of Process
Successful
Altered the attitudes, values, beliefs,
and behaviors of the department.
Created systems thinking and
perceived as an effective process by
participants.
87
Elements of study framework. It is proposed in the study framework that a
strategic thinking process uses a social-cognitive model of change that includes political
and social elements in the change process. Evidence in this case of a change process that
recognized the cultural and political realities of the organization, support the
determination that this element was present in the department’s planning process.
Participant D5 was aware of the political and cultural elements, saw the inclusion of these
in the process and a resulting change in his/her belief about the change process.
I could walk away from the faculty meeting and say, even in this transition away
from tenure track positions, it that’s the new reality, that’s the new world of
higher ed[ucation], then we can still make this work.
Other participants were aware of the political issues surrounding the department and the
impact of those issues on the planning process itself. D3 noted “legislative changes that
impact us, in many ways, are not predictable and are outside influences…that impact our
work and lives.” D4’s comments also supported the social-cognitive model that included
the cultural elements of the department and the department’s place in the wider university
structure.
I’ve always seen it as a kind of …ground up approach that we’ve tried to craft our
own identity and map out our own mission, set of beliefs and values in the way
that we operate; knowing that we are nested within a college, university and wider
community. But, given the size of the university and all the fragmentation, I think
there has been some interest in trying to make sure we’re clear about who we are
in our boundaries.
88
Participant D1 felt that the process created a social connection between the participants,
“it creates a sense of community, creates a sense of, it’s a part of something bigger than
you. That you are part of a group of people that’s more like a family.” The process
created a change in D2’s view of the department in the larger social and cultural context
of the university.
So you have to sort of broaden your view a bit and that has been an interesting
kind of thing….It’s a paradigm change that’s fairly large to think of the larger
community rather than your own department.
The STP attempts to help participants shape a vision for the future and to help
them understand that only the shape of the future can be predicted. All of the participants
believed the future could not be predicted, but some expressed the belief that one could
construct some parameters around what the future might look like, based in knowing
historical data and looking outward to the surrounding environment. D2 explained his/her
belief as:
I mean we can hypothesize and learn from history, we learn from the past and we
have expectations, but no, I think more than ever it is harder to predict…given the
nature of the world…that we live in. I think we need to be facile and adaptable.
When asked about whether one can predict the future, D1 suggested it is more of being
able to respond, then actually predicting what might happen. “I think the key to
leadership at any institution level is…to be able to quickly anticipate the consequences
and where things might be going as you resolve that.” D5 commented that “I think
people need to think that in order to live in a predictable kind of life, but in fact, it’s
really a matter of adapting to changing circumstances.”
89
The framework of the study proposes that strategic thinking skills include the
synthesis of data, systems thinking, and the use of reflection and reframing in a strategic
thinking planning process. Synthesis of data was a key part of the STP process. An
analysis of the archival documents found throughout the process, evidence that the
collection of data and the synthesis of that data took place during the strategic listening
and strategic conversation steps in the process (see Figure 4.2). Through the use of
strategic listening sessions, emails and face-to-face meetings; the navigating committee
collected data, observations and comments from the entire department; created memos
that were then distributed to all department members for comments and final
presentations on the data. The use of these elements was found in the archival
documents listed in Appendix D.
The participants confirmed the document findings that the process used a strong
process of synthesis to evaluate data collected. Participants described the processes of
synthesis, reflection and reframing during the interviews. They also described use of
systems thinking through their description of the broadly inclusionary activities of
meetings, on-line comment sessions and draft memos shared with all department
members. The use of synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing ultimately
resulted in the formulation of a statement of strategic intent for the department to guide
the priorities and work of the department. All but one participant described the process of
synthesis, systems thinking and reframing, as it occurred in the planning process. The
following comments support the finding of use of strategic thinking in the STO process
and the formulation of a statement of strategic intent.
90
D1: We looked at numbers…we looked at involvements; we looked at data,
patterns and trends. We saw feedback from policy makers and people that run on
the cutting edges. [There were] people that gave us their perceptions of what we
do.
D5: For analyzing qualitative data… the secretary created the minutes. Then we
could do the same kind of qualitative coding. We had minutes, so yes whether you
call it data or information…other times it was listening and getting input from
faculty. Trying to make sense of what people said, synthesize it and then put it
together to go to the faculty and say “Is this what we said? Is this what we want?
And, then go through the struggles, tensions and dialogue around that.
D4: Our assignment was to take in some of what we learned and the other was to
have these…exchanges with faculties around a table in terms of what do you
value? Why do you value that? Then the navigating committee would go back
and try to put it in a form to then feed back to the group. They would then reflect
on it. There would be more fine-tuning and going forward, then going back until it
became a final draft…then move on to the next step of seeing how different parts
connected….I remember, you know, certain meetings where we would go on and
on over a word and what something meant. It was important because words matter
and they are going to be posted. We are going to live by these words. So, there
was a lot of give and take.
D2: This was an alien sort of thing to me, but it was kind of interesting. The most
interesting part of the whole process itself was the chatting with your colleagues
and hearing what they have to say in their opinions and such.
91
The one exception to this consistent recall of the actual process was participant D3.
He/she did not believe that data had been analyzed in such a way as to support the
researcher’s finding that there was synthesis of data, systems thinking, reframing and
reflection in the STP process.
The big problem I had with the data collection process is that I did not really see
the quantitative perspective in this process in meaningful ways…there was some
but not enough at all in my opinion…I worked very hard to prepare a report and
presented data, much like I would have presented at a scholarly conference or for
a consulting job. But, it did not go anywhere. We did not do anything with the
data.
The STP used reframing to move participants toward a shared understanding of
where the department is, where it is headed and how it will get there. The actual process
of reframing was viewed as a key benefit in the process by the participants. The analysis
of data found that use of reframing did result in a change in member’s beliefs about the
department, a change in participant’s assumptions about the department and planning,
and in some cases, reframing lowered resistance to a strategic thinking process versus the
traditional business model of strategic planning. Participant D1 noted “my beliefs about
the department have really changed” and D2 stated that “I am probably learning more
about other people, so in some sense, yes.” D3 felt the process changed some of his/her
assumptions “I have a better idea of some issues. But, it has helped me to learn more
about the thinking of the visiting and junior faculty.” D5 described a change in his/her
assumption about their role in the process:
92
As the process continued and it was clear that it was attempting to get a consensus
from every member of the department, I started to feel obligated to take it more
seriously, because I was no longer able to just think about myself. I had to think
about the fact that I was reposting back to faculty….I felt there was a leadership
responsibility that I hadn’t felt before when I first started, so in that sense I
changed.
D5 continued to describe reframing of the data collected from the outside, as well as from
internal members of the department. He/she felt a responsibility to ensure that all voices
were heard and took on a broader view of the department, resulting in a more systems
thinking based approach to the work.
The charge was to take what we heard at the department meeting and make sure
that we considered everything that was said, so we were not dismissive and
because the committee was made up of representatives from different programs. It
was not unusual for one person to recollect something that others had forgotten
and then bring it back to the table. So in fact, if the word is voice, I would say the
voices of the faculty were definitely heard, definitely considered and then the
synthesis priority process came together so that we could report back….so the
process was and that is what the process was meant to do. The process is meant to
come up with convergence commonalities.
And, D4 confirmed the use of synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing in
his/her description of the process of taking in the data, then creating documents to present
back to department members, until consensus was reached.
93
Actually it was a good year, each month, faculty meetings having an outsider, an
external individual speak to us. That happened at a variety of levels and from a
whole number of angles. The intent was to learn, to find out about the world out
there and what do they expect from us? What do they see going on and what are
their concerns? Challenge wise [it was] to digest and think about, and dismiss it,
use it, make sense of it as more background information as we went forward to
the next stage. Which was then given what we know, what do we want to do?
The managerial role in strategy making and implementation in the study
framework proposes that lower level managers have a voice in strategy making and that
those managers have an understanding of the larger system, the connection between those
roles and the functioning of the system. It is also proposed that managers clearly
understand the independence between various roles that comprise the system. There was
limited data on the implementation element of the study framework, but participants
described the managerial role in the creation of strategy and some comments on
implementation were collected. The participants articulated their knowledge of the larger
system and their roles within it. D2 described the committees that have been formed to
begin implementing the strategies, supporting the finding that there is an understanding
that the department chair alone is not responsible for the implementation of the statement
of strategic intent.
What has happened is that there are committees that have been created to explore
and make actionable the various aspirations. So there are committees that are
currently doing that and discussing those things that might be done in support of
94
that aspiration….It takes time to change paradigms after you have done what you
are doing for scores over the years.
D5 understood the managerial role in strategy making and implementation as being
measured against activity to date. He/she expressed the perception that lower level
faculty, not just the chair of the department, have a real voice in strategy making.
Look what we did last year. We looked to integrate the values so success of the
first year process, absolutely. Are we seeing evidence of it in follow up activities?
That is yet to be seen. Unlikely, but hopeful….The example of the syllabi is the
example of that there’s an attempt. There’s a good faith attempt. So if at the end
of this year, people look at whether or not we have embedded the core values into
the syllabi and if we see deficiencies, if there is the commitment and the will to
insist that those professors didn’t go far enough. Then we can say it has life….So
again, the strong point is the fact that these things have been written down and it
now allows any professor at any level to raise their hand and ask the question.
Which is the strategic planning question that I think is the real value of the
strategic plan.
The use of a centrally posted statement of strategic intent, in the department entrance
hallway, was signed by everyone (faculty and staff) in the department. It has, in the
opinion of participant D4, created an environment where every individual in the
department understands their role and the connection between those roles. It has fostered
knowledge about the functioning of those roles in the larger universe of the college,
university and external environments.
95
It was a symbolic gesture [of the department chair] to show how important this
was to…put it in a prominent place and to make sure that people knew that we
were working for something and it wasn’t just an exercise. Hopefully, having
spent all this time thinking about goals, mission and vision and that kind of
stuff…. Yes, I think that’s probably the biggest effect… I think that we actually
intend to shape our future, to have sense of who we are, and put some of that in
writing…declaring it along the way…we have these aspirations, this mission and
this notion of who we want to become, so now it’s the idea of becoming.
Four of the participants agreed with D1’s perception that the managerial role in the
making of the strategy and the implementation is not just the role of the manager at the
top of the organization, but as a result of this process, falls to the lower levels, and is
being incorporated at the lower levels.
We got these committees set-up, our plans being set-up of how we can get to
where we want to go. That to some extent is part of the piece of the still living
document. That’s how we live it. That’s how we make decisions…..There were
committees that have been developed around their priorities. People themselves
selected the committees that they wanted tied into looking into our priorities.
D2 perceived the role of strategy making and implementation as happening at the lower
level also.
That’s what we are doing now, so we have the aspirations and now the
subcommittees whatever they are called, each of the aspiration committees…each
one of these committees are thinking about how do we get there and this is, this is
part of the departmental process.
96
D5 described the change in his/her belief that strategy making and implementation
needed to just happen at the top level of management.
What it did for me was it gave me – because the process was so participatory –
the ability to see the thinking of individual people….I would not have experience
if the traditional hierarchical model where the department chair peaks to full
professors and we move on to the next item on the agenda [was used]. This
changes that for me. So in sense it did change my thinking about strategic
planning. It gave me more insight into how a participatory leader is good in itself.
We can’t learn to respect people if we always silence them.
In contrast to the other participants, D3’s perception was that the lower level manager,
i.e.: faculty did not have voice in strategy making.
The reality is that faculty is not as independent as they may think. Faculty can
spend as much time as they want talking about whatever in their academic world,
but at the end of the day, the real priorities of the institution are set at senior levels
and faculty are the recipients of those priorities.
The analysis of archival documents and participant interviews found that the
process created a framework that generated a picture of what the organization will look
like in the future. This framework encompassed the strategic thinking process elements of
control and alignment from the study’s framework. The element of control relies on self-
reference and is measured by whether a sense of strategic intent and purpose is embedded
in the minds of the managers throughout the department. This sense of strategic intent
then helps to guide individual’s choices on a daily basis; in a process that is often difficult
to measure and monitor from above. This difficulty in measuring progress from above
97
was described by D3, and whose beliefs ascribe to a traditional business model of
strategic planning.
Lofty goals are wonderful, but we should be able to measure progress along the
way, in objective ways if they were to be truly useful….The charge at the
beginning of the year was that all-subcommittees were going to give a report at
the final departmental faculty meeting. Well there was no report from any
subcommittee. This was not even on the agenda. So to me that was a good
indication that it petered out.
The element of alignment was found to have been used in the department
planning process. Alignment is a vertical and horizontal action, across all members of the
organization that is measured by whether or not the process has gained synchronization
among the members of the team. In other words, are all members of the team working
together in the common pursuit of the aspirations and priorities, expressed in the
statement of strategic intent? D4 perceived that this is possibly just beginning and is
ongoing in the work of the department.
We have to see what happens. How it evolves. I mean it’s in people’s
minds…Well, one thing we have done, I have been on another committee, where
we have taken the core courses and also in our program area meetings, we are
looking at the program area specific courses to see where are those values
reflected. And so, we have looked at every single course trying to identify where
they [values] are already present and then thinking is there some place…are there
any gaps where they need to be more visible?…and the world’s just going to keep
98
moving whether or not you put a structural or conceptual framework around it,
it’s going to happen.
D1 perceived a change to a more horizontal behavior across the department and cited the
changes in how the department is working to better meet the needs of the student and a
change in the work during faculty meetings.
Yes, there are committees that have been developed around their priorities. People
themselves selected the committees that they wanted to be tied into looking in on
our priorities…much more student friendly, much more efficient and organized in
the way we deal with people…Systems have been set up for new protocols of how
we deal with admissions to other processes. We have some attitudes that are
starting to filter in the way we communicate with students, much differently than
the way we did before….Oh, hugely changed the activities of how we spent our
time in faculty meetings and the time allocated for meetings…we spent more time
talking in faculty meetings about values and budgeted time to interview people.
D5 expressed the importance of giving an opportunity to everyone during the process to
be heard, and then how those voices were integrated into the direction of the department.
Ultimately, this helped to build synchronization among the team members.
We were giving voice to the voices of the department. I think that modulated the
differences that could have emerged at the navigating committee. When we went
back to the department and reported back what the navigating committee said,
that’s where some people would say “I don’t remember us going there.” Then the
facilitator would turn to the people on the navigating committee. So I think that
99
was an effective method that does tend to reinforce a convergence. It doesn’t have
the ability to resurrect divergence.
In the making of strategy, the study framework proposes that a strategic thinking
model of planning sees strategy and change as inescapably linked. The strategic thinking
model also proposes that finding new strategic options and implementing them
successfully is harder and more important than evaluating them. The participants in this
case were not in agreement when asked whether they believed strategy and change are
linked. There was no data found to support the participant’s perception of linkage. D2
stated “I think what happens is usually we have strategy and we ignore the strategy we
create.” D3 was focused on the need for resources as a key to this linkage.
It is much easier to be strategic when there is plenty of money because money
covers up a lot of errors; but, when resources are being cut back, then those with
votes “circle the wagons” to protect themselves and form coalitions to help
protect their interests.
D5 also answered the question in relation to the planning process needing to be linked to
the budgeting process.
So that means I’m a little skeptical of planning that’s not connected to budgeting.
I’m also skeptical that when it leaves, when the plan goes to the policy makers,
the planners lose control of the process.
D4 believes “change happens with or without strategy. I also think you could have
strategies and no change.”
The elements of process and outcomes and value specification were evidenced in
the data analysis of the participant’s interviews. All of the participants saw the planning
100
process itself as a critical value-adding element. In addition, all of the participants
indicated the specification of values was present as a self-referencing point in the minds
of the participants. In addition to the process itself having value, the process creates a
self- reference point in the minds of the participants, where the traditional strategic
planning model uses measurement to control and coordinate activity.
When participants responded to the question of whether the process itself added
value to the plan, all of the participants agreed that it did. D4 said that “already I have
heard comments…in terms of our values about being collegial, civil and respectful. When
those things don’t happen, the comment becomes: So what happened to our values?” D3
initially answered the question stating that “I think planning can add value. I think it can
also be a potential bomb.” He/she then expanded further on that statement.
I think planning can backfire if the follow through is weak or non-existent. Often
the discussions about vision and values were fun, but I fear that some of our
important bread and butter issues did not get addressed this year….One cannot
really argue with anything in that value statement. The department’s statement is
that our values lead the way, but our behavior is the true indicator of our values.
D3 also described how the values were a self-referencing point in the work being done in
the department.
Each department, each preliminary committee was charged with a curriculum
point of view, to review their curriculum in regard to the priorities. The priorities
seem to be the values primarily and then how we can embed those values into the
course
D1 described the creation of value and resulting alignment of the group.
101
I think it’s true that process of really talking about who we are and what our
values are, that you create more than just a value. You create a sense of cohesion
to a group; an identity with that group. So it creates something better than just a
value itself….an opportunity to when we are making decisions at the department
level to talk about them. To reference back to what our values are. So it really is a
good source for us to live it in other words. We have been taking our values that
we all collectively approve and we devote about half an hour to each meeting, just
to talk about what this does mean….We have a discussion about it. So we are not
letting those values leave the room.
D5 described the attempt of integration of the values in helping to control and coordinate
the activities of the department.
So, the first couple of syllabi were looked at…and then someone like me says, but
wait a second, I thought last year we went through a strategic planning process.
Should the syllabi reflect the values, mission and goals of the strategic plan, even
before it reflects the external authorities? That has to get said two or three
times…and then the activity changes….Look at what we did last year. We looked
to integrate the values so success of the first year process, absolutely. Are we
seeing evidence of it in follow-up activities? That’s yet to be seen. The example
of the syllabi is the example of that there’s been an attempt. There’s a good faith
attempt.
The framework for the study proposes that a strategic thinking planning process
only creates minimum specifications related to goals and objectives. The strategies for
meeting the aspirations of the statement of strategic intent are created during the strategic
102
execution phase of the STP. Again, the researcher did not collect data on the strategic
execution phase of the process, but participants made some observations about this
element of minimum specifications. In particular were the comments from D3 who was
frustrated that goals were not created in greater specificity.
An outcome was a mission, values, aspiration and priorities. No goals. So, I can’t
answer that question because I do not see any goals….Assigning sub-committees
to come up with work plans for all the priorities has created a nightmare process.
One the worst things that administrators can do, is create a new committee to
implement a committee’s vision, especially when none of this is linked to SACS,
NCATE or the University’s plan. But, in terms of the utility of how useful it
is…the statements look great on the wall and have some utility regarding a better
understanding of who we are and what we are now. But, statements are empty if
the behavior is not congruent with the words.
The element of strategic fitness is determined by whether the planning process is
a fit to external and internal environment of the organization. As was discussed above in
the elements of process and outcome, and value specification, the planning process was
perceived to add value to the plan. But, the study also found evidence that participants
perceived that the process collected, synthesized, and incorporated data from both
internal and external environments. The analysis of the archival documents supported this
finding with evidence of numerous speakers, reports and readings from the college,
university, local, state and national sources. There was an underlying recognition from
D1 about alignment of the department’s plan with the university.
103
The trick of that is bounding the university initiatives and visions into the
department vision. And, eventually the university will start…with the president
moving toward her vision or an interaction with her university. She is moving
strategically. I see evidence around and at some point in time we will have to
translate that into the…department.
And, as was noted in the preceding section D3, did not perceive that the planning process
was a fit externally with the university or the external accrediting agencies. The
researcher is unable to conclude that the element of strategic fitness resulted from the
STP process in this case. The final proposed strategic thinking dimension of the study’s
framework, chucking change, is part of the strategic execution phase of the STP.
The first finding of this study; that the department followed a strategic thinking
planning process, was evidenced in the data, wherein the 14 measured dimensions of the
study’s framework, 11 were found to be used in the planning process of the department.
The elements included: social-cognitive model of change; vision of the future; strategic
thinking skills; strategic listening; strategic conversations; managerial role in strategy
making; managerial role in implementation; control; alignment; process and outcome,
and value specification. The remaining 3 elements measured in this study: strategy
making, minimum specifications and strategic fitness were not found to be supported in
the analysis of the data. The use of the STP ultimately resulted in the creation and
adoption of a statement of strategic intent for the department. The purpose of the
statement of strategic intent is to provide a strategic direction for the department’s
decision making and resource allocation in the future.
104
Successful Model of Change
The purpose of this study was to identify elements of strategic planning processes
that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of a higher education
institution. The researcher proposed that the use of a planning process that incorporated
the study’s framework of strategic thinking elements would result in creating an effective
process. A successful strategic planning process is defined in this study as a process that
alters the attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the institution, its employees and the
public. As described above, the data found that the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of the
participants had been altered. In addition, the analysis of interview data supports the
finding that the participants viewed the process as a successful strategic planning process.
Most of the participants perceived the process as successful, with the noted
exception of one participant. D1 summed up his/her answer to the question of whether
the process was a success or not as “extremely.” Participant D2 thought it was too early
to make a judgment on the longer term impact of the process, but perceived that the
process was successful.
So this has been kind of fun, kind of interesting and certainly educational for me
in the sense of the process. I don’t have any idea whether it will have any impact
on what we do…I think it was very well done…it was very
successful….Although it has been a lot of time…I would go in the direction of
still already worthwhile. Even if it doesn’t change anything organizationally, I
would say it has been a worthwhile endeavor to have.
D4’s perception also supported the finding that the process was successful. The
participant did include clarifying comments about this question asked being early in the
105
process. He/she felt that they might possibly not be able to make a final judgment until
further implementation of strategies that are developed, as a result of the work of action
committees.
It was a process, it was a good process. I think a healthy process…but to put that
kind of judgment on it…I don’t know until I see how we evolve as a department,
as a unit, as a culture, and also productivity. What kind of action is taken? I mean
already I’ve heard comments around, we have, in terms of our values about being
collegial, civil and respectful, when these things don’t happen, the comment
becomes so what happened to our values? I think we are starting and that’s where
I would expect us to be at this phase.
The definition of a successful process was unique for each participant. D5 defined a
successful process as understandable by all and the resulted creation of the statement of
strategic intent, which was ultimately adopted by the department.
Yes, so I think that speaks to the fact that it was comprehensive for everyone.
They could comprehend what they were being asked to do at every single stage,
otherwise you would hear comments like “I’m lost”…but we didn’t hear any of
that….I think it was very successful for producing a document, extremely
successful and I think for example, if you look at the wall, when you walk in the
to the department of educational leadership, you see the end products of the
strategic plan with signatures like the declaration of independence. You actually
see people walk by it, both the signers as well as the service in the department.
The smile on their faces across the board point to the success of that aspect of the
106
process that is it created a document. It created a living document. It created a
tangible living document. That’s a success.
In contrast to the other four participants, D3 perceived that the process was not
successful because it took too long, his/her expectations of expected outcomes were not
met, data was not assessed and the planning took place without regard for the other
planning processes occurring at the university level.
As the process progressed, it was clear that many of us were headed toward
“burn-out.”…I would ask that there be a limit to the amount of contact hours that
we are expected to contribute…more focus on using data for decision
making…this plan should not be undertaken in isolation of other plans and
planning processes that are recognized and in place. That is a biggie. We have
NCATE, SACS and the university strategic plan already. This process seemed to
be clearly outside all that and was viewed, at least by me, as being an add on; to
what we already have in place…I think it was mildly successful, but it depends on
how you measure success. How successful has the process been? I would say not
as successful as I would have liked….I also feel this has been an incredible
exercise in group think. I have learned a lot about group think….I would not do it
this way, no.
The researcher also asked whether the process had helped to change the
participant’s beliefs about the department. The researcher found that the process had
resulted in altering the beliefs of most of the participants. D3 described the change in
his/her own thinking and activities.
107
I have a better idea of some issues. I love to learn. I think this may have been of
particular use to junior faculty and those in visiting lines. But, this has helped me
learn more about the thinking of the visiting and junior faculty. I think that faculty
is doing whatever they were doing before this planning process, but they are
finding a new way to link it what they have been doing to these priorities.
Participant D5 was clear that the process was working toward a shared vision for all and
described that patterns and priorities did emerge from the planning process. The level of
participation of the department was also noted as a result of the process.
What is did for me was it gave me – because the process was so participatory –
the ability to see the thinking of individual people. And I was impressed. I walked
away from the table saying, how lucky I am to be sitting at the table with such
talented people.
I would say it had 98-99% participation at the department level….Both patterns
and priorities emerged. I can’t say I know logically that one would want to first
have the pattern and then the priority, but I think the interface of pattern priority
was so fluid that when someone heard more than one statement, on a particular
topic, the people focus and identify that statement as important. They could
recognize it.
Department Case Summary
In summary, the two findings of this case study were that the STP provided a
strategic thinking planning process for the department and the process was found to be
successful as defined in this study and was also successful in the opinions of the
participants. The majority of the elements of the study framework were found to be used
108
in the process in both the archival documents and the interview data of the navigating
committee members. The success of the process was evidenced in the data analysis of the
interviews of the participants. The use of the STP resulted in the creation and adoption of
a statement of strategic intent that included mission, aspiration, guiding principles and
priorities/initiatives to guide the department in program and hiring decisions in the future.
The participants were supportive of the process, felt that there was clear value in the
process and are optimistic about the implementation of the plan going forward.
College of Education, Southeastern University
The College of Education undertook a strategic thinking/planning initiative in
January, 2010 under the leadership of a recently appointed Dean of the college. The Dean
has been a member of the faculty and administrator in the college since 1988. Upon
appointment, the Dean observed the planning process that the Department of Educational
Leadership had undertaken and was interested in conducting the same or similar process
at the college. The process was introduced to the executive committee (faculty and
administrators) of the college by the Dean, and a steering committee for the strategic
thinking/planning process was formed.
Planning process: The Strategic Planning Protocol© (STP)
The strategic thinking process as described in the Department of Educational
Leadership and Research Methodologies case study was essentially the same process
used by the college. The only difference was the planning committee was called a
steering committee in the college versus the navigating committee in the department case.
The process used the two phases: strategic thinking and strategic execution (Figure 7).
109
Strategic Thinking Strategic Execution
Figure 7. The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009).
Formation and charge to the steering committee.
The steering committee had an initial membership of ten individuals. Membership
included the Dean, eight tenured faculty members, including the facilitator, and one
administrator. Steering committee members that agreed to participate in this study
represented various programs in the college and included 4 tenured faculty members and
1 administrator. The combined years of the faculty participants interviewed for this study
was 74 years. The single administrator had been with the college for just over three years.
The college’s website provided an introduction, statement about the process from
the Dean and list of committee members:
The College is embarking on a journey to discover our future. The College of
Education is OUR College. Strategic thinking/planning is OUR way of doing
strategic planning. I have asked [the facilitator] to coordinate our trip. [He] will be
working with the steering committee and all of you to insure that our journey is
fruitful. I have appointed, with the advice of department chairs the following
members of the steering committee: [list omitted]. The steering committee has
developed our work plan. I have cleared my schedule to work through the
Steering
Committee
Intent Convene
Quality
Committee
& Action
Teams
110
Strategic Thinking Protocol and ask that you fully engage in the process. In this
way we will have produced a plan for OUR College that will guide our work over
the next 3-5 years. Let’s enjoy the journey together!
The charge given to the steering committee by the Dean was to execute a two
phase process, the STP. Phase 1 was the data collection portion of the process in which
the committee’s responsibility was to help identify what individuals the college should
hear from, attend monthly full college meetings with external and internal individuals,
take notes and send those to the facilitator for development of summary statements. Phase
2 of the process was the development of a statement of strategic intent. The committee
was asked to meet monthly throughout the planning timeframe to discuss five strategic
conversation questions. Following each of those meetings, a written statement was to be
drafted from each conversation to include the mission, core values, aspiration and
priorities for action. The goal of the process was to produce a written statement of
strategic intent that included the following outcomes listed in Table 4.2.
Findings
The results of the data analysis in this case support a primary finding that the
college followed a strategic thinking model of planning. The analysis also supports a
secondary finding that the process created a successful model of change as defined in this
study and as perceived by the participants interviewed in the study (Table 4.5). The
elements of the study’s conceptual framework are listed in (Table 4.6) and include a brief
description of what was found in the analysis of the data. At the time of the study, the
college was actively engaged in the first four steps of the STP. The steering committee
was in the process of finalizing a draft statement of strategic intent for submission to all
111
members of the college for their final approval and adoption. The purpose of this study
was to identify the elements of a strategic planning process that meets the unique
organizational planning features of a higher education organization. The timing of the
collection of data was prior to the strategic execution phase, therefore no data was
collected on implementation.
Table 4.5
Findings and Data Sources for the College
Primary Finding: College
process utilized a strategic
thinking process.
Secondary Finding: The
STP process was
perceived as successful by
the participants.
Interviews 5/ 5 participants 4/ 5 participants
Observations 5/5 observations 5/5 observations
Document Review 17/17 Documents 17/17 Documents
The college process utilized a strategic thinking process. The primary finding
of this study is derived from analysis of the archival documents, direct observations and
interviews with the participants that served on the steering committee of the college. The
study framework (Figure 1) served as the guiding matrix for the development of codes,
themes and analysis. The researcher then created a third matrix, using the study
framework, and compared the data against the framework (Table 4.6). The analysis of
the data supported the finding that the process utilized the elements of strategic thinking
to create a statement of strategic intent for the college that provides a strategic direction
that should guide the college’s decision making and resource allocation for the next 3-5
years.
112
(continued on next page)
Table 4.6
Study Framework and Findings for the College
Department
Case
Data Analysis Supports the Following
Elements of
Process
Change Model Used a social-cognitive model of change, including
political and cultural elements.
Vision of the
Future
Beliefs of participants were that only the shape of
the future can be predicted.
Strategic Thinking
Skills
Used synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and
reframing.
Strategic Listening Evidenced through formal collection of
perspectives, data analysis and synthesis.
Strategic
Conversations
Strongly evident – participants understand the
larger system and how they connect to it.
Managerial Role in
Strategy Making
Lower level managers have a voice in strategy
making.
Managerial Role in
Implementation
Implementation not measured in study, but
participants understood the larger system and the
functioning of the system.
Strategic
Formulation and
Implementation
Not measured in study.
Control Did not find a sense of strategic intent and purpose
embedded in the minds of the managers throughout
the college that guided their choices on a daily
basis in a process that is often difficult to measure
and monitor from above.
Alignment Found that process was horizontal – gained
synchronization among team.
Strategy Making Found participants viewed strategy and change as
linked. No data found to support the assumptions of
participants that finding new strategic options and
implementing them successfully is harder and more
important than evaluating them.
113
(Table 4.6 continued)
Process and Outcome Sees the planning process itself as
a critical value-adding element.
College did not focus on the
creation of the plan as the ultimate
objective.
Value Specification Did not find this to be a strong
component – creates self -
reference points in the minds of
the participants. Uses values to
control and coordinate activity.
Minimum Specifications Found the statement of strategic
intent will function as a guiding
document. Lacks measurable
components and has minimum
specifications.
Strategic Fitness Observed that process was a fit to
external and internal environment.
Did find the process adds value to
the plan.
Chunking Change Not measured in this study.
Findings
Finding #1: Type of
Planning Process
Used
14 out of 16 elements
measured and 11 of 14 used
in the planning process.
Evidenced in the analysis of
the data.
Strategic Thinking
Finding #2: Type of
Change Created and
Effectiveness of
Process
Successful
Altered the attitudes, values,
beliefs and behaviors of the
college.
It is proposed in the study framework that strategic thinking process uses a social-
cognitive model of change that includes political and social elements in the change
process. Evidence in this case of a change process that recognizes the cultural and
114
political realities of the college, support the finding that this element was present in the
college’s planning process. C1 described the political environment that the college found
itself to be part of.
We are influenced greatly by the political process here in the state especially and
a lot of things that are going to happen in this college in the near future are being
dictated to us by decisions made in the state legislature, good or bad. So we are
not independent as much as we like to think we are, but very much influenced by
the political processes that occur.
The other participants referenced and commented on the political environment
surrounding the college and the effect of that environment on their own destinies. C2
commented on the external influences and social setting of the college, recognizing the
need for awareness of outside influences as planning took place.
I definitely do….because it is a reality. I mean we’re in a world where there are
lots of pressures and a lot of things that are affecting what we do, and you know,
you have to be realistic and – and people have to know what is expected, but also
what their barriers are, or what potential opportunities are out there.
Other members of the committee were aware of the political and social issues, both
externally and internally to the college, and the effect those issues had on the actual
planning process itself. C4 expressed frustration with the control that the state places on
the college, thereby possibly limiting the college’s ability to make substantial change.
Depending what you are thinking about programmatically…very little
independence, we have to do what we are told. The education programs, the initial
certification programs…everything is driven by [the state]. DOE type of things
115
and of course our national accreditation also drives what…and that affects us
more than maybe any other program.
C5 commented on the use of the listening sessions that allowed for the presentation of
realities in the political and social arenas inside and outside the college.
Yeah, we have that session…one of the speakers was the chairman of the house
higher education committee of the [state] legislature, who talked about from a
legislator’s standpoint, how do we see higher education. Not surprisingly, they
don’t see higher education that same way that academics see it.
There was a clear recognition from participant C3 that he/she was aware and recognized
the opinions others at the university held toward the college in general.
I hate to say this, but at every university where there is a college of
ed[ucation]…the other colleges just think it is a joke. I mean it’s because it is all
process….I think it’s why some people in our college don’t even like being in the
college of ed[ucation].
The researcher also found evidence in the document analysis and observations to
support the perception of the participants of the presence of social and cultural elements
in the change process. In the initial session observation the researcher noted that the
participants were more internally focused on their own departments and interests.
Comments were framed in terms of “in my department, in my research, I think, I
believe…” This observed behavior changed over the course of the five sessions. By the
fifth session observed, participants were speaking in terms of “we, our college and us”
which was a noted change in the social element and interaction among the participants
observed. An analysis of documents at the conclusion of the five strategic conversations
116
revealed that the group’s references had evolved to “we aspire to, our main concerns are,
a group of faculty members…” and the level of “I” references had decreased
significantly, from the majority to only an occasional reference. Reflecting on this
process, participant C2 stated:
There are a lot of people who really don’t want us to lose sight of what’s
important for the college…there has been a lot of discussion at the meetings about
how we are perceived by local community people, by state, and nationally. So, if
we don’t know how we are perceived, we don’t know how we can serve the
community best… I think we have a better idea of where we stand and how we
are perceived because we have recent data from the observations, interviews,
focus group sessions and all the listening sessions. I think we all have a better
idea. I think it’s important because to hear that because you might think you know
where we stand, but when you hear it, and you are like WOW, I didn’t know
people felt that way, that – that is important.
The STP attempts to assist participants in creating a vision for the future and to
help them understand that only the shape of the future can be predicted. The participants
in this study believe that only the shape of the future can be predicted. The analysis of the
data supports the finding that this element of the study framework was present. C2 stated
that he/she thought the future could be predicted “to an extent, I think it can be
predicted…but you don’t have total control over things.” C3 simply stated “No.” C4 also
stated “no” but elaborated further his/her belief that the actual future cannot be predicted,
but you can have some idea about what the future might look like.
117
No…but I think you can still strategize and plan around possible outcomes. But
totally predicted; no. I wouldn’t say it’s predictable but yet you try to think about
the possible and alternative avenues and outcomes. Then strategize them in
multiple ways so you [don’t] get trapped in just one.
Committee member C1 also shared a similar belief.
I do not think you can predict the future, but you can certainly anticipate the
future. I think that is as best as you can do. I do not think you could predict
something. I think that as part of the planning process you are always trying to
anticipate the future and in some ways you are trying to shape the future. So, I
would say you try to anticipate the future, you can try and shape the future, but I
don’t think you can predict it.
And, C5 described an example of how unpredictable the future is and the resulting
problems in trying to do so.
I think certain elements of the future can be predicted. On the other hand, there
are always factors that we can’t predict. No one could have predicted exactly the
2008 recession and subsequent budget crunches and how bad it has affected
schools. Also how that has affected people’s thinking. Because, all of a sudden,
ideas that were untenable before the budget crunch, now become tenable as a way
to save money.
The framework for the study proposes that a strategic thinking process utilizes
strategic thinking skills. These skills include the use of synthesis of data, evidence of
systems thinking, reflection and reframing to build consensus and agreement. The
framework also proposes that the use of strategic listening and strategic conversations is
118
part of the process. The STP uses strategic listening and strategic conversations to
incorporate strategic thinking skills in the process. The participants were asked if the
process was characterized by logic, reasoning, numbers and rational thinking, C4
perceived that was indeed the case.
I think all of it, we use because we had data…some of it is data driven. Some it
would come out of discussion…which again I like. It’s a mixture. You don’t have
just one resource…. We would go around the table. Then he [the facilitator]
would have us go around again, so you had a chance again after hearing
everybody else...and you would synthesize some more and you would analyze
more.
The analysis of the archival documents, including facilitator emails requesting
comments on steering committee drafts and the resulting responses (20-40 per request)
from faculty, supports evidence of the use of strategic thinking skills in the college
planning process. The use of synthesis, reflection and reframing were directly observed
by the researcher in each of the observed sessions. The facilitator used a round table
technique, asking for comments and thoughts, one at a time, then continued that process
until everyone had voiced their opinions and ideas. There were group exercises where the
facilitator would ask for smaller breakout group activity to reflect on what the
participants had heard and reframe those thoughts and ideas in different ways. Lastly, the
description by participants of the synthesis and use of systems thinking in the process was
recognized, although not always perceived as being important to the process. For
example, C1 describes the synthesis of data, but did not believe that it was useful in the
overall process.
119
What happened was we kind of put a synthesis of what was said by these different
individuals and then we allowed people, faculty to make comments on it. For each
of these, we got pages and pages and pages of responses. There is little you can do
with so much data. It’s not meaningful. It ceases to become meaningful when you
get that much data especially when you don’t stop at each level and say
okay…what does this mean?...I think it was too much information. I do not think,
in my opinion that we needed to get comments from every single faculty member
in the college. That is what the steering committee is there for. There was just so
much information and it was just so difficult to really process it.
Alternatively, C5 described the synthesis and decision making and found value in using
the data.
I think it was pretty open. I do not think there were any sacred cows that we could
not talk about. I did not hear anyone say “this is off limits, or that is off limits.” I
think we all went into the process with the idea that we will talk about whatever
we need to address…it would be silly to limit their input because it may well be
things that are outside that limit that you really need to hear it.
C2 described the steering committees charge as ultimately recommending a final version
of whatever piece they were working on, but described the use of synthesis in the
process.
That’s something I never noticed before at [planning] things I have been involved
with at other organizations. He [the facilitator] had us listening to everyone else.
So again, it’s validating people at a different level, but at the same time…it’s still
the steering committee’s decision. We have to in the end, be charged with
120
creating the final product based on data that we have collected and synthesized
from these multiple sources.
The STP used reframing to move participants toward a shared understanding of
where the college is, where it is headed and how it will get there. The analysis of the data
supported the researcher’s observations that steering committee member’s beliefs about
the college had changed. There was a change in their perceived role at the college and
reframing helped to lower their resistance to a strategic thinking model versus the
traditional business model of strategic planning. C2 expressed that the process helped to
create a framework for the participants to create a vision of the future and expanded
his/her knowledge of how others view the college.
Well, it’s giving people an opportunity to really think through strategically who
we are, what we want to be, who we should be, and how to go about doing that. A
lot of times people think that going through this process, just kind of going
through the motions, it’s something we just need to do, it’s more for fluff. But, I
think that if you have people who are definitely engaged and really buy into the
process, then they are really dedicated to it once you develop a plan to push it
forward….And I feel like it’s going to be different here at the college because
there’s a lot at stake. I really do feel like there are people who are going to make
sure that the strategic plan that we put in place; that we are actually going to move
actively towards making real change happen.
C3 also perceived the process helped to create a view of what the college would look like
in the future and also changed his/her belief about their role in the process.
121
I mean one thing we did was really lay out, here is our college, here is where it is,
what it is, here is what it stands for, and here are our aspirations and goals. So
everybody sort of knew that already, but it can’t be a bad thing getting it
clarified…I do the best I can to represent my department. But, maybe I do feel
differently as time has passed. I feel there is an element of representing the whole
college…So, I now feel that bending over backwards to be inclusive, that I didn’t
give that a thought to that when I started, I just gave my opinion…I think we are
in that process right now. I think it’s starting to take shape and it’s becoming
tighter, the vision of what we want. So, I think we will see that in the next –
through – the fall semester.
Participant C4 did not perceive that process changed their beliefs, but did find value in
expanding their knowledge of the external and internal environments.
I won’t say it changed my beliefs because I have always had positive beliefs. I
believe we are really cool and that people are doing wonderful things…but it has
helped to add to my information base and that’s always a good thing.
C5 expressed an opinion of the process to date and how the STP process was different
than other strategic planning processes, but is waiting until the implementation phase of
the process before rendering any final opinion.
I thought the steps were certainly logical and that we need to listen to all of the
stakeholders…but when you take people’s time and you pick their brains, and you
do nothing, it’s an insult…This approach here is much more thorough, because
it’s longitudinal and we are not always just talking to each other, but were looking
122
at different constituents. Do I support the process? Yes. Have I passed final
judgment on it? No.
The one exception to a change in beliefs or a lowering of resistance to strategic planning
as a result of the process was participant C1. He/she did not perceive the process had
changed their beliefs about the college and he/she also expressed a negative opinion
about strategic planning in general.
It is too early. What I would say is I do not think any strategic plan accomplishes
anything. That has always been my thing…My experience over the years here,
and talking to my colleagues at other institutions, is that the upper level
management generally do a poor job in planning…I think strategic plans are
words and unless those words are supported by a commitment and investment by
administration that’s all they are is words…the process that we went through, in
terms of gathering all this information, I struggled to see how it really helped us to
define the problem.
The managerial role in strategy making and implementation in the study
framework proposes that lower level managers have a voice in strategy making. Also,
that those managers have an understanding of the larger system; the connection between
those roles and the functioning of the system. It is proposed that managers clearly
understand the independence between various roles that comprise the system. At the time
of this study, the college was still in the strategic thinking phase of the STP, therefore no
data was collected on the managerial role in implementation of strategy. The analysis of
the data found that participants understood the larger system of the college, the
connection of those roles and functioning of that system. Participant C2 talked about the
123
roles of the leaders and that everyone has in the process and the need for information to
be shared broadly and deeply in the organization.
Definitely, the administrative team…the leader seems very involved, very
engaged and very concerned about the direction of the college. I think everyone
needs to be included, including the janitors….They know everything that is going
on. It’s like the secretary is the hub of the school….I do think you need to include
people because you are more likely to get them engaged in buying into the
process – and being a part of it, they feel valued. If they don’t feel like they are
really valued for it, you are less likely to get buy in, you know, and it hurts your
ability to move forward with the process.
C4 also shared the opinion that everyone needs to have the same information about the
forces that are impinging on the college and what their role is.
I think everybody needs to know what everybody else does…you need to explain
the process so you know whatever we can do to involve everybody at different
levels or whatever, at least even in a peripheral way so that they have an
understanding.
In response to the question of whether or not all managers need to be aware of the forces
impinging on the college, C3 did not support the idea of everyone knowing their role and
the connection to the functioning of the college.
I wouldn’t say all managers. Some people, it’s alright if they have tunnel vision,
because if they are managing their little piece and doing a good job, I do not see
every person can do every function.
124
The one participant, that did not perceive the process to have changed how they viewed
their role or how the process would change how they worked in the college, was C1.
He/she perceived themselves to be outside the wider functioning of the college and
therefore, not impacted by the process.
Personally speaking it is not going to change what I do. Our department doesn’t
have a formal strategic plan, but we what we do and I think very successfully, is
we look at our field and how it is changing at different levels. We kind of do this
process on our own but not in such a formalized process.
C5 discussed the primary issue was going to be the implementation portion of the plan.
He/she did feel that more than just the leader would have to be involved in the
implementation, but did qualify their comments with some concerns about the
willingness of everyone to take a role.
To me, the big elephant in the room is going to be…once we get all these data on
the table, what do we do when we have the collective professional profile to deal
with, specifically with critiques. So if we have graduate students and they say we
need more rigor in certain courses then, it’s hard to address that if you don’t know
specifically what courses they are. Because I am sure their answer did not show
there was significant rigor in all classes….When it is done, the key is going to be
are we willing to take those aspects of the process which call for serious
reflection, serious introspection and significant change, and act on those? Or will
we just focus on the complimentary aspects of the report and apt ourselves on the
back and shove the rest under the rug.
125
The analysis of archival documents and observations found that the process
generated a picture of what college will look like in the future. Memos, draft statements,
group generated mission, values and aspirations documents, were synthesized into a draft
statement of strategic intent. The draft statement had not been approved by the college
when data was collected for the study. The proposed framework of the study includes the
elements of control and alignment. The element of control relies on self-reference and is
measured by whether a sense of strategic intent and purpose is embedded in the minds of
the managers throughout the college. This sense of strategic intent then helps to guide
individual’s choices on a daily basis; in a process that is often difficult to measure and
monitor from above. The interview data did not support a finding that the element of
control was present in the minds any of the participants interviewed for the study.
The element of alignment was found to have been used in the college planning
process. Alignment is a vertical and horizontal action, across all members of the
organization that is measured by whether or not the process has gained synchronization
among the members of the team. In other words, are all members of the team working
together in the common pursuit of the aspirations and priorities, expressed in the draft
statement of strategic intent?
The majority of the participants perceived that the process had brought them
closer to other members of the department and had begun to align thinking, focus and
commitment in the college. Participant C4 stated “very, very and I think it [the process]
has helped.” C2 thought that more members of the college community would engage and
connect to the process as is progressed further.
126
I am still not sure some people are really going to see it until we get through to the
end, and maybe it will materialize more for some people. I think that those people
that are the most engaged have a pretty good idea….I think they have a really
good understanding….I feel pretty connected. I feel like being part of this process
has made me feel more connected because I’ve gotten to know different
faculty…and it’s helped me to get to know other people that I’ve worked with…I
feel like that has grown over the process.
C3 expressed her/his desire to represent only the department has changed as a result to
the process and their focus is more aligned with the intent of the entire college.
I do the best I can to directly represent my department. But, maybe I do feel more
differently as time has passed. I feel there is an element of representing the whole
college. I feel that [I am] bending over backwards to be inclusive, that I didn’t
give a thought to that when I started….I feel very connected.
When asked about the process, C5 described the difference between the STP process and
other planning process they had been involved with.
This approach here is much more thorough, because it is longitudinal and we’re
not just talking to each other, but were looking at different constituencies. So, I
support the process, I am not by nature a skeptic, but I will say this. Do I support
the process? Yes.
The element of alignment was important to C1, but he/she perceived that the process had
not gone far enough in that sense.
What I had hoped for, especially when you look at how things are changing in
terms of what’s being forced upon us by our government, how we are going to
127
change to respond to that? How do we model ourselves to make sure to survive? I
see right now that we are in a real battle with the legislature. Right now they are
not friendly to colleges of education. So, how do you confront that issue? I am not
sure that what we put forward really addresses that. So in my mind it has been a
bit frustrating. I think it was more of an open process. I think what we are trying
to do, at least my understanding is, to take this information and then formulate a
vision based on that.
In the making of strategy, the study framework proposes that a strategic thinking
model of planning views strategy and change as inescapably linked. The strategic
thinking model also proposes that finding new strategic options and implementing them
successfully is harder and more important than measuring them. Four of the five
participants perceive that strategy and change are linked, but C1 did not perceive that to
always be the case, “they can be, but I think they are usually not. C5 agreed but
predicated that belief on past successes.
Oh, yes, if you use a certain strategy that is historically shown to be less
successful, your chances of getting change are slim to none. And, I think one of
the successful strategies is to try and convince people, first all change is always
difficult. But, you have to convince them that they will be better served if the
change is enacted, then if the status quo remains….Because nobody likes to be
played with. Nobody likes to feel that they are not being taken seriously and
whatever comes of this, in order to address the weaknesses, some of the things
[we] will be able to do just by putting our heads together and coming up with a
different approach or better approach, but some other things cannot be.
128
When asked whether strategy and changed are linked, C2 believes that they are, but also
perceives that external influences may either force change, or prevent those strategies
from driving change in a meaningful way.
Yes…perhaps with so much change which is externally imposed, I just have to
think we have to be willing to change. I just feel like we are so surrounded by
rules and requirements that I am not sure this is going to do good at all. But, it
certainly won’t do any harm and it might clarify things.
Participant C4 stated “strategy and change yes I do. That’s kind of my thing, I am always
strategizing things.” C3 also perceived the external environment as affecting the linkage
of strategy and change. “Strategy and changed is linked. Perhaps with so much change
which is externally imposed, I just think we have to be willing to change.”
The study framework elements of process and outcomes and value specification
were evidenced in the data analysis of the participant’s interviews. Three of the
participants saw the planning process itself as a critical value-adding element.
Participants C1 and C5 both perceive the value is in the implementation of the plan, or
the end result of the process, not in the process itself. C5 stated “I think the process itself
is helpful, but the process itself has no more value than the institution’s willingness to
address the results.” C1 also linked the value of the process to the implementation, “I
think strategic plans are words and that unless those words are supported by a
commitment and an investment by administration that’s all they are is words.” C2
perceived the process as being of value.
Yes….It is giving people an opportunity to really think through strategically who
we are, what we want to be, who we should be and how to go about doing that. A
129
lot of times people think that going through this process, just kind of going
through the motions, it’s something we just need to do, it’s more for fluff. But, I
think if you have people who are definitely engaged, and really buy into the
process, then they are really dedicated once you develop a plan, to push it
forward.
C4 perceived the planning process as adding value to the organization.
Yes, I do think so and if not, even if we never got into good specifics. It’s good
for people to hear each other and listen to each other and kind of think about what
other people are thinking [about] what they are….that has been very informative
to me. That’s why I like participating.
The analysis of the interview data not did produce a finding that the specification
of values was present as a self-referencing point in the minds of the participants. The
analysis of observations and documents did support a finding that the college planning
process focused on the creation of the statement of strategic intent that would serve as a
guide for the college going forward.
The framework for the study proposes that a strategic thinking planning process
only creates minimum specifications related to goals and objectives. The strategies for
meeting the aspirations of the statement of strategic intent are created during the strategic
execution phase of the STP. Again, the researcher did not collect data on the strategic
execution phase of the process since it was outside the time frame for this study, but the
draft statement of strategic intent, presented as a final draft to the college for adoption has
minimum specifications and is evidence of such of this element being present in the
planning process.
130
The element of strategic fitness is determined by whether the planning process is
a fit to external and internal environment of the organization. As was discussed above in
the elements of process and outcome, and value specification, the planning process was
perceived to add value to the plan. The study also found evidence that participants
perceived that the process collected, synthesized, and incorporated data from both
internal and external environments. The observations of the strategic conversations and
analysis of the archival documents supported this finding with evidence of numerous
speakers, reports and readings from the college, university, local, state and national
sources. During the strategic conversations there was a continual referencing back to the
university, national, state and local issues and whether the values, vision, mission and
aspirations were a “good fit” with what the participants had heard in the strategic
listening sessions. The final proposed strategic thinking dimension of the study’s
framework, chunking change, is part of the strategic execution phase of the STP.
The first finding of this study, that the college followed a strategic thinking
planning process, was evidenced in the data, wherein the 14 measured dimensions of the
study’s framework, The first finding of this study; that the department followed a
strategic thinking planning process, was evidenced in the data, wherein the 14 measured
dimensions of the study’s framework, 11 were found to be used in the planning process
of the department. The elements included: social-cognitive model of change; vision of
the future; strategic thinking skills; strategic listening; strategic conversations;
managerial role in strategy making; alignment; process and outcome; value
specification; and strategic fitness. The remaining 3 elements measured in this study:
control, strategy making, and minimum specifications were not found to be supported in
131
the analysis of the data. The use of the STP ultimately resulted in the creation and of a
draft statement of strategic intent for the college. The purpose of the statement of
strategic intent in the future will be to provide a strategic direction for the college’s
decision making and resource allocations.
Successful Planning Process
The purpose of this study was to identify elements of strategic planning processes
that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of a higher education
institution. The researcher proposed that the use of a planning process that incorporated
the study’s framework of strategic thinking elements would result in creating an effective
process. A successful strategic planning process is defined in this study as a planning
process that alters the attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the college. The analysis
of interview data supports the finding that the use of the STP created a successful
planning process and was also perceived by the participants as a successful process. The
perception of C2, of the process was positive and upbeat. He/she was excited to get to the
draft of the statement of strategic intent to the rest of the college and begin the strategic
execution phase.
Sometimes it felt like we were trying to do too much in the allotted time that we
were given for meetings. I think that’s back to just everyone’s time is so
crunched. I think that it is pretty amazing that we got the people together that we
could get, when we had the meetings we had….I am excited about the final
product and how this gets received by the college. Then once it is out there, to
start looking at the different committees that were formed to really push the goals
forward to what we aspire to be.
132
The most critical of the process was C1. He/she did not see how the process was
successful or how the process was much different from other processes they had been
part of in the past.
I am not sure how meaningful it is. At the end of the day, when we came up
finally with the strategic vision, I do not think it reflected all this, because the
strategic vision in my opinion we have is not that new. It just sounds like a
lot…same old, same old. Not that there is anything wrong with the things that are
in there, but I do not think it really was worth the work that was done in collecting
this information. I do not see how it really was reflected in this strategic
vision….I think that if you talk about a vision…I think it should anticipate the
future. What I had hoped for, especially when you look at how things are
changing in terms of what’s being forced by our government, how we are going to
change or respond to that? How do we model ourselves to make sure we survive?
D3’s perception supported the finding that the process was successful. He/she expressed
that the process gave them a greater understanding of the entire college, but also talked
about the problems of the external environment having an impact of the activities of the
college.
One of the values that I think is it brings people together. The chairs come
together a couple of times a month, but it [the process] brings people together
who are not administrators to see the view of other people from other
departments. So I think just in creating it, it has made us all more aware of the
other departments. Inadvertently, we have gotten to know our colleagues
better….I am just not sure what we change. I mean, I talk about our department
133
being bound by rules, but the college is almost equally bound by what the state
requires. I think it went very well.
C4 also supported the finding that this was a successful process for the college to
undertake.
I love it… I fell in love with the style. I liked it because it is simple….At this
point I have been very happy, you know with the process and with the
participation and it’s turned out the way I wanted. I mean it’s a very comfortable
strategic process and it’s going to be interesting to compare how the university
does their process, both with what we did, and what has been done with the
university in the past.
The structure of the process, the timeline and how the process was conducted, C5 felt was
a good process, but did not feel that he/she could define it as completely successful at the
time of this study.
So I would say procedurally, I was very content with the basic structure, but like I
said, you know you can have the most beautiful process in the world, but the
rubber hits the road in the institution’s ability to face up to critique and not just
compliments. And we still don’t know because it’s not completed. How this
college will respond to the final product, you know, hope springs eternal. But, if
we respond in a mature professional fashion to critique, well I will be delighted.
College Case Summary
In summary, the two findings of this case study were the STP provided a strategic
thinking planning process for the college and the process was successful in altering the
attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the college. The process was also perceived to
134
be successful by the participants. The majority of the elements of the study framework
were found to be used in the process in the archival documents, observations and the
interview data of the steering committee members. The success of the process was
evidenced in the data analysis of the interviews of the participants. The use of the STP
resulted in the creation of a draft statement of strategic intent that included mission,
aspiration, guiding principles and priorities/initiatives to guide the college in program and
hiring decisions in the future. The participants were supportive of the process, felt that
there was clear value in the process, yet expressed concerns about the implementation of
the plan going forward.
Southeastern University
Southeastern University (SEU) began a strategic planning initiative in the fall of
2004. The Chairman of the Board and members of the Board of Trustees requested that
the president update the strategic plan for the university, about one year after the
president’s appointment to the university. The president appointed a senior level
administrator (vice president) to lead the process for the university. The vice president
described being assigned the task as part of the interview for this study.
There was a party on Sunday night…and I asked [my colleague] if anything had
happened while I was gone? She said, you didn’t hear? At the executive
committee meeting the President said, I am going to put [the vice president] in
charge of the strategic plan. He/she will drive us all crazy, but he/she will get it
done.
The vice president and the president of the university selected a group of senior
level administrators to form the University Strategic Planning Council (hereafter referred
135
to as the council). There were a total of twenty-four members of the council. The
membership was comprised of ten vice-presidents, four associate vice-presidents, three
members of the Board of Trustees (two were alumni), two students, two tenured faculty
members and three community representatives. Seven participants agreed to be
interviewed for the study and had a variety of backgrounds and tenure with the
university. The four vice presidents interviewed had over 20 years of experience each at
the university. The mid-level administrator had short-term experience of less than 3
years. The trustee/alumnus had spent his/her entire adulthood connected to the university
in some form either as an employee or volunteer, and the faculty member had worked
over 20 years at the university.
The council was charged by the president of the university with developing a
strategic plan for the university. The chair of the strategic planning committee described
his/her lack of experience in leading a strategic planning process, but had participated in
a previous strategic planning process at the university.
I spent time reading everything I could on strategic planning at universities, but
there wasn’t a whole lot out there….someone brought me in a notice for a
conference (on making your planning and your budgeting mesh)…so I asked if I
could go and take a team.
He/she took one other member of the planning council and two other individuals
from the budget and finance office. The strategic planning process took place over
eighteen months and resulted in the adoption of Southeastern University’s 2006 -2013
Strategic Plan in January 2006. The strategic plan contained a mission, vision, values,
and seven goals and objectives for the university.
136
Findings
The results of the data analysis supported a primary finding that the university
followed a traditional strategic planning model process. The analysis also supports a
second finding that the planning process was unsuccessful. Success of a strategic
planning process, as defined in this study, is a process that alters the attitudes, values,
beliefs and behaviors of the institution, its employees and the public. An overview of the
sources of data is outlined below in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7
Findings and Data Sources for the University
Primary Finding:
University utilized a
traditional strategic
planning process.
Second Finding: Process
failed to alters attitudes,
values, beliefs and
behaviors.
Interviews 7/ 7 participants 7/ 7 participants
Observations N/A N/A
Document Review 11/11 Documents 11/11 Documents
An outline of the elements of the study’s conceptual framework, with a brief description
of what was found in the analysis of the data, is listed in Table 4.8. Each element of the
framework is described in more detail in the findings section of this case study. At the
time of the study the university had completed the planning process and was five years
into the implementation phase of the strategic plan.
137
Table 4.8
Study Framework and Findings for the University
University
Case
Data Analysis Supports the Following
Elements of
Process
Change Model Used a structural and hierarchical model of change
and relegated external environment to a minor role.
Vision of the Future Participants view the future as specific and
predictable.
Strategic Thinking
Skills
Were not found. The process was linear, analytic
and the process was isolated from input from
internal and external input and data.
Strategic Listening Not used. Found that there was formal collection of
data.
Strategic
Conversations
Not used. The needed information was obtained
and the plan was crafted and disseminated for
implementation.
Managerial Role in
Strategy Making
Found that the senior level administrators obtained
the information from lower level and then used it to
create the plan. Then the plan was disseminated to
the lower level managers for implementation.
Managerial Role in
Implementation
Found that managers only need know his or he own
role.
Strategic
Formulation and
Implementation
Found the roles of formulation and implementation
were clearly divided.
Control Found control asserted through formal
measurement systems.
Alignment Found that alignment was vertical.
Strategy Making Found the challenge of setting the strategic
direction was primarily analytic.
Process and
Outcome
Focus was on the creation of the plan as the
ultimate objective.
Value Specification This was not a strong component. University used
measurement to control and coordinate activity.
(continued on next page)
138
(Table 4.8 continued)
Minimum Specifications Found the plan had
maximum specifications.
Strategic Fitness Found process was a fit to
the external environment.
The plan was the ultimate
objective.
Chunking Change Found the plan consisted
of large, stand-alone
initiatives.
Findings
Finding 1: Type of
Planning Process
Used
16 out of 16 elements measured
all elements identified as
traditional strategic planning
elements. Evidence in the analysis
of the data.
Traditional Strategic
Planning
Finding 2: Type of
Change Created and
Effectiveness of
Process
Process was unsuccessful
The University used a traditional strategic planning process.
The primary finding of the study is derived from analysis of the archival documents and
interviews with seven participants that served on the strategic planning council of the
university. The study framework (Figure 1) served as a guiding matrix for the
development of codes, themes and analysis. The researcher then created a third matrix,
using the study framework and compared the data against the framework (see Table 4.6).
The analysis of the data supported the finding that the process utilized the elements of a
traditional strategic planning model to create a strategic plan for the university.
It is proposed in the study framework that a traditional strategic planning model
uses a change model that is a top-down structured process and the external environment
139
is relegated to a minor role during the planning process. The participants in the study
described the assignment of the strategic plan goals as they were given to the committee
by the chair of the board of trustees. U2 spoke about the creation of the set of goals as a
hierarchical process.
[He] was “impatient with our proceedings and thought we could do the plan over
a weekend…he said, well, [chair], you already have your strategic plan. It’s the
Board of Governors’ Strategic Plan (BOG)….One day [he] presented me “our
strategic plan.” He had combined the four goals of the BOG and [the university’s]
legislative budget request, the list we put together every year for special funding,
kind of pie-in-the-sky stuff…he had taken our legislative budget request and cut it
up and scotch-taped portions of it within the BOG’s goals. He had put all of those
in a loose leaf binder and presented it as [the university’s] strategic plan. It was
really amazing. There was not a whole lot of strategizing going on. The strategy
challenge from my perspective at that point was how to move to doing some real
planning as opposed to this sort of stuff?
Not long after the strategic planning process began, the position of Board Chair
changed and the new Chair was perceived, by the council chair as having a much better
understanding of a strategic planning process.
[The new Chair of the Board] understood much better what the process of
strategic planning was. We put together four subcommittees to look at the four
goals from the Board of Governors and how we could make them more
[university] specific….Over the 18 month period we added three more goals and
had committees for them…at the very end of the process, when I looked to see
140
who had had a hand in the work, there had been well over one hundred people
from across the university and from different levels, from students to vice
presidents….So it turned out to be more of a grassroots effort than I thought it
was going to be. However, it was really very strange, because in any strategic
planning process that I’d ever been in before that had involved real planning, you
started with a clean slate and you did a S.W.O.T. analysis. We did the S.W.O.T.
analysis after we had the first four goals set….If we wanted to add other goals, the
Trustees would consider them. So everything we did had to go through the
approval process of the Trustees.
U1 felt that the goals should have come from the council as a part of their work, but also
commented on the goals being handed down from the board.
I mean, I think that – you have got to think about what it is that you want your
outcome to be. You need to plan…a way to get there…..I think obviously, which
just from a timing perspective of the board of governors, that it had just gone
through a strategic planning process and said “these are our four goals”…and you
know we built off that. I think I would do it in reverse honestly from the
perspective that I think leadership has to come up with, or this is what we are
going to be…but I do think it’s the administration of the university that has to say,
this is what we are going to be.
In describing the goal setting process, U5’s perception was that there were some
overarching assumptions that helped to guide or restrict the process.
It was clear from the very beginning that you could not go in there and assume,
you know, a pie in the sky. It had to be realistic. Resources were going to be
141
constrained….I mean there were definitely goals as related to the big vision. Not
losing the fact that the university was…a regional institution serving…local
students. And therefore, access would have remained a very, very, large goal of
the strategic plan….So yes, I think there were some of these things that were not
going to change.
Participant U6 described the goals as having been handed down from the BOG.
I think it probably came down to the BOG to come up with a plan. I am not sure,
when the goals were formulated but…that was part of the consideration. I think
they were fairly well developed at the meetings…the BOG goals were in
consideration and initially I don’t think we were given those right off the bat.
Within the structure of the planning council structure were subcommittees created
for each goal. These subcommittees were charged with creating strategies, outcomes,
deadlines and individual committee leaders were accountable for progress and
measurements for success. The subcommittee leaders were the members of the strategic
planning council assigned to those subcommittees. U7 was chair of one of these goal
subcommittees.
[Goals] were developed by the strategic planning committee. The six goals were
not, were not externally, they were not restraints at the beginning….I think there
were times, when I felt alternatives were being suppressed early in the process.
Earlier in the process that might then, and would have been desirable. I felt that
most on the subcommittee….There’s an environment, well, an environment that
developed at [the university] over a period of time where new faculty learned
142
rapidly that it was not healthy to make waves. So there’s a culture of not
challenging.
Participant U4 also knew the goals had been handed down from the board to the council,
but described the addition of other goals that did address some of the concerns of the
council.
The first four goals were mandated by the board of governors. I am not sure every
university took it quite as literal as we did. I mean, because I saw some of the
plans come out and they tended to blend the goals. But we literally…the board of
trustees said, “Okay, these are from the BOG. We accept these goals. These are
the first four goals. We can add on.” It was always an understanding that you
could add goals. But, the first four we were going to have to address.
Although all of the other participants were aware of the structural and hierarchy of the
goals setting process, U3 did not perceive the process in the same way as the others.
We have developed the goals, everybody in the [council]. As a group, we
developed our goals, established the goals. They were not given to us. We were
part of creating and developing new goals.
The study framework proposes that the external environment is relegated to a
minor role in a traditional strategic planning process. An analysis of the archival
documents supported the finding that in the process there was little evidence of direct
inclusion of external environmental constituents or data. The council did utilize a
traditional SWOT analysis that was collected via an online survey questionnaire of a
select group of subjects. The subjects selected for the study included faculty, staff,
alumni, parents of applicants, local businesses and donors. There were also four focus
143
groups of local community leaders convened at the satellite campuses. The documents
did not reveal how many people attended those focus groups, or the demographics of the
groups. There was no evidence found of input from broader state, regional or national
sources. The majority of the data found and used in the process was internally generated
at the university.
Most of the participants viewed the university as being dependent and impacted
by outside influences on their decision making and resource development and income
streams. They believed the external environment was important as the university looked
to expand funding. This point was described by U3.
Well, I wouldn’t say it’s wholly independent from outside influences. It is
influenced from outside. But, the university, we are in a pretty good position to
make goals, objectives and things of that nature without any interference. We
came up with that we now have to have some creative ways of going outside the
university and raising funds and work more with the foundation and development
office, because within a state system…the state allocation of funds it’s just not
there.
U1 perceived that the university as a whole believed that it is independent of external
control, yet he/she did not personally perceive that to be the case.
I think the university thinks that it is very independent from external forces. But, I
don’t think it ends up being moved in certain directions based of course on
economy, on politics, on what the temperature is in the community….But, I think
it’s completely dependent on external forces. I just don’t know that administration
and leadership always revolves around that.
144
U4 perceived the external environment impacted the decision making of the university
and ultimately buy-in by the larger community of the strategic planning process.
It’s hard to do something that is ambitious, that is creative or that you actually
think might [work]. That’s why people get discouraged about the strategic plans,
like who cares…as you are going through this. Like, we spend all this time and
then nobody opens it up again. You know, we never follow-up through on
anything. And then if you talk to [folks] the reason we don’t is because you know,
it’s another twenty percent cut. We are laying people off…so it’s a really tough
environment.
U5 described the dependence of the university on the neighboring community but
personally believed that the university is independent in its decision making.
I think that certainly the university is independent, but you know, very integrated
into the community….So it’s very integrated…the people, students, faculty, staff
and the general population. When you look at the basic infrastructure of the
university they are very much dependent on the more immediate local
community, which [we] should be. But, I don’t think there is undue influence. We
are not dictating what’s happening in the community, and the community is not
dictating directly what’s happening at the university. At the state level we are all
pretty much connected.
The influence of the state was apparent in the participant’s discussions about the
influence of funding on the university and its decision making and planning activities. U7
perceived that the roles of the BOG, the legislature and the governor’s office are the
strongest external influence on the university’s planning and decision making.
145
The university is subject to, first and foremost, rules set by the legislature and
they control our funding. Through that funding, they have at times been more
intrusive and at times less intrusive. They are still there. But, changing greatly, I
think because of the size of the university and so forth. The times have changed
and education as well.
U2 described the lack of the external environment’s role in the planning process and
perceived most of the information and data came from internal channels.
I thought we should be looking at the external environment, but we didn’t so the
objectives were just really pretty straightforward, X degrees. So, when I say the
plan describes what we do, it’s like what we would get to if we just kept doing
business as usual. In other words, I don’t think we made any tough decisions to go
here, instead of there.
The study framework proposed that a traditional strategic planning process
defines a vision of the future as being predictable and specifiable in detail. The
university’s planning process and resulting strategic plan was analyzed to determine
whether the vision of the future for the university was predictable and specific. The
researcher found evidence that the participants viewed the future as predictable and
specific in the analysis of the data. The final strategic plan outlined specific goals and
objectives to be met on an annual basis. There was no apparent mechanism to reevaluate
goals and objectives. The Board of Trustees required an annual report on each goal to be
delivered at a specified meeting. Minutes of those meetings and corresponding reports to
the Board and analysis of the reporting documents supported the finding of this element
in the process. The archival data was supported by four of the participants expressing
146
their belief that the future was either somewhat predictable or predictable. Two of the
participant did not believe the future was predictable. The seventh participants did not
comment on this aspect of the process. U1 was clear in his/her belief that the future is
unpredictable.
No. I think you can map different and plan for different possibilities but I think
that you always have to be prepared to shift this in a moment’s notice….You very
often, especially in bi institutions, just say okay, well this isn’t working for
XYZX, let’s go to Plan B or take Plan A and shift all of it.
U4 was also clear about the unpredictability of the future but expressed his/her perception
that one can possibly predict the shape of the future, but not the specifics.
No. I think when you say future that depends on how you consider the future. I
am a sociologist. Do I believe that if people sit down and they really put in the
factors, they can predict certain things, certain general things? For example, under
this governor, are we going to get an infusion of capital into the university
system? No. So short term I know the next three years are going to be rough. For
the next three years, I would plan for the worst and hope for the best. So do I
think planning can be predicted beyond 5 years? Not in this political climate.
Participant U6 simple answered “yes” to the question of the predictability of the future.
U7 perceives the near term as predictable.
I think there are boundaries to that and the further out you go the more uncertainty
there is. On the other hand, some, in general terms, some elements of the future
near-term are predictable.
147
U5 agreed with U6 in the near-term future being predictable, but not very far into the
future.
Well, I think…there are certain elements that we know are going to be taking
place. In terms of, you know, crystal ball, no. But I think we can make some
general, you know assessments or what I call estimates of what’s likely to happen
in the future, definitely.
Lastly, U3 agreed with the other members of the council that believed in some
predictability of the future. “I think to some extent it can. And I think you should engage
in predicting the future to some extent.”
The framework of the study proposed that a traditional business model of strategic
planning is a linear process and planning takes place in isolation from the wider
community of the organization. Data collection and analysis took place through a formal
process of the committee requesting data from the university. Once the needed
information was obtained the plan was crafted and disseminated for implementation. The
analysis of the data found that the use of strategic thinking skills were not present in the
university process. The analysis did find evidence that the process was linear and the
planning process was predominately confined to the strategic planning council. The plan
was crafted, then announced and posted on the university web-site. Once the plan was
posted the wider university community was asked to read the plan and then implement
the objectives that related to their area. U2 described the impact of the process.
I think communications and marketing probably changed some of the things that
they did. I think that some of the reports that had to be generated were different
because [they] had to report on all the goals. In having to report on stuff, there
148
was more of a focus on it. Then to be able to come up with a positive report you
had to make some change. But I am not sure if I could say that as a result of the
strategic plan the university is headed here. I don’t think the process allowed us to
develop a vision or an ownership of something really special that the university
was going to be new.
U7 described the plan being given to everyone to implement and how the process
unfolded.
The plan was that any new budget requests would have to be linked to elements of
the strategic plan. So for the coming year budget anything new would have to be,
the idea was, directly, but it would have to be an implementation of some element
of the strategic plan. I think it’s gone.
As described above the plan was posted on the institution’s website for dissemination to
the broader organization. U6 did not perceive that this was effective and did not add to
greater understanding of individual’s role in the broader system.
This is a lot of time and money spent and that’s, I think one of the difficult things;
you know it’s hard to get that many people together and to continue to measure. It
would take a continuing dedication to that. I think the committee did [understand
the plan]. How it got passed down, you know to second level to your
management…everybody knew we were doing it and it certainly was made
available to everybody. How many took the time to read it, probably not too
many.
The data also supported the finding that the majority of the date was internally
generated. U5 perceived the data as extensive, yet all collected from the university.
149
There was a considerable amount of data concerning data. I think that’s probably
the biggest driver. So you had institutional research looking at high school
graduation estimates…looking at population changes…that was expected at the
community colleges and then how would that translate to the number of freshman
or transfer students coming into the institution…so I think that’s probably the
largest set of data that was utilized.
When U2 was asked whether the process was characterized by logic, reasoning, numbers
and rational thinking, he/she responded:
Well to some degree, yes. But in the beginning it really was about having to
figure out how to do what we wanted to do within the confines of already having
four goals. I remember feeling that the goals were not ambitious enough, and I
said that…but the provost was just using his projected enrollment growth, just
where we were almost. In other words, they were not stretch goals…but the
provost was very cautious and he didn’t want to stand in front of the Board of
Trustees. Every time he stood in front of the Board of Trustees and reported not
meeting a goal, they jumped all over him, so he wasn’t about to do that. But I
thought, why go through this process if you’re not really going to be thinking
strategically…we should have been have been looking at the community colleges.
Also, in support of the finding that the data was internally generated, U7 perceived the
majority of the data being brought to the council by other departments in the university.
There was some use of data and there were a number of instances where the
committee asked for data, things like enrollment, and funding that were important
to get…if you believe in continuity. That’s an element of that, it’s important to get
150
a sense of those things in terms of outcomes….Most of the data was brought to us
by, through institutional analysis and effectiveness.
And, U6 also supported the perception of internal data collection.
There was a lot of data and a lot of input, particularly people who had expertise in
their departments. There was a lot of input in the full meetings.
Whereas, U3 described the use of the data in the subcommittee process as being more
inclusive of outside data and an external scan of the environment.
We did all that stuff…S.W.O.T. analysis and then comparing ourselves to other
universities, benchmarking, things like that. We used that too. Yeah, but you
know, you find out that if all that is fine and dandy, but no two universities are
really alike. You know it’s just like brothers and sisters. They may have the same
parents, but they are different.
The use of data at the sub-committee level was also mentioned by participants that were
chairs of specific goal subcommittees. U4 described the review of external data that
occurred outside of the formal S.W.O.T. analysis and internal data proved by the
university.
I hate to toot our horn, but we did a very good job at looking at the lay of the land.
Seeing what are the characteristics of universities that really have noted
community outreach programs.
The managerial role in strategy making and implementation in the study
framework proposes that lower level managers have a voice in strategy making and that
those managers have an understanding of the larger system, the connection between those
roles and the functioning of the system. It is also proposed that managers clearly
151
understand the interdependence between various roles that comprise the system. As
described above, the data in the study found that the senior level administrators obtained
the information they needed from lower level managers and then used it to create the
plan, which was then disseminated to those lower level managers to implement. There
was no evidence found that lower level managers had a role in strategy making.
The study framework proposes the managerial role in implementation in a
traditional strategic planning process expects that lower level managers only know their
own role and can only be expected to defend their own turf. Participants in the study
described different aspects about how managers were expected to implement the strategic
plan. U2’s comments illustrated the process clearly. The lower level managers were not
part of the strategy making, yet were asked to implement it.
We went around and gave talks about the strategic plan to all kinds of audiences
across the university. Employee’s evaluations were supposed to be based on
whether they contributed to the goals. But I don’t know how many managers at
this point really are aware of the connection between what they are doing and the
goals. Because, as I said, in a way there were more descriptors of what happens as
opposed to thing that were going to make you change behavior.
U1 did not perceive that lower level managers had a connection to or understanding of
the larger system and what their roles were within the organization.
I think people knew where they were in their particular little world. If the person
sitting at the table was a representative from the honor college, you know [what]
the honor college was doing, how they were faring and what their immediate
152
goals were. But, they did not know what everybody else was doing and there just
wasn’t that kind of forum…at any point.
Participant U3 and U4 both perceived the need for managers to understand the forces that
were impinging on the university and suggested that knowledge might improve the
implementation of the strategic plan. U3 thought that “it helps them to be better
employees. You shouldn’t leave planning to just the upper levels.” U4 stated “I think we
are missing out a lot in universities by not being more inclusive and being so
hierarchical.” Others, including U5 recognized that the planning took place at the upper
level only.
For the most part it was done…comprehensive fashion from the beginning. I
mean that’s what the goal was to do it that way. They wanted to have a lot of
broad based participation. I don’t think that we got quite as much as I would have
liked to have had, particularly with rank and file faculty, staff and students. I think
[a] town hall type of discussion or several discussions would have been very
beneficial. I think we probably didn’t do as well in that area as we should have.
The role of the faculty in the planning process was very limited. There were only two
faculty members on the planning council and there was data found that supported a broad
or deep involvement on their part. U7’s interview data supported that faculty were not
broadly involved in the planning process.
I believe in shared governance model for universities and the faculty should play
a significant role in not just doing the job of the university but in the planning
processes and the decision making processes….I will say that I also recognize that
here and in many universities, faculty governance is smoke and mirrors. It can be
153
very successful and beneficial as long as both sides, faculty and the
administration, agree not to point that out.
Most of the participants saw the need and value in lower level managers having a role in
strategy making and implementation, and U6 articulated it best.
It’s important that department heads should have people that know what’s going
on and then that’s how you can continue to develop good management….But, you
also get good results where they feel like [they are] a part of and then the strategic
plan that we develop…most would think about because they want that….They
want everybody to be part of it and to buy into it and understand that it’s not
something that here it is, do it.
The element of strategic formulation and implementation of the study framework
proposes that in a traditional strategic planning process the roles of strategy formulation
and implementation are clearly divided. The analysis found this to be true in this case. As
discussed above, the planning and creation of the strategic plan took place at the highest
level of the university. The strategic planning council drafted a plan that was then
approved by the Board of Trustees. Once the plan was adopted, it was rolled out to the
university community and implementation began. As this evidence has been cited once, it
is not repeated here.
The analysis of archival documents and participant interviews found the elements
of control and alignment of the study framework were present in the planning process.
The element of control, that is asserted through measurement instruments and assumes
that organizations can measure and monitor important variables accurately, is an element
of a traditional business model of strategic planning. The university’s planning was
154
designed to control the process through detailed goals and objectives in the plan itself.
The analysis of the archival documents provided evidence that measureable outcomes
were part of each objective. In consideration of anonymity for the institution, two
examples are given (Figure 8) below from two different goals of the plan. Identifiers have
been removed.
Enhance Student Learning and Development
Strategy Campus Outcomes Date Resources Status
Establish a
systematic model for
delivery of a
centralized,
comprehensive
career development
services across all
campuses.
All Number of students
utilizing the center
and satisfaction
rating of the
availability and
quality of career
development
services will
increase by 10%.
2009-
2010
$5,000 to
$7,000
Progressing
Meeting Community Needs and Fulfilling Unique Institutional Responsibilities
Strategy Campus Outcomes Date Resources Status
Utilize a database
system to track the
status of all contacts
within the
community.
All Two new options for
community input will
be piloted and
evaluated for
effectiveness
2007 TBD Progressing
Figure 8. Sample goal specification.
The element of alignment was found to be vertical in this case. The analysis of
archival documents found the use of vertical management, from the top down, of the
strategic plan goals and objectives attempted to ensure implementation. This top-down
approach was already discussed above. The Board of Trustee minutes include reports on
155
goals and objectives twice a year. U2 expressed the frustration with this type of
alignment of structure.
I really felt the Board of Trustee (BOT) oversight was really kind of “big
brother.” It felt really constraining and it added another level of stress. There were
timing issues with the Trustees’ meeting schedule that sometimes forced us to
move things forward to get BOT approval in a timely way.
The difficulty in immediately measuring results was pointed out by U5.
So we had intended to, you know, look at a way of measuring progress. So if you
wanted to look at degrees awarded, you want to look a graduation rates and
unfortunately…before you even get the next set of data, you know its four years
before you get that.
U7 perceived that the provost controlled the workings of the university through the
approval or denial of budget allocations and programs.
Mostly on the academic side, it comes predominately from the provost’s office.
Idea’s come up, but proposals have to be cleared by the provost’s office. They
control the funding, which in effect controls positions and a lot of other things.
In the making of strategy the study framework proposes that in a traditional
strategic planning process, the challenge of setting strategic direction is primarily analytic
versus seeing strategy and change as inescapably linked. It is also proposed that finding
new strategic options and implementing them successfully is harder and more important
that evaluating them. The university focused on strategy making that was primarily
analytic. All but one of the participants believed that strategy and change are linked. U3
stated that he/she did not believe they were linked.
156
No. You can create the best strategy in the world…it will look good on paper and
it will sound good, but actually when the rubber hits the road, you have to
implement certain things; you have to have the resources. You got to work as a
team. You got to have priorities.
Three of the participants, U2, U6 and U7 all responded to the question of whether or not
they believed that strategy and change are linked, with a simple “yes.” U5 expanded a bit
more.
Yes, absolutely. To me, the more the change, the better. I think change is what
keeps us dynamic and at the forefront of creative thinking, definitely. [It is] to be
creative, to be forward thinking and to be as strategic as we could possibly be.
U1 expressed that he/she does see linkage, but would rather have strategy be more a
guiding concept than so structured.
I think that strategy can help with change. But I think that very often strategy is
seen as the steps that you have to take…versus being seen as guidelines, which is
what I like strategies to be personally. I think strategies are the guidelines.
In responding to the question of whether strategy and change is linked, U4 believed that
they are.
If this university wants to move to this next level, simply stated, what do you
have to do to get there? The five things you have to do. Now, how do we get
there? But what you have to do is, there is a bit of a zero-sum game. If you don’t
have the guts, the willingness to tick off some faults as you move forward with a
small number of – and strategy to me, is nothing but plans to get you to these
goals.
157
The elements of process and outcomes and value specification were evidenced in
the data analysis of the participant’s interviews. The traditional strategic planning model
proposes that the focus is on the plan as the ultimate objective. The researcher found that
the primary focus of the university strategic planning process was on creating the plan.
The data analysis supported the finding and was evidenced in the review of archival
documents and interview data. The researcher found that the Board of Trustees were
overseeing the process and were keenly focused on the plan being completed. U2 spoke
about this in his/her interview.
I think that it was successful and we did it in 18 months, which is a respectable
amount of time, despite the [Board Chair] thinking we could do it over a
weekend. And it involved a lot of people. But I still never felt that enough
strategic thinking and analysis went into it.
There was evidence that the process was perceived to add value. All of the
participants saw planning as a value-adding element. In addition to the process itself
having value, there was no data found to support a finding that the process created a self-
reference point in the minds of the participants. The university process used measurement
to control and coordinate activity. When asked whether the planning process itself added
value, all of the participants perceived that it did. U1 said “you should have to be
flexible, but yeah I think it certainly adds value.” Participant U3 believed that there is
value in planning in a general way.
I think planning brings people together from different units and different actions
of the university. And it can…create a good positive atmosphere, because people
158
feel like they have something at stake and they are listening to me and they can
contribute.
U4 expressed that the value is in allowing people within the organization to have input.
“Input holds value. Whether you call it planning…” U6 answered “yes” and U5
perceived the value of the planning process to be in helping to make the right decisions
for the university.
Without the planning it would be hard…it would be really hard to do the right
thing, and it’s not just a question of hiring faculty. It’s having the right faculty.
U7 also believed the planning process adds value to the organization.
Well, the process per se, I think the value in that is it exposes issues with the
university and that’s important. That has value in itself. The opportunity is for
pretty much anyone who wants to raise an issue about the future of the university,
to bring that forward, and if it’s reasonable, to get a hearing.
The explanation for the value of planning, in U2’s view was in the examination of the
institution as a whole and what that examination might ultimately reveal.
Yes. I think so. Well, I think that one of the most important things that people get
out of planning is self-knowledge, because you have to know where you are in
order to plan on where you want to go. And I don’t think that universities spend
enough time really looking at where they are, who they are, and, therefore, what
they can become. So, I think it is a huge value.
The framework for the study proposes that a traditional strategic planning process
creates maximum specifications related to goals and objectives. The strategies for meeting
the goals and objectives of the plan were included in the final strategic plan document.
159
Some of the participants perceived the plan to be broad and too many objectives to be
realistic. U7 would have created a plan that he/she perceived as being more manageable
and achievable.
I have trouble separating my concern with outcomes…because my biggest
concern, with the outcomes was that the strategic plan was far too inclusive to
function as a strategic plan. It provided five, ten times what we could possibly
do….and the committee knew that and was unwilling to make the harder decision
to narrow it down. I would have a narrower plan, and I would have the plan be a
living document. First, for it to be real it’s got to be something that doable, and
you’ve got to look at it every…year…to the changes in your environment….If the
strategic plan is going to be a real strategic plan, then those things need to be
reflected and you need to do that. You need to be revisiting it, regularly because
you achieve some things and things change; technology changes.
The meeting of goals and objectives that are specified outside of the university were
included in the plan. These included, but were not limited to the rate of retention of
students, graduation rates, degrees, etc. U4 perceived this to be a controlling factor on the
university.
We are judged by the BOG on metrics that are passed down and it doesn’t matter
where we stand, because all that matters is how they perceive where we stand. So
there’s going to be pressure to grow. We are going to have to grow smarter, which
means you are going to see an increased need for technology to provide student
support services, as well as actual delivery of courses.
160
The plan was perceived by U1 as being too big. Everything that could be added was
included in an effort to overcome any political ramifications that might have been a result
of the final plan.
If you want to do a strategic plan that is very, very, very specific; you are in
essence saying there are aspects of what you do day in and day out that are not
going to rise to this level. I think we wanted to be as inclusive as possible and I
think that ended up …broadening the goals too much. So, I don’t think anybody is
willing to take something away because I mean, there is political capital. You
have to expand like that and I do not know anybody that is willing to do it.
In a traditional strategic planning model process, the element of strategic fitness is
determined by whether the planning process is a fit to the external environment of the
organization. As discussed above in the elements of process and outcome, and value
specification, the planning process was perceived to add value to the plan. The plan was
designed to the mirror the goals of the BOG. There was no evidence found that the
planning process attempted to be a fit to anything else but the external governing
oversight of the BOG.
U3 commented on the pressure to get the plan completed and to meet external
expectations.
You had people who were busy, busy, busy to meet deadline and had to come up
with the goals and objectives. It was like a final exam or final paper when you
turned it in, there it is. Now what happened to it after that [was] nobody reported
back to us in this division? It kind of just scattered after we put things together.
161
U2 also perceived that the plan was mainly focused on the eternal environment of the
BOG.
The trustees would boast that we were the only university that adopted the goals
of the BOG in their plan….I see a lot of shortcomings in the plan, so it was
always interesting to me to hear how many people supposedly loved the plan.
There is still a part of me that thinks it was just too much based on the BOG
strategic plan.
An analysis of the goals and objectives of the strategic plan reflected a strong fit
to the external environment. Five of the seven goals of the plan focused on the external
environment and included increased access to higher education, meeting statewide
professional and workforce needs, building academic programs, meeting community
needs and fulfilling unique institutional responsibilities, and increasing the universities’
visibility. The other goals were internally focused and included enhancing the physical
plant and building technology infrastructure.
The final proposed traditional strategic element of the study’s framework,
chunking change, is evidenced by the presence of large, stand-alone initiatives. The
analysis of archival documents found supporting evidence, that this model of chunking
change was used by the university in its planning process. The researcher found no
evidence that the university created small, incremental initiatives that would/could build
on each other. Participant U5 articulated that the goals and objectives stood alone, but
he/she perceived that the university should have had numerous goals building on each
other.
162
So if you want to improve access, if we want to improve the quality of instruction,
in order to put the quality of research, you know, what do we need to make it
happen? And a lot of times, it would be finance, resource related….So, obviously
those things are important to say we are just going to build facilities or extend
facilities, really made no sense to me. It had to be tied into the strategic objectives
and the various strategies that you will follow and to get to this….Do not build up
a communications empire just to have it. How does that tie into increasing access,
improving reputation, improving the awareness of the institution? Then ultimately
how those things would translate back into getting a higher caliber student coming
in?
Success of Strategic Planning Process
The purpose of this study was to identify elements of strategic planning process
that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of higher education. The
researcher proposed that the use of a planning process that incorporated the study’s
framework of strategic thinking elements would result in creating an effective process.
Success of a strategic planning process is defined in this study as a process that alters the
attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the institution, its employees and the public.
That analysis of the interview data supports the finding that the university used a
traditional model of strategic planning and that process did not alter the attitudes, values,
beliefs or behaviors of the university, as perceived by the participants.
Participants were asked if the process had changed their beliefs about the
university, the only participant that perceived a change was U7 and he/she described that
change.
163
Certainly, that I learned about elements by activities…I learned about great
management throughout the university and I’ve always considered, I consider
myself very well informed…and there are definitely things I learned during the
process because we went delving into some depth in to a lot of areas.
U3 did not believe that the process changed his/her beliefs about the university.
No it didn’t. It didn’t change my beliefs about the organization because in my
position I had a pretty good view of the organization, how to make the
organization benefit from [my department’s work] and vice versa.
Participant U4 answered “no” and U5 elaborated on why his/her beliefs did not change
and the positive perception he/she has on the university.
So I don’t think it had a transforming change in my beliefs of the institution. It’s a
phenomenal institution. It’s had a rich history and it’s done some remarkable
things.
U2 also saw no change in his/her beliefs.
Well, not really, because I think the organization is made up of people and I had
gotten to know the people of the university earlier and what their limits were and
what their potential was.
The response from U6 was “no, probably not.” Lastly, U1 did not have a response to the
question. When asked about whether activities of the university changed as a result of
the planning process, most of the participants perceived that the process did not change
the activities of the university. U1 stated “I don’t think it became part of the culture at
164
all.” U4 responded “No I don’t think it did.” Participant U7 answered “I don’t think so.”
U3 also believed there was no change.
I don’t. By the time we were finishing the plan I retired. I have talked to people
since then…they all seem to be complaining about lack of resources and morale is
low because you cannot pay them enough. You don’t have enough people to work
with the students…so resources are affecting the output and attitudes of the
people who are trying to provide services to the students.
U2 did not perceive that changes in activities had or were occurring at the university.
I do not know how many managers at this point are really aware of the connection
between what they are doing and the goals, because as I said, in a way there were
more descriptors of what happens, as opposed to things that were going to make
you change your behavior.
The other two participants in the study perceived that there was some change in
the activities of the university. U5 thought there had been some change, but only in a few
areas, not broadly across the university. “I think than answer from my perspective would
be yes, in certain areas.” U6 also agreed with that perception. “I think so. In the long run
and I think it brought more people into the plan and goals. Was it perfect? No, but I think
it was a move in a right direction
The majority of the participants perceived the process as successful because the
process resulted in a written plan. But, as was described above, when asked about
whether their beliefs or activities had been altered or changed, the majority responded
that the process did not change their beliefs or activities of themselves or the university.
U3 felt it was a good process, but there were problems after the plan was created.
165
I think it was logical, it was creative. It did use a lot of data and input from a lot of
people. It was a good plan. It was a good process. It caused people to think
outside the box, to forge forward, to be creative….This is where we are now, now
these are the changes we want to forge ahead, nobody tied a bow around it. It just
kind of scattered.
U5 perceived the overall process as successful.
I think overall it was. You know, the best one that the university had done, and it
had been a number of years. It was definitely a better process. The one before I
don’t think ever got off the shelf…it is probably just average. I think some of it, in
many ways, was just too generic, too dry. And it wasn’t well defined in terms of
short term, medium term and longer term.
There was a desire for more specificity of goals and outcomes that could be measured,
but U1 overall, still felt that the creation of the plan was successful.
I don’t think that they were as specific as you might see in other institutions or in
other organizations where a strategic plan has some very, very specific goals and
some deliverables. And, I don’t think our strategic plan met that kind of criteria,
because I think we were really trying to encompass so much into each of us….I
was there because I needed to be there and wanted to be there, occasionally I was
able to put my two cents [in] when appropriate, but I struggle all the time with,
okay now when this is it, how does it translate to everybody else? What are the
colleges doing and how do they take this and make it part of their strategic plan
for the college?
166
U6 responded “I know it’s pretty successful overall” and U2 also perceived the process as
successful in creating a plan.
It’s a strong plan and very well documented…. And, it involved a lot of people.
But I never really felt that enough strategic thinking and analysis went into
it….There really could have been more time spent working with the colleges, but,
instead, it was just numbers.
U7 also perceived the process to be successful.
I don’t know how much credit for that should go to the plan, rather to the fact that
the plan reflected a broadly held view of direction for the university and I think it
did a good job. I think the mission statement did a good job of capturing that.
U4 did not perceive the overall process was successful because of the lack of priority
setting.
No, nor do they care. For most people in the university, whether faculty, who
have three courses to teach…yes, faculty senate and a few leaders cared. And do I
think that people got excited about it? No. I don’t think it was successful, and for
not just because of the money, okay. The money is out of our control in many
ways. I think that the university simply did not show the stomach to really go
back in and prioritize, reprioritize based on changing – changing landscape – I
think they could have. I think it could have been more successful.
All of the participants in this study spoke passionately about the university and
the strategic planning process. There were several discussions about the implementation
of the plan and suggested ideas for how that could have been improved upon. Although
the success of the actual implementation of the plan is beyond the scope of this study, it is
167
noted here that the participants were aware of the problems with implementation and
linked the implementation to their own perception of success. Participant U6 felt that
implementation needed to be tied to individual performance measures.
Tying the structure of follow-up evaluation on achievement of goals, and perhaps
on some more regular basis, would have been…more helpful. Yeah, it’s like – it’s
key to have a plan where you are going, that now you have to change it. I mean
that’s part of having a longer term plan.
There was also a level of frustration about the amount of work that was put into the plan,
with a perceived negligible level of change. U4 was quite passionate on the subject.
It’s hard to do something that’s ambitious, or that’s creative, or that you actually
think might…that’s why people get discouraged about strategic plans, like who
cares…as you are going through this. Like, we spend all this time, than nobody
opens it up again. Nobody cares. You know, we never follow through on
anything….We are laying people off. What new initiatives? We are going to be
lucky to hang on to what we have. So it’s a really tough environment.
U7 also suggested narrowing the plan.
The first one would be, to…narrow it down and decide what your real priorities
are. The second thing is to impose those constraints, with the possibility of
exceptions, because things do change. At the time, the view was that over time,
the strategic plan would be revisited….At this point I don’t think people pay
much attention to it….There was a lot of effort to get the plan out to, to make
people aware. In the first couple of years when the budget was tied to it, people
who were making requests had to be familiar with it, because they had to go in
168
there and say this is the thing I am doing. I have trouble separating my concern
with that outcome…because my biggest concern, with that outcome was that the
strategic plan was far too inclusive to function as a strategic plan. It provided five,
ten times what we could possibly do, then choices were made, so…you’ve got the
whole world….And the committee knew that and was unwilling to make the
harder decisions to narrow the plan down. So when it comes to strategy it isn’t
really , it’s only a loose guide to strategy, because you…[are] not going to do
these things, and [are] not going to do these things well, but they are all in the
strategic plans.
University Case Summary
In summary, the first finding of this study was that the university followed a
traditional strategic planning process. This finding was evidenced in the data, wherein the
16 measured dimensions of the study’s framework were found to be illustrative of a
traditional strategic planning process and were used in the planning process of the
university. The elements included: structural and hierarchical model of change;
predictable and specific vision of the future; isolated planning process; formal data
collection and analysis; plan was crafted then disseminated for implementation; upper
level of managerial role in strategy making; lower level managerial role in
implementation; strategic formulation and implementation; process and outcome; value
specification; maximum specification; strategic fitness and chunking change. The use of
a traditional strategic planning process ultimately resulted in the creation and adoption of
a strategic plan for the university. The data supporting the finding that the process did not
alter the attitudes, values, beliefs or behaviors of the university, was evidenced in the
169
interview data. The use of the traditional strategic planning process resulted in the
creation and adoption of a strategic plan that included mission, vision, goal and
objectives for the university. The participants were supportive of the process and felt that
the process was successful in creating a plan.
Chapter Summary
This study analyzed three distinct strategic planning processes at Southeastern
University. Two of the cases, the department and college, were found to have used a
strategic thinking model of strategic planning that was perceived by the participants, to be
an effective model of strategic planning for their organization. In the third case of the
university process, the analysis found a traditional business based strategic planning
process was used. The process was not effective, yet was perceived as successful by the
participants. From a cross-case analysis, findings, recommendations and conclusions
emerged and are discussed in Chapter 5.
170
Chapter 5
Discussion and Conclusions
This chapter reviews the findings, conclusions and recommendations of this
“holistic” multi-case study. The with-in case findings are presented in a summary format
and then followed by a cross-case analysis of the findings of a compare and contrast
analysis of the data. The analysis used the conceptual framework from the study (Figure
1) and presents the findings in a summarized format (Table 5.1). Following the
conceptual framework the cross-case findings are presented in a narrative form, as they
were in the with-in case analysis. The findings are presented in the order that the
predicted themes identified in Chapter 3 are: activity changes of the individual and/or
group, changes in beliefs of individuals and/or group, internal alignment, vision for the
future and perceived as adding/not adding value. Conclusions and recommendations are
included at the end of the chapter.
171
Table 5.1
Study Framework and Cross-Case Findings
Cross Case Analysis
Department College University
Elements of
Process
Change Model Used a social-
cognitive model of
change.
Used a social-
cognitive model of
change, including
political and cultural
elements.
Used a structural and
hierarchical model of
change and relegated
external environment to
a minor role.
Vision of
Future
Beliefs of
participants were that
only the shape of the
future can be
predicted.
Beliefs of
participants were
that only the shape
of the future can be
predicted.
Participants view the
future as specific and
predictable.
Strategic
Thinking
Skills
Used synthesis,
systems thinking,
reflection and
reframing.
Used synthesis,
systems thinking,
reflection and
reframing
Were not found. The
process was linear,
analytic and the process
was isolated from input
from internal and
external input and data.
Strategic
Listening
Evidenced through
formal collection of
perspectives, data
analysis and
synthesis.
Evidenced through
formal collection of
perspectives, data
analysis and
synthesis.
Not used. Found that
there was formal
collection of data.
Strategic
Conversations
Strongly evident –
participants
understand the larger
system and how they
connect to it.
Strongly evident –
participants
understand the larger
system and how they
connect to it.
Not used. The needed
information was
obtained and the plan
was crafted and
disseminated for
implementation.
(continued on next page)
172
(Table 5.1 continued)
Managerial
Role in
Strategy
Making
Lower level
managers have a
voice in strategy
making.
Lower level
managers have a
voice in strategy
making.
Found that the senior
level administrators
obtained the
information from lower
level and then used it to
create the plan. Then
the plan was
disseminated to the
lower level managers
for implementation.
Managerial
Role in
Implementation
Department chair
and program
managers
understand the
larger system, the
connection between
those roles and the
functioning of that
system, as well as
the independence
between the various
roles that comprise
the system.
Implementation not
measured in study,
participants
understood the
larger system and
the functioning of
the system.
Found that managers
only need know his or
he own role.
Strategic
Formulation
and
Implementation
Not measured in
study.
Not measured in
study.
Found the roles of
formulation and
implementation were
clearly divided.
Control Relies on self-
reference – a sense
of strategic intent
and purpose
embedded
throughout the
department that
guides their choices
on a daily basis in a
process that is often
difficult to measure
and monitor from
above.
Did not find a sense
of strategic intent
and purpose
imbedded in the
minds of the
managers throughout
the college that
guided their choices
on a daily basis in a
process that is often
difficult to measure
and monitor from
above.
Found control asserted
through formal
measurement systems.
(continued on next page)
173
(Table 5.1 continued)
Alignment Found to be
horizontal – gained
synchronization
among team.
Found to be
horizontal – gained
synchronization
among team.
Found that alignment
was vertical.
Strategy
Making
Did not find that
participants viewed
strategy as
inescapably linked,
nor assumptions that
finding new strategic
options and
implementing them
successfully is
harder and more
important than
evaluating them.
Found participants
viewed strategy and
change as linked. No
evidence that to
support assumptions
of participants that
finding new strategic
options and
implementing them
successfully is
harder and more
important than
evaluating them
Found the challenge of
setting the strategic
direction was primarily
analytic.
Process and
Outcome
See the planning
process itself as
critical value-adding
element.
See the planning
process itself as
critical value-adding
element.
Focus was on the
creation of the plan as
the ultimate objective.
Value
Specification
Strong component –
creates self-
reference points in
the minds of the
participants. Uses
value to control and
coordinate activity.
Not find this to be a
strong component –
that process creates
self-reference points
in the minds of the
participants and uses
values to control and
coordinate activity
This was not a strong
component. University
used measurement to
control and coordinate
activity.
Minimum
Specifications
Statement of
strategic intent
functions as guiding
document. Lack
measurable
components and has
minimum
specifications.
Found statement of
strategic intent
perceived as guiding
document. Lacks
measurable
components and has
minimum
specifications.
Found the plan had
maximum
specifications.
(continued on next page)
174
(Table 5.1 continued)
Strategic
Fitness
Not conclusive that
process was fit to
external and internal
environment. Did
find the process adds
value to the plan.
Observed the
process was a fit to
external and internal
environment. Did
find that process
adds value to the
plan.
Found process was a fit
to the external
environment. The plan
was the ultimate
objective.
Chunking
Change
Not measured in this
study.
Not measured in this
study.
Found the plan
consisted of large,
stand-alone initiatives.
Finding 1:
Type of
Planning
Process Used
Strategic Thinking
Model
Strategic Thinking
Model
Traditional Strategic
Planning Model
Finding 2:
Type of
Change
Created and
Effectiveness of
Process
Successful
Altered the
attitudes, values,
beliefs and
behaviors of the
department.
Successful
Altered the
attitudes, values,
beliefs and
behaviors of the
college.
Unsuccessful
Did not alter attitudes,
values, beliefs and
behaviors of the
university.
The primary findings in the department and college cases were the same. Both
cases used a strategic thinking planning process that resulted in the altering of attitudes,
values, beliefs and behaviors of the department and college. The secondary finding that
the use of a strategic thinking planning process resulted a successful process; was also
found in the college case, but to a lesser degree. The university used a traditional strategic
planning process that did not result in altering the attitudes, values, beliefs and activities
of the university. The department and college used the STP process that resulted in a
statement of strategic intent that included the values, mission and aspirations that in the
175
case of the department was already acting as a guide in their work. The college had
drafted a statement of strategic intent at the time of this study and was awaiting approval.
The statement of strategic intent was not yet acting as a guide for the work of the college,
but the process was perceived to be successful by the participants. The university used a
traditional strategic planning process that focused on the creation of the plan, as the
primary goal. The use of the traditional strategic planning process did not alter the
attitudes, values, beliefs or behaviors of the university, yet the participants viewed the
process as being successful.
In all three cases the planning process was guided by a small subset of the
population of the organization. In the department, the navigating committee members
were all tenured faculty members. The college’s planning committee participants
included one administrator and the remaining members were tenured faculty members.
The university council was predominately senior administrators, with one tenured faculty
member and one alumnus/trustee. The role of leadership was similar in the department
and college cases. The department chair and the dean of the college participated in the
planning process in each case as full members and were interviewed for this study. The
role of the president at the university was different than the other cases, in that the
president did not actively participate in the process and was not interviewed for the study.
It was found that the Board of Trustees directed a top-down, structured process that
focused on the creation of the plan as the ultimate goal.
The effect of how the process was developed on the implementation of each plan
was not part of this study, but where there were data from participants that gave some
insight to implementation, it was included in the single case narratives, but was not part
176
of the data analysis. In the department case they had begun the strategic execution phase
of the STP process and in the university case, the process was well into the
implementation stage. Some participants commented on those aspects of the process. In
the case of the department, it was found that the implementation was on track and
progressing through the use of action committees. This was described in the case study as
a commitment of the participants to the implementation of the plan. The college was just
adopting a statement of strategic intent and participants described it as being too early in
the process to judge the implementation as successful or not. In the university case, the
lack of depth and breadth of involvement of others beyond the Board of Trustees and the
strategic planning council was found to have affected the effectiveness of the planning
process and outcomes. It was too early in the planning process in the department and
college cases to gather data on the effectiveness of the implementation. The university
case provided data on the unsuccessful implementation of the plan, but the researcher was
unable to compare and contrast the data in the study. Therefore, there were no findings
related to implementation.
Cross-Case Analysis
This section provides a more in depth analysis of the similarities and differences
between the three cases. The analysis is framed by the study’s proposed strategic thinking
elements that created a framework for analysis in all three cases and the themes that
emerged from the data analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify the elements of
a strategic planning process that meet the unique organizational planning features of a
higher education organization. The study’s research questions guided the analysis: What
were the elements of the strategic planning process used? Did the strategic planning
177
process follow a strategic thinking or strategic planning model? Did the process used
create an effective model of change for the organization? The following themes emerged
from the data analysis (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2
Themes Found in Cross-Case Analysis
Activity Changes Changes in activity were found in the department and
college cases. There were no changes in activity found in
the university case.
Belief Changes Changes of beliefs were found in the department and
college cases. There were no changes in beliefs found in
the university case.
Internal Horizontal
Alignment
Alignment and synchronization of team found in
department and college case. Vertical alignment found in
university case.
Value of Process Found to be a strong component in department case. Not
found to be a strong component, but still present in
college and university case.
Perception of Process Found perception of successful process in the department,
college and university cases
Activity changes. Social cognition theory suggests the people within
organizations influence process and how learning occurs within those organizations
(Argyris, 1994). Culture also plays a role in the leading and managing of change and it is
important to understand that role. The department and college employed a social
cognitive model of change that resulted in a change in the activities in the organizations.
Both organizations conducted extensive strategic listening and strategic conversation
sessions that provided opportunities for the broader communities in each organization to
participate in the process, listen to external input, provide feedback and weigh in on draft
mission, aspiration, and core values statements. The STP process provided a structure
that recognized the importance of culture in the organization, and the role that individuals
178
play in that process, by providing multiple opportunities for synthesis, systems thinking,
reflection and reframing which was evidenced in both cases.
The planning process in the university used a structural and hierarchical change
model that did not gather extensive information from the external environment; rather
most of the data used was internally generated. The traditional strategic planning process
did not incorporate broad based inclusion of other members of the university or external
constituents in the planning process. The convening of focus groups and posting the plan
to the website, after it was complete, did not support the use of strategic thinking skills
such as synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing. There was no evidence that
the university used systems thinking skills that in the other two cases was found to create
a change in the activities of the participants and in the case of the department, the broader
organization. There was an attempt to manage the strategic goals of the plan from the top-
down, through an annual reporting process, but the participants interviewed for the study
did not perceive this to be continuing nor effective.
The finding that the department activities of the participants and others in the
department had been changed was significant in comparison to the lack of change in the
university. Both the department and university were in the implementation phases of their
respective processes, allowing for a more direct comparison of activity changes. At the
time of the study, the college was still in the strategic thinking phase of the STP process
and the researcher did not find a significant change in activities.
Belief changes. In this study the department and college created aspiration
statements and the university had a vision statement, as part of their strategic planning
processes. The need for a compelling vision is essential to strategic change in
179
organizations (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). The STP process uses the creation of a
statement of strategic intent to create the vision and incorporates a shared understanding
of where the organization wishes to go. Vision cannot be pushed down from above, but
rather must be generated within the organization and communicated by the leadership
(Mintzberg & Rose, 2003). Recent research studies in higher education have shown that
successful strategic planning processes are a result of a shared understanding, the
integration of individuals from different levels, and an appreciation of underlying goals
(Ocascio & Joseph, 2008; Vilà & Canales, 2008). “What is internalized in the heads of
people is more important than what ends up on paper. Strategy conceived as a shared
framework in the mind of strategists is robust (Vilà & Canales, 2008, p. 286).
In both the department and college case the researcher found that the beliefs of the
participants had changed. Also, in the case of the department the beliefs were described
by the participants as being deeper and broader in the department beyond just the
planning committee. Examples were cited about the discussion in faculty meetings and
the overall focus of incorporating the values of the plan into what faculty and staff does
every day. D4 described the changing of beliefs in the department and the integration of
values into their work.
We have been taking our values, that we all collectively approved and we devote
about a half hour at each meeting just to talk about what this does mean. And we
say we value this. What does this mean? What does this mean to you? We have a
discussion about it. So we are not letting those values leave the room.
There was no finding in the college case that the beliefs had changed beyond the
participants in the process, yet there was noted change in the participant’s beliefs.
180
Alternately, the finding in the university case was that there had been little to no change
in the beliefs of the participants about the university. There was one participant in the
department case and one in the college case who expressed strong negative beliefs
towards strategic planning in general. Their comments have been noted in the single case
findings. It is not clear in the data, why other’s beliefs changed and theirs did not,
especially in the department case, where the finding was significant with the other four
participants.
There was one participant from the college (C1) that expressed negative opinions
about strategic planning in general and openly shared those with the researcher.
Scharmer’s (2009) first principle of presencing is the action of “letting go of the old and
surrendering to the unknown” (p. 184). This is an important first step in letting go of old
opinions in order to move towards an open mind, allowing for a possible future to be
envisioned and a change in beliefs. Other participants moved from their past experiences
with strategic planning, whether successful or not, and were more open to the process of
creating a new mission, values and aspirations for the college. As C4 expressed, “we all
are very aware that this may be absolutely useless, but we are also aware that it might
have some value.” Although C1 had been a full participant in the planning process,
his/her long held ideas about the ineffectiveness of strategic planning in general, were
found in the analysis to have been an influencing factor in the perception of the process.
The university also had one participant, U3 that held strong beliefs about strategic
planning, but he/she expressed frustration more with the process of building consensus
and group meetings, than a belief that planning was ineffective. “I detested the large
group meetings…it drives me batty. I would sit there for two or three hours and think I
181
was in purgatory.” There was a finding across all three cases that the external
environment was perceived to have had an impact on efforts to plan. This case study was
conducted at a public institution that is dependent on state resources. The timing of
planning in the department and college was during a deep economic recession. The
university planning occurred before the recession began, but was being implemented
during the recession years of 2007-2010. The perception of all the participants, in all
three cases, was that the reduction in state funding was impacting decision making in all
three organizations. This created a pessimistic attitude in the university case, and to some
extent in the department and college case, about planning in general. There was no
finding that the timing had a significant impact on the department or college planning.
Internal horizontal alignment. Open systems theory proposes that systems are
affected by external forces that force the system to adjust in order to maintain
equilibrium. Strategic thinking incorporates systems thinking, creativity and vision
(Bonn, 2005; Liedtka, 1998a; Pisapia, 2009; Senge, 1990; Heracleous, 2003; Scharmer,
2009), as well as an emphasis on synthesis, and a committed style of management to
develop the plan (Mintzberg, 1994b). The literature proposes that in order to implement
effective change, horizontal alignment and control are needed. Control that relies on self-
reference - a sense of strategic intent and purpose that is embedded throughout the
organization, will guide the organization’s choices going forward on a daily basis and is a
process that is often difficult to measure and monitor from above. Alignment that is
horizontal creates synchronization within a team.
In the department and college case, the STP process created a framework that
supported a strategic thinking process that resulted in a sense of strategic intent and
182
purpose in the participants. The researcher observed the process as it was being
implemented in the college case. When the strategic conversations were taking place, it
was observed that all of the participants were working toward a common understanding
of whom the college was and where they wanted to go. The end result was a draft of a
statement of strategic intent. Although, the actual planning process was not observed in
the department case, the end result, as evidenced in the data, was an aligned team
working towards a common purpose. As described in the single case narrative, the
department case participants were working together in a common pursuit of the
aspirations and priorities expressed in the statement of strategic intent.
There was no finding in the university case of alignment across the team, or a
sense of strategic intent or purpose that was embedded across the planning participants or
the university. The analysis of the data found that control was asserted through formal
measurement systems and the alignment was vertical. The formal measurement system
was specific and easily measured. Each goal of the strategic plan had an assigned
individual that was charged with the oversight of that goal. Annual briefings were given
to the Board of Trustees on progress and annual budget requests were to be connected to
the goals of the plan. There was no evidence of horizontal alignment of the team. The
data analysis did reveal that the alignment of participants was vertical and was controlled
from the top. Additionally, there was evidence that the initiatives in the university plan
were large and stand-alone goals. As explained in the narrative of the university case, this
traditional model of planning did not support alignment of individuals, the team or the
university.
183
In this study, a higher education setting was defined as a complex system. The
nature of change in a complex system is that there is no consistent pattern of change
(Dooley, 1997). Therefore, to implement an effective change strategy, a shared vision
must be developed and an individual’s perspective on the current state of the organization
must be altered. The process also must cultivate inquiry, learning, experimentation,
divergent thinking, and the creation of a mechanism to generate rapid feedback loops.
In the study’s conceptual framework the elements of the managerial role in
strategy making and implementation proposes that lower level managers have a voice in
strategy making. Also, upper and lower level managers understand the larger system, the
connection between those roles and the functioning of the larger system. It also proposes
that managers understand the independence between the various roles that comprise the
system. This understanding allows for the adaptation to rapidly changing environments
such as higher education. In the department and college case it was found that lower level
managers had a voice in strategy making. Lower level managers sent information to the
upper level managers in the university case and then the plan was disseminated to the
lower levels to implement. The department chair and managers in the department had an
understanding of the larger system, the connection between roles, functioning of the
system, and the independence between those roles. The managerial role in
implementation was not measured in the college case. In the university case, participants
believed that managers only need know their own roles in implementation of strategy.
Once the plan was complete, it was sent out to the lower level manager to implement.
184
Value of the process. The framework of the study proposed that in an effective
planning process, participants see strategy and change as inescapably linked and assumes
that finding new strategic options and implementing them successfully is harder and more
important than evaluating them. In the traditional strategic planning model, the challenge
of setting strategic direction is primarily analytic. In the college and university cases, the
researcher found that the participants viewed strategy and changed as linked. In the
university case it was found that the setting of strategic direction was more analytic.
Interestingly, the participants in the department did not view strategy and change as
linked. The researcher was unable to determine from the data, why there was a difference
in perception between the department and the college, when both used the same planning
process. The traditional strategic planning model followed by the university, that
followed the “planning view” of strategy as a rational, linear, top-down structured
process, accounted for the focus on analysis to set direction.
Fairholm and Card (2009) propose the critical importance that purpose, meaning
and values are as foundational elements of strategic thinking are to managing change.
The participants in the department and college cases viewed the planning process as a
value adding element. In the department case, the participants also indicated that those
values were present as a self-referencing point in their minds. In the college case, the
participants perceived that the planning process added value to the organization, but the
use of those values as a self-referencing point was not found. The researcher believes that
data to determine a finding related to value in the college case could be collected only at
a later stage in their process. In the college, the statement of strategic intent had not yet
been adopted and agreed to at the time of the study. Agreement on those values and their
185
guiding purpose occurs in the STP during the adoption process of the statement of
strategic intent.
In the university case, it was found that participants also perceived value in the
planning process, however as in the college case, there was no finding that the value
created a self-referencing point for the participants in decision making. The university
process used measurement and control to coordinate activity. Both the college and the
university were not using value specification or the integration of those values to guide
their activities, whereas the department was.
The framework for the study proposes that a strategic thinking process uses
minimum specifications to guide the work of the organization. In both the department and
college case, this was found to be true. In the department case, the statement of strategic
intent was functioning as a guiding document, but as was mentioned by one participant
(D3) he/she was frustrated by the lack of concrete goals and measurements.
An outcome was a mission, values, aspiration and priorities statement. No
goals….Assigning subcommittees to come up with work plans for all the
priorities, have created a nightmare of a process. About the worst thing that
administrators can do is create new committees to implement a committee’s
vision, especially when none of this is linked to SACS, NCATE or the
university’s plan.
The college was not yet at this point in their process so there was no data collected on
that part of the process, but as mentioned above, the university was well into the
implementation phase of its planning process. The focus of their plan on the creation of a
186
written plan, that used maximum specifications, was the primary goal of the process. An
example of the goals and measurements was discussed in the single case write up.
The strategic thinking model of planning proposes that the end result of the
process is the concept of strategic fitness; or rather, is the plan a fit to the external and
internal environment? In the case of the department the researcher’s finding was
inconclusive. There was the finding that the process added value to the organization. In
the college case, the researcher was able to observe the planning process, and from the
data collected from the observations and supporting evidence in the interview data, it was
concluded that the process was a good fit to the external and internal environment. In the
university case, the process was found to be a fit to the external environment based on the
evidence in the interview data. The analysis of data found that the creation of the plan
was the ultimate objective.
The final element in the study framework was chunking change. Pisapia (2009)
proposes that the process of chunking, starting small then building a complex system, is
the way to make things work in a complex system, such as higher education. The
university created a plan that consisted of large, stand-alone projects. In the complex
system of the university the participants perceived this to be a problem with the plan and
those comments are noted in the single case study. In the cases of the department and
college, it was too early in the process to measure implementation, which is where this
element fits in the framework.
187
Perception of the process. The perceptions of the participants were that the
strategic planning process in all three was cases were successful. But, the definition of a
successful strategic planning process was defined in this study as a process that alters the
attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the participants and the organization. The
researcher found in the department and college cases that the strategic thinking process
was an effective method of planning. The planning process in the university was not
found to be effective. In the university case, the difference between the participant’s
perception of success and the definition of success proposed in the study made sense to
the researcher. The ultimate goal and focus of the traditional strategic planning process at
the university was in the creation of a plan. The data supported the finding that the
process resulted in a written plan and therefore, in the views of the participants, it was a
success.
Summary of Cross-Case Findings
The previous analysis identified the cross-case findings of the study, which when
assess in its entirety answer the research questions posed in the study: What were the
elements of the strategic planning process used? Did the strategic planning process follow
a strategic thinking or strategic planning model? Did the process used create an effective
model of change for the organization? The findings were summarized in Table 5.1.
The majority of the findings of the study’s proposed framework were shared by
the department and college cases. Both cases were found to have used a strategic thinking
planning process. Also, both in both cases the use of the STP provide an effective model
of planning that altered the attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the department and
college. In the third case, the university was found to have uses a traditional business
188
model of strategic planning. That model was found to not be effective in altering the
attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the university. The inconsistency in the
participant’s perceptions of whether the planning process in each case was successful was
inconsistent in the case of the college and the university. In the college case, the planning
process was found to be effective, but the participants did not strongly support that
conclusion, although some did. In the university case, the participants felt strongly that
the process was successful, in spite of the ineffectiveness of the process.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Strategic planning has long been a practice of each new president, dean,
department chair and Boards of Trustees in higher education since the introduction of
strategic planning as a critical tool for businesses in the 1960’s. It was then adopted as a
tool for higher education in the early 1980’s. The adaptation of the business model of
strategic planning to the complex adaptive system (CAS) of a higher education
organization has not proven to be an effective model of change.
The theoretical notion that one first plans strategy, then designs structures, and
finally implements “stands almost totally alone at odds with what really happens
in a university”, leading to the conclusion that “either the universities ‘have it all
wrong’ or the strategy theoreticians do” (Hardy, et al., 1983, p. 407).
An argument can be made that neither higher education nor strategy theoreticians “have it
all wrong”, but neither has been able to identify a model that supports effective change in
higher education. Planning is necessary, change in inevitable, yet as has been illustrated
in this study, there is an emerging field of thought and empirical evidence that
189
incorporating strategic thinking elements in the strategic planning process, can create an
effective model for higher education organizations.
Birnbaum (1999) and Kezar (2005) outline unique organizational features found
in higher education organizations. These features of goals that are difficult to quantify,
relative independence from environmental influences, anarchical decision making,
voluntary collaboration, multiple power and authority structures and image as opposed to
bottom line performance measures makes universities hard to change. The elements of
strategic thinking proposed in the conceptual framework of the study, and incorporated
into the STP process, created an effective model for change that meets the unique needs
of higher education.
As two of the three cases illustrate, the use of the STP to introduce strategic
thinking elements into the planning process, acted as building blocks to “serve as
generators that can be combined in many ways to yield viable reactions to the world”
(Holland, 1998, p. 236). The use of a traditional business model of strategic planning in
the university case was not found to meet the needs of the university in facilitating
change in the attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviors of the participants or the
organization in general. The STP presents a model that is suitable for higher education
organizations to create a learning environment, to implement creative and emergent
strategies, that result in the organization’s positioning and responses to a rapidly
changing environment. This section outlines the major findings of this study, the
relationship of those findings to the literature in the field and recommendations for higher
education leaders in the use of strategic thinking based planning in their organizations.
190
The significance of the study and its implications for future research concludes the
chapter.
Conclusions
This study proposed a planning process that included elements of strategic
thinking would create an effective model of strategic planning for higher education. The
principle findings in this case answer the research questions: What were the elements of
the strategic planning process used? Did the strategic planning process follow a strategic
thinking or strategic planning model? Did the process used create an effective model of
change for the organization? The findings are:
1. The incorporation of strategic thinking elements in the strategic planning process
of higher education organizations; provides an effective strategic planning process
to alter the attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviors of the organizations.
2. The creation and adoption of a statement of strategic intent rather than a formal
plan with maximum specifications is a more effective guide for decision making
for higher education organizations.
3. Higher education organizations are complex adaptive systems (CAS). Therefore,
a strategic thinking planning process is a better fit to the functioning of the system
and managing change, than a traditional business model of strategic planning.
4. The use of the STP that was used by the department and the college provided an
effective model of change in each case.
Strategic thinking. Peter Senge (1990) in his introduction in the Fifth Discipline
asked; “it had been said that the United States was the first country in our modern era
founded on a vision. Is it possible that in some very real sense this vision was born out of
191
a capacity for dialogue?” (p. xiii). The key elements of strategic thinking: systems
thinking, creativity and vision all depend on the effective use of dialogue. According to
Pisapia (2009) systems thinking is rooted in the leader’s ability to see systems
holistically, understand properties, forces, patterns and inter-relationships that shape
behaviors of an organization. Only through this understanding can leaders and managers
then make decisions about which options provide opportunity or demand action. But,
unless there is effective dialogue to analyze, synthesize and create a shared vision,
organizations cannot respond to rapid changes in the external or internal environment.
The result is an organization where tasks are unconnected, stagnant, lack creativity and is
ineffective in addressing the changing needs of its constituents.
The use of dialogue is significant in the implementation of the strategic thinking
elements of systems thinking, which include synthesis, reflection and reframing. Liedtka
(1998a) proposes the result of dialogue “around strategic issues is both better strategy for
an organization and creates better developed strategic thinking capabilities in its
members” (p. 124). The department and the college used strategic listening sessions and
strategic conversations to conduct extensive dialogue to synthesize large amounts of
data, generated both internally and externally. This is not to imply that the university did
not use dialogue, rather the use of strategic listening sessions and strategic conversations
were a more effective process to drive dialogue and systems thinking more broadly and
deeper in the organization. The evidence of which is supported in the change of attitudes,
values, beliefs and behaviors in the department and college cases.
Creativity is identified in the literature as a key element of strategic thinking
(Bonn, 2001; Liedtka, 1998b; Pisapia 2009; Senge, 1990). At the intersection of systems
192
thinking, creativity and vision, is strategic thinking (see Figure 3). Creativity is defined as
the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain. Strategy is about ideas and the
development of creative solutions, therefore creativity is a prerequisite to strategy
formulation. The use of the systems thinking elements of reflection and reframing, in the
cases of the department and the college, created the opportunity for participants to be
creative in the crafting of the statement of strategic intent. Reflection was defined in this
study as the ability to use perceptions, experience and information to make judgments as
to what has happened in the past and is happening in the present to help guide future
actions (Pisapia, 2009). The use of synthesis of internal and external data in the
department and college cases provided the opportunity for the use of reflection.
Reframing was defined as the examining of the same situation from multiple
vantage points using different frames to gain insight and new options for action, Also, it
is the ability to switch attention across multiple perspectives, frames, mental models and
paradigms in order to generate new insights and options for actions (Bolman & Deal,
2008; Pisapia, et al., 2005). Again, the use of the strategic conversation sessions in the
department and college cases provided ample opportunity for reframing to occur and
creative dialogue as part of department and college planning processes.
The strategic thinking elements of vision and vision integration are supported in
the literature as critical to the success of strategic change (Bolman &Deal, 2008; Kotter,
1996; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). The strategic thinking process used in the department
and college cases placed substantially more emphasis on the analysis of data from
external sources. The strategic conversation focused the participants on dialogue around
“who they want to be” versus looking at “who we are.” The planning process in the
193
university focused on “who we are.” There was no evidence that the university explored
the line of inquiry; “who we want to be.” This lack of inquiry was a result of the top-
down management style of setting goals. The researcher found this linear, top-down
approach to have impeded creativity and the integration of vision or values in the
university case. The strategic listening sessions in the department and college, focused
the participants on what was happening and the expectations of the external environment
about the department and the college. This caused the participants to look outward, rather
than just inward. Gioia and Thomas (1996) found where information processing
processes were more participatory and interactive; the results were stronger identities and
images in the organizations.
If the emphasis is on “who we are,” information processing structure provides the
means for justifying and reinforcing the status quo; if the emphasis is on “who we
want to be,” information processing structure become a driver for legitimizing an
altered image, whereas strategy might be the driver for altering or retaining the
image. (p. 397)
Statement of strategic intent. Strategic intent envisions a desired leadership
position and establishes the criterion the organization will use to chart its progress. It is
also an active management process that includes: focusing the organization’s attention on
the essence of winning; motivating people by communicating the value of the target;
leaving room for individual and team contributions; sustaining enthusiasm by providing
new operational definitions as circumstances change and using intent consistently to
guide resource allocation (Prahalad & Hamel, 1989). The statement of strategic intent
creates the vision and incorporates a shared understanding of the where the organization
194
wishes to go (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Pisapia, 2009). The end product of the STP in the
department and college case was the creation of a statement of strategic intent. The
statement included minimum specifications that were designed to function as a guide in
the future decision making of the department and college. It was found that the
department was using the statement of strategic intent as a guide, by focusing on the
values, aspirations and priorities outlined in the document. In comparing the
department’s decision making in the implementation phase, to the university’s decision
making process in the implementation stage, the researcher found that the department’s
statement of strategic intent was guiding the individuals in the department in their
ongoing work. In the case of the university, there was no finding that the strategic plan
was guiding the decision making or work of the university.
In creating strategic intent, it is as much about the creation of meaning for
employees as it is about the establishment of direction (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). That is
not to say that creating strategic intent was an easy process, rather it was a process that
took a great deal of time, about 18 months in each of the college and department cases.
The university took the same amount of time to create the plan, even though they had the
goals handed to them at the beginning of the process. How the participants spent the
planning time was different in the department and college cases compared to the
university. The department and college spent their working efforts on the synthesis of
data, and the creation of the statement of strategic intent. The creation of the statement of
strategic intent relates to the creation and integration of vision and values. Pisapia (2009)
describes that statement of strategic intent “as a one page tablet that engages followers at
195
an emotional level and provides a framework guiding how people direct their energy,
judge organizational performance and foster self-management” (p. 119).
The university spent most of the time in creating the objectives and measurements
for each goal. In the department and college, the STP provided a framework for creating
the statement of strategic intent. As described earlier, each of the five strategic
conversations asked a specific question. At the conclusion of the five conversations, the
participants in the department had a one page document that outlined the mission, core
values, aspirations and priorities.
Complex adaptive systems and complexity theory. Robert Birnbaum (1988)
described the university as a bureaucracy. Southeastern University has a linear
organizational structure, with clear lines of authority, beginning with the Board of
Trustees at the top, to the president and then following in a cascade downward to the
faculty and support staff at the bottom of the chart, fitting Birnbaum’s (1988) definition.
But, there are additional aspects of the university organizational structure. It is a loose-
coupled (Weick, 1976), and a complex adaptive system (Holland, 1995). Loosely
coupled is where decisions are made in isolation and decisions often have no direct
impact or direct effect on other parts of the university. A CAS is non-linear and made up
of a large number of active elements that are diverse in form and capability, and is both
self-organizing and learning. All three are viable descriptions of Southeastern University.
Complexity theory has been shown to have an effect on leadership efforts in
complex adaptive systems (CAS). Dooley (1997) described CAS as behaving/evolving
according to two key principles: order is emergent as opposed to predetermined and the
state of the system is irreversible and often unpredictable. He concludes that the nature of
196
change in a CAS “that there is not necessarily a consistent pattern of change” (p. 89). In
suggesting a change strategy for CAS, he recommends creating a shared vision for the
organization; cultivating inquiry; learning; experimentation and divergent thinking;
enhancing external and internal communications; instilling rapid feedback loops;
cultivating specialization; differentiation and integration; creating shared values and
principles of action, and making explicit a few essential structural and behavioral
boundaries. Morgan’s (2006) metaphor of organization as an organism; and its strength in
recognizing the organization as such is that the emphasis is placed on understanding
relationships between organizations and their environments. Finding a strategic planning
process that recognizes the complexity of a higher education organization and addresses
the unique needs is the central purpose of this study. The researcher found that the
characteristics of strategic thinking planning process are a better fit for the needs and
characteristics of a higher education organization.
The STP provided a working framework in building shared values and principles
of action as was evidenced significantly in the department case, and less significantly in
the college case. There was no evidence in the university case that shared values were
created as result of the traditional strategic planning model. The STP structure and
process provided immediate feedback loops through the use of strategic conversations.
Direct observations found that there was a clear structure and behavioral boundaries that
the facilitator maintained throughout the college planning process. The researcher
observed that this practice facilitated a clear process for the synthesis of data, feedback
from individuals and resulting agreement on the drafts of mission, core values,
aspirations and priorities of the college. The perceptions of the participants in the
197
department case were that this same process also occurred during the department
planning, but the researcher was unable to observe that portion of the process, as it was
completed before this study.
Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP). Shoup and Studer (2010) found that
complex systems do not lend themselves to precise management formulas yet systems
need to be managed, but rarely are they controlled. The leadership in complex systems of
higher education organization needs to recognize that “the more complex the system, the
greater interdependence the individual parts of the system has in their contribution to the
whole and maintaining equilibrium” (p. 102). The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP)
proposes a new way of planning (Pisapia & Robinson, 2010). The STP framework uses
core capabilities of strategic thinking skills, strategic sensitivity, value specification,
strategic listening and strategic conversations, minimum specifications, chunking change
and strategic fitness to develop an actionable plan; the statement of strategic intent.
Pisapia’s (2009) protocol includes three strategic habits; agility of the mind, anticipating
the future, and articulating a direction, which then joins agility with anticipating and
articulating to pursue the two tasks: a) anticipating changes, challenges and opportunities
in the internal and external environments, and b) creating and articulating common values
and direction in a generative/minimum specifications manner to foster perspective
transformation and organizational fitness. The details of the two phases (strategic
thinking and strategic execution) and how they work are discussed in the introduction of
the department and college cases. The desired outcome of the protocol is to achieve
successful strategy that meets the characteristics of the organization’s environment and
its internal resources through the creation of a statement of strategic intent.
198
The function and use of the statement of strategic intent has been discussed in
detail in previous sections of this study. Rather, the actual use of the protocol in the
planning process at the department and the college was found to be an effective tool in
each case. An effective model of change for higher education organizations was defined
in this study, as a process that alters the attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the
organization. In the case of the department and the college, this study found that the use
of the STP to generate a strategic thinking planning model was effective as perceived by
the participants and supported in the data analysis.
Limitations
The conclusions of this study and following recommendations were based on the
findings that emerged from the three individual case studies and the cross case analysis.
The findings could be enhanced with further study of the department and college
processes as they move further in the implementation stage of the process. The
conclusion that the STP proved to be an effective planning model for the department and
college would have more veracity, if the STP was used in other higher education settings.
Based on these limitations and those outlined in the first chapter the findings are not
generalizable across higher education institutions in general. However, the cross-case
analysis does compare and contrast a traditional strategic planning model to the STP. The
findings that the traditional model was not effective, adds to the empirical base of
knowledge that higher education is in dire need of a different way to plan and the STP
presents a possible new option.
199
Recommendations
Strategic planning will never be effective in higher education, as long as higher
education uses a traditional business model of strategic planning. The loosely coupled,
complex organizational structure of higher education is not conducive to a top-down,
linear planning process. Based on the insights gained in this study, the following
recommendations are made for higher education organizations contemplating initiation of
strategic planning process, for accrediting agencies to design better measurements of
what constitutes a successful planning process and for leaders who are managing change,
no matter where they are in the organizational hierarchy.
Higher education organizations. Higher education organizations must continue
to plan to ensure that they survive and thrive in the future. No one knows what higher
education organizations will look like in the future due to a rapidly changing environment
in which they operate. The first recommendation for organizations looking at strategic
planning is to understand that the future is not predictable, demographic and economic
fluctuations and changes will continue, and what happens in the world outside the
academy, will have far reaching impacts on what happens inside the academy. Strategic
thinking brings to the process of planning a set of elements that can assist the
organization in building a statement of strategic intent to act as a guide in future decision
making. The creation of large, stand-alone initiatives as strategy have proven to be
ineffective in higher education. In order to implement generative change, encourage
creative solutions to problems and empower the members of the organization to act in a
strategic way; they must be given the latitude to change direction, respond to
opportunities and yet remain true to the values and vision of the organization. To
200
accomplish this, higher education organizations need to change the way they plan.
Incorporating the key strategic thinking elements of synthesis, systems thinking,
reflection and reframing will build a shared sense of purpose, shared values and vision
for the organization.
The second recommendation is that higher education planning processes need to
be inclusive of every level in the organization. Managers at all levels need to clearly
understand their role in the larger system, how the larger system works and how they fit
in the functioning of that system. The use of strategic listening and strategic
conversations can serve to build that understanding. Strategic thinking and incremental
change happens from the bottom up, not the top down. The planning process at Penn
State (Dooris, 2003) was the closest study to this one where the researcher found a
process that has begun to incorporate some elements of strategic thinking. Through the
use of technology the university is connected at all levels in their planning process and it
has proven to be productive.
Accrediting agencies. Accrediting agencies and professional organizations need
to lead the way to more effective planning in higher education. The changes that need to
occur to support effective planning and management of change in higher education, needs
to be lead from the very agencies that mandated strategic planning in higher education to
begin with. That is not to imply that strategic planning should not have been incorporated
into higher education, but the attempt to implement a traditional business model had
proven to be ineffective. It is the old “round peg in the square hole” attempt.
To lead the way, these organizations can incorporate element descriptions and
working protocols that incorporate strategic thinking in the planning process in their
201
guidelines and publications. Stating that having a plan is not enough, but the depth and
breadth of the impact of the plan is the important measure of success. Creating shared
values cannot be accomplished with the planning process now used in higher education
and the research tells us that creating shared values and the integration of vision, is what
connects the planning to successful implementation.
Higher education leaders. This recommendation speaks to leadership at all
levels of the organization. The first recommendation is to use the STP to guide the
planning process in the organization. The use of dialogue is critical to bringing people in
the organization to a common understanding of the role of university, the functioning of
the university and their own role in making the university work. When individuals
understand what is expected of them and how they contribute to the greater whole, they
are supportive and engaged in ensuring the success of the organization.
The second recommendation is to ensure that everyone, including the leader
understand the forces that are impinging on their department, college and the university
as a whole. The use of strategic listening and strategic conversations should not be
limited to just the faculty, or just the staff, but be inclusive and open to all members of
the community. Leading by example is a critical part of this process. Asking others to
attend a strategic listening session and then not attending sends a clear message about the
commitment of the leader to the process.
The final recommendation is that leaders need to be committed to a strategic
thinking planning process. The strategic thinking planning process has been found to be
effective in creating a shared sense of purpose, alters attitudes, values, beliefs, and
202
behaviors of the individuals and the organization. The creation of the statement of
strategic intent, serves as the guiding framework for future decision making.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant for several reasons. First and foremost, any attempt to
instill strategic thinking in higher education has been thwarted by an effective working
model of strategic thinking (Amitabh & Sahay, 2008; Masifern & Vila, 2002). This study
is important because it investigates three distinct planning processes in higher education,
two that used a strategic thinking model, the STP for planning and then compares and
contrasts those two cases, to another case that used a traditional business model of
strategic planning. The findings of this study suggest that a strategic thinking model of
planning is effective in successfully altering the beliefs, value, attitudes and behaviors of
individuals in higher education organizations.
Secondly, the research is significant because it adds to and advances the body of
literature in several key areas. It builds on a growing, albeit small body of research
dedicated to the inclusion of strategic thinking in the planning processes of organizations
to effect lasting and meaningful change. The research also contributes to the literature of
social-cognitive change and the role that culture plays in organizational change. And
lastly, the findings in this study builds on the work of Bonn, 2005; Liedtka, 1998a;
Mintzberg, 1994b; Morrissey, 1996; O’Shannassy, 2003; Pisapia, 2009; Thakur &
Calingo, 1992, in clarifying the differences between strategic planning and strategic
thinking found in the literature.
203
Future Research
The limitation of this study’s findings and conclusions creates an opportunity for
further research on the STP and the use of strategic thinking elements in higher education
planning processes. First, the STP needs to be tested in more higher education
organizations. These would include, but not be limited to other department level and
college level settings. Second, a follow-up study should be conducted at Southeastern
University in the department and in the college to measure the longer term impact and
effectiveness of the statement of strategic intent. Determining if there is a link between
strategic thinking and the successful implementation of change is an important limitation
of this study.
The participants in each of the studies were homogenous in the demographic
make-up of the strategic planning committees. There is a need to understand whether
mixing participants from different levels across the organization affects the
successfulness of the planning process. And, if it is found to affect the process, why is
that and what strategies can be developed to ensure a deep and broad commitment to the
plan in the organization? A second part of this analysis of demographic make-up is the
role the leader plays in the strategic thinking process. In each case in this study, the
leaders played a different role that did not allow for a direct analysis of the impact of the
leaders in the process. Does the type of role, either passive or active influence the success
of the process?
Lastly, the current research is void of studies that measure how a strategic
thinking process may improve the strategic thinking skills of the leader. If in fact, the use
of the STP is found to improve the strategic skills of the leaders in the department and
204
college studies, understanding exactly what skills and how the process impacted the
growth of those skills would be an important addition to the field of leadership.
205
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
Interview Guide
Name of Interviewer: ____________________________________________________
Name of Interviewee: ____________________________________________________
Location of Interview:____________________________________________________
Date: _________________ Start Time:_____________ End
Time:__________________
Introduction/Opening Statement: Thank you very much for agreeing to spend time
with me today. The purpose of my interview is to ask you questions regarding my
dissertation research study. The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of and
identify the elements of an effective planning process that meet the unique organizational
features and complexities of higher education. As promised when we set up the interview
all of your responses are confidential and will be used only for the purpose of this study.
A pseudonym will be used and you will not be identified in the study. I would like to
accurately capture our conversation today. In order to do this may I audiotape your
responses? The tape will be destroyed after the end of the study.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
Part 1 Roles Participants Played in the Strategic Planning Process
Question No. Question
1.1 Please describe your position at Sun Coast State College. How long
have you been with the college/Department/University?
1.2 Describe your organization:
Probe: Are goals difficult to quantify?
Probe: How independent is it from outside influences, from the
external environment?
Probe: Is the decision making hierarchical?
Probe: Are there multiple power sources?
Probe: Is the focus on image or the bottom line performance?
206
1.3 Please describe your role in the Strategic Planning Process at the
college between (dates of process)?
Probe: How did you come to be in this role? Volunteer,
assignment…if so, by whom?
1.4 What did the other members of the committee do at the
department/college/university?
Please describe their positions.
1.5 Did you role change over the course of this planning process?
Probe: If yes, in what way?
1.6 Do you feel differently about your role being able to look back and
reflect?
1.7 Were there any changes in the roles of others on the committee?
Probe: Did any members change during the planning process?
Probe: Did your role change? If so, how?
1.8 Did the Chair/Dean/President of the department/college/university
have a role in this process? Please describe that role and any
observations you might have had at the time.
1.9 Did other leaders of the college/department/university have a role in
this process? Please describe that role and any observations you might
have had at the time.
Part 2 The Assumptions Participants Hold Toward Planning
Question No. Question
2.1 Do you believe the future can be predicted?
2.2 Do you believe that strategy and change is linked?
2.3 Does the plan or the planning process add value to the organization?
Part 3 The Process Used
Question No. Question
3.1 Can you please describe the strategic planning process at the College
from its beginning?
Probe: If not, what is the earliest point of your involvement in the
process?
Probe: Would you say the process was characterized by logic,
reasoning, numbers and rationale thinking?
Probe: Would you say the process was influenced synthesis,
recognition of patterns in data, and integration of data?
3.2 What was the charge given to the committee?
Probe: Who gave that charge?
Probe: How well was it followed?
Probe: What problems occurred?
3.3 Were there any assumptions that you based the planning process on?
Probe: Was there a prescribed plan?
Probe: Were there formulated goals and directive given in the
207
beginning?
3.4 Do you believe that lower level managers need only know their role
and leave planning to the upper levels?
3.5 Do you believe that all managers need to understand the forces
impinging on the department/college/university?
3.6 Does your plan include a statement of intent?
3.7 How were the goals of the College formulated?
Probe: Were they assigned by someone else, or did the committee
develop them?
3.8 Was the process dependent on data?
Probe: If yes, how much so?
3.9 What techniques were used (SWOT, Scenarios, Environmental
Assessments, etc.
3.10 How close did you process inventory, sort, analyze and assess
substantial amounts of data?
3.11 If you could alter anything about the strategic planning process, what
would it have been?
Part 4 The Effectiveness of the Process
Question No. Question
4.1 Please describe the earliest meeting that you can recall and any others
that are of particular interest to you. Probe: What about those meetings
are memorable and why?
4.2 In your opinion, how successful was the strategic planning process?
Probe: If unsuccessful, please describe why you think the planning
process was unsuccessful.
4.3 In your opinion, did the strategic planning process change the activities
of the (university, college, or department)?
4.4 In your opinion, has the strategic planning process changed your
beliefs about the organization?
How well did the process answer the following questions:
4.5 What do we do?
4.6 Where do we stand?
4.7 Where do we want to go?
4.8 How do we get there?
Part 5 The Effectiveness of the Implementation and Degree of
Connectedness
Question No. Question
5.1 What were the plans for implementing the goals of strategic plan?
Probe: Were there written or some other formal directive about
208
implementation?
5.2 How are the goals being implemented today?
5.3 Please describe the implementation process.
Probe: Are there changes or improvements that might facilitate the
implementation better?
5.4 Do people here fundamentally understand the direction and goals set in
the plan?
Probe: Do they understand the process needed to enact the plan?
5.5 How successful do you believe the implementation of that plan has
been to date?
Probe: From 1-10, with 10 being completely successful.
5.6 Think about your feelings toward your organization (university,
college or department) and to what degree do you feel connected to the
organization?
Probe: From 1-5, with 5 being completely connected.
5.7 Think about your feelings toward the other members of the strategic
planning team. To what degree do you feel connected to the other
members of the work group?
Probe: From 1-5, with 5 being completely connected.
5.8 If you could alter anything about the strategic implementation process,
what would it be?
5.9 Is there anything that I have not asked, that you would like to add?
Probe: Other comments or thoughts?
Closing: Thank you for taking time out today to contribute to this study. Again I want to
reiterate that this information will remain confidential and be used only for the purpose of
this study. I am happy to send you a transcript of the interview for your review to ensure
that I have accurately captured our conversation today. If I have any further questions of
clarification may I call you for follow up? You are free to contact me if you have
anything additional you would like to add.
209
APPENDIX B
Interview Request
FROM: Deborah Robinson
Doctoral Candidate, Florida Atlantic University
Educational Leadership – Higher Education
RE: Request for Interview
Dear Name:
I am in the process of conducting a dissertation research project at Florida
Atlantic University, where I am a doctoral candidate. The study is a multi-case qualitative
study that has structured interviews as the primary data collection method.
The purpose of my study is to gain an understanding of, and identify the elements
of, an effective strategic planning process that meet the unique organizational features
and complexities of higher education. The (university, college, department) completed
their strategic planning process in the recent past, and I am very interested in hearing
your perceptions about how the process was conducted.
You have been selected to participate because of your role on a committee as part
of the Strategic Planning Process that took place between XXX and XXX (dependent on
university, college or department). If you decide to participate in this research study, you
will be asked to answer questions that relate to your experience in that process.
If you agree to participate, all of your responses will be confidential, the
institution will be given a pseudonym, and your identity will also remain confidential.
After the interview you will be sent a copy of the transcript for your review to check for
accuracy. You also have the right to withdraw your participation at any time.
Please let me know if you would be willing to participate in this assignment by
responding to this email, or by calling me at 561-252-4314 so that we can arrange a
mutually convenient time and location to meet.
Thank you for your consideration.
210
APPENDIX C
Sample Adult Consent Form
ADULT CONSENT FORM
1) Title of Research Study: A Comparative, Holistic, Multi-Case Study of the
Implementation of the Strategic Thinking Protocol©
and Traditional Strategic Planning
Process at a Southeastern University.
2) Investigator: Dr. John Pisapia (Dissertation Committee Chair), Deborah J. Robinson
(Doctoral Candidate)
3) Purpose: The purpose of this multi-case study is to identify the elements of strategic
planning processes that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of a
higher education institution.
4) Procedures: Participation in this study will involve each subject sitting for a 60 – 90
minute structured interview. The researcher may request access to institutional
documentation directly related to the purpose of the study under the subject’s charge.
Subjects may deny access to this documentation and may withdraw from the study at any
time.
5) Risks:
The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than one would experience
in regular daily activities.
6) Benefits:
Potential benefits that subjects may attain from participation in this research study
include a greater knowledge of the elements of strategic thinking in university planning
processes that could serve as a useful management tool that integrates the internal and
external aspects as organizations search for strategy that impacts outcomes.
7) Data Collection & Storage:
With your authorization, this interview will be recorded and transcribed. All of the
results will be kept confidential and secure and only the people working with the study
will see your data, unless required by law. The data will be kept for 2 years in a locked
cabinet [or password protected computer] in the investigator’s office and then
destroyed.
8) Contact Information:
*For related problems or questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact
the Florida Atlantic University Division of Research at (561) 297-0777. For other
questions about the study, you should call the principal investigators, Dr. John Pisapia
211
(responsible principal investigator) at (561) 297-3550, [email protected], or Deborah J.
Robinson (main investigator) at (561) 252-4314, [email protected].
9) Consent Statement:
*I have read or had read to me the preceding information describing this study. All my
questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I am 18 years of age or older and
freely consent to participate. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at
any time without penalty. I have received a copy of this consent form.
I agree ____ I do not agree ___ to be audio-taped.
Signature of Subject: ___________________________________________Date:
Signature of Investigator: ___________________________________________ Date:
212
APPENDIX D
List of Documents
Table 1: University Documents
Document
#
Title of
Document
Type of
Document
Date of
Document
Date of
Retrieval
Comments
U1 Strategic Plan Webpage n.d 06/1/2011 Strategic Plan
2006-2013
Website
U2 Strategic Plan Webpage n.d. 06/1/2011 Statement of
Vision and
Mission
U3 Strategic Plan Webpage n.d. 06/1/2011 Values
Statement
U4 Strategic Plan Webpage n.d. 06/1/2011 Goals and
Objectives
U5 Start Your
Planning
With a
SWOT!
Report n.d. 06/1/2011 Report from
Institutional
Effectiveness
& Analysis
Results of
SWOT in the
Spring of
2005.
U6 Strategic
Planning –
Audit and
Finance
Committee,
Joint
Committee
Meeting
Minutes 06/13/2007 09/9/2010 Portion of
meeting was
on strategic
planning
initiatives
U7 Strategic
Planning
Committee
Minutes 10/24/2007 09/9/2010 Reports on
Strategic
Goals
U8 Strategic
Planning
Committee
Minutes 10/17/2006 09/9/2010 Reports on
Strategic
Goals
U9 Strategic
Planning
Committee
Goal 4
Task Force
Report and
Update
10/24/2007 09/9/2010 Reports on
Strategic
Goals
213
U10 Strategic
Planning
Team List
Power
Point Slide
n.d. 09/9/2010 Simple List of
members
U11 President
Delivers
State of the
University
Address
Press
Article
September
2005
07/5/2010 State of the
University
Address
U12 Strategic Plan
– Goal 4
Task Force
Report
Report October 2007 06/1/2011 Report of the
strategic
planning
process of
Goal 4.
U13 Strategic
Plan:
Division of
Student
Affairs
Report 05/4/2010 07/2010 Report of
Progress on
Goals
U14 Strategic
Planning
Committee
Meeting -
BOT
Minutes 06/14/2006 07/20/2011 Minutes of
Board of
Trustees
Meeting
U15 Strategic
Planning
Committee
Meeting-
BOT
Minutes 12/13/2006 07/20/2011 Minutes Board
of Trustees
U16 Strategic
Planning
Committee –
BOT
Minutes 04/25/2007 07/20/2011 Minutes board
of Trustees
U17 Strategic
Planning
Committee –
BOT
Minutes 06/13/2007 07/20/2011 Minutes Board
of Trustees
U18 Strategic
Planning
Committee –
BOT
Minutes 12/12/2007 07/20/2011 Minutes Board
of Trustees
214
Table 2: College of Education Planning Documents
Documen
t #
Title of
Document
Type of
Document
Date of
Document
Date of
Retrieval
Comments
C1 College of
Education
Strategic
Thinking/Plannin
g
Committee
work plan
n.d. 07/10/10 Meeting schedule
for steering
committee
C2 COE Strategic
Thinking
Protocol: Charge
to the Steering
Committee
Charge and
timeline
for
completing
the work
n.d. 07/10/10 Work Plan
C3 COE Strategic
Thinking
Protocol: The
Strategic
Thinking
Protocol
Description n.d. 07/10/10 Description of
the strategic
thinking process
C4 Signals from our
Environment:
Student
Feedback
Summary
Report n.d. 07/10/10 Report of student
panel that
responded to two
specific
questions.
C5 Signals from our
National
Environment:
Summary
National
Perspective
Report 2010 07/10/10 Report of remark
by Arne Duncan
to Harvard
(2010) and
Columbia
(2009).
C6 Signals from our
State
Environment
Report 2010 07/18/11 Report of
listening session
with State
representatives.
C7 Signals from our
University
Environment
Report n.d. 07/18/11 Report of
comments from
University
representatives.
C8 Signals from our
Local
Environment
Report n.d. 07/18/11 Report of
comments from
local community
representatives.
C9 Summary of
College of
Report n.d. 07/18/11 Overview and
report of data
215
Education
Perspectives
related to the
College of
Education.
C10 Results of
Strategic
Conversation #1
Report Jan 2010
– January
2011
07/18/11 Synthesis of
faculty, staff and
administrator
perceptions of
Strategic
Listening
Sessions.
C11 Conversation #2
Input
Report February
11, 2011
07/18/201
1
Report of
Strategic
Conversation
2/11/11.
C12 Dean’s Welcome Webpage n.d. 07/10/201
1
Welcome and
invitation to
participate.
C13 College of
Education
Faculty
Assembly
Meeting
Minutes 04/16/201
1
07/09/201
1
Meeting minutes
that contain
Strategic
Thinking/Plannin
g updates.
C14 Strategic
Thinking
Meeting
Power
Point
Presentatio
n
08/18/201
0
07/09/201
1
Presentation of
University Data.
C15 Strategic
Conversation #3
– What we are in
Business to
Accomplish?
Report 03/14/201
1
07/09/201
1
Summary of
Conversation
C16 Our Values –
2011
Report 03/14/201
1
07/09/201
1
Values Statement
C17 Strategic
Conversation #4
– Our Aspiration
Report 04/15/201
1
07/09/201
1
Report on
Conversation #4
216
Table 3: Department of Educational Leadership Planning Documents
Title of
Document
Type of
Document
Date of
Document
Date of
Retrieval
Comments
D1 An
Application of
the Strategic
Thinking
Protocol:
Department of
Educational
Leadership
Report 2009 07/2010 Description of
the Protocol
D2 Change to the
Navigating
Team
Report 2009 07/2010 Charge to the
Navigating
Team
D3 The
Navigating
Team Work
Plan
Report August 2009 07/2010 Schedule of
meetings for
the Navigating
Team.
D4 Sample
Statement of
Strategic Intent
Report 2009 07/2010 Outline and
overview of a
Statement of
Strategic
Intent.
D5 Strategic Intent
Statement
Report 2/24/2010 07/2010 Adopted
Statement of
the Department
D6 Agenda for
Department’s
2009 Fall
Retreat
Report n.d. 07/2010 Agenda of
Retreat for
Strategic
Conversations
D7 Strategic
Conversation
#1
Report n.d. 07/2010 Results of 10
interviews.
D8 Department
Chair’s
Welcome
Webpage 12/13/2010 07/09/2011
D9 Department
Website
Webpage 12/13/2010 07/09/2011 Mission,
Values and
Aspirations
217
All Cases
Document Summary Form
Document # Document Name Date Collected
Significance:
Brief Summary of Contents:
Question This Document Addresses:
218
APPENDIX E
Observation Guide
# Event Date/Location Occurrences Guide
1 Physical Surroundings: location, description.
Participants: Who, how many, their roles?
Purpose: What is happening, sequence of
activities, interaction amongst participants?
Dialogue: amongst participants, describe
setting.
Other observations: body language, seating
arrangements, hierarchical behavior, silences?
Researcher: roles, perception by participants,
reflections and other field notes.
2 Physical Surroundings: location, description.
Participants: Who, how many, their roles?
Purpose: What is happening, sequence of
activities, interaction amongst participants?
Dialogue: amongst participants, describe
setting.
Other observations: body language, seating
arrangements, hierarchical behavior, silences?
Researcher: roles, perception by participants,
reflections and other field notes.
219
APPENDIX F
First Level Coding Table
1st Round
Code
Description Department
Case
College
Case
University
Case
AC Activity Change 18 9 10
AS Actionable Strategy 5 6 6
BC Beliefs Change 14 14 12
BO Bonding to Outcomes 4 6 10
BR Breadth 5 10 24
CB Coalition Building 6 7 3
CC Collective Commitment 12 7 9
CCA Combination: Creativity and
Analysis
1 0 0
CH Change Desired 4 1 13
CR Creativity 0 0 0
CT Connectedness 12 13 13
DA Use of Data 14 16 12
DC Destruction of Commitment 0 0 1
DePo Decrease in Politics 1 0 0
DP Depth 8 12 28
EE External Environment 30 30 40
FA Facilitator 6 5 2
FI Focused Intent 1 3 0
GS Generative Strategy 1 0 0
HD Hypothesis Driven 0 0 0
HH Hierarchical 1 2 15
HI Horizontal Integration 17 0 0
IE Internal Environment 0 31 39
IF Inward Focus 2 3 0
IMG Image 6 3 9
IMP Implementation 0 4 33
INFN Informal Negotiation 5 0 0
ING Integration 6 1 0
INT Intuition 1 0 0
IO Intelligent Opportunism 2 0 0
IP Increased Politics 1 0 1
LA Liner Assumptions 1 0 0
LG Logic Based 1 0 0
LI Linkage of Strategy and
Change
6 8 8
MI Multiple Interpretations 1 1 0
NAR Narrative 1 0 0
220
NV Narrow Vision 0 0 0
OL Outward Looking 6 0 0
OUT Outcomes 3 5 26
PF Predict the Future 4 7 8
PR Process 13 13 55
PS Persuasion 0 0 1
RL Role 11 6 24
RP Rigidity of Process 6 0 3
RT Rational Thinking 4 1 0
SA Surfacing Assumptions 6 7 0
SC Success of Process 27 13 20
SHA Sharing Assumptions 2 3 0
SI Strategic Intent 1 0 0
SL Strategic Listening 1 1 0
SP Systems Perspective 14 13 3
ST Systems Thinking 6 1 3
SY Synthesis 6 12 0
TT Thinking in Time 3 1 0
VA Values 13 11 9
VELN Vertical Integration 2 0 0
VI Vision 4 6 10
Total 325 292 466
221
APPENDIX G
Sample Statement of Strategic Intent
(Result of 1999 Strategic Review Process)
MISSION:
The mission of the Department of Educational Leadership is to prepare and support
leaders working in educational environments.
GUIDING PRINCPLES [aka Core Values]:
(Principles not in a priority order)
The following principles will guide the work of and relationships of the Department of
Educational Leadership.
We will:
Work together in an environment of trust, civility, mutual respect and support;
Embrace our diversity and see it as a strength;
Base our academic culture on rigor and relevance for every student;
Etc;
ASPIRATION:
We aspire to become the preeminent preparer of leaders in [state] with a growing
national and international reputation.
PRIORITIES:
(Priorities are not listed in any ranked order)
The following priorities will assist the Department of Educational Leadership achieve its
aspiration:
Increase full time student enrollment in our programs;
Seek national and international partnerships;
Internationalize our curriculum;
Provide opportunities for students to attend national and international research
conferences.
222
REFERENCES
Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-
1184.
Amitabh, M., & Sahay, A. (2008). [Strategic thinking: Is leadership the missing link and
exploratory study] Unpublished raw data.
Ansoff, H. I. (1980). Strategic issue management. Strategic Management Journal, 1, 131-
148.
Ansoff, H. I. (1991). Critique of Henry Mintzberg's 'The Design School: Reconsidering
the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 12,
449-461.
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review,
55(September - October), 115-125.
Argyris, C. (1994). On organizational learning (2nd
ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Axelrod, R., Axelrod, E., Jacobs, J., & Beedon, J. (2006). Beat the odds and succeed in
organizational change. Consulting to Management, 17(2), 6-9.
223
Baldridge, V. J. (1983). Strategic planning in higher education: Does the emperor have
any clothes? In V. J. Baldridge (Ed.), Dynamics of organizational change in
education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Barker, T. S., & Smith, H. W. (1997) Strategic planning: Evolution of a model.
Innovative Higher Education, 21(4), 287-306.
Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavior and Brain Sciences,
17(1), 1-10.
Barrow, C. (1996). The new economy and restructuring higher education. The NEA
Higher Education Journal, 65-81.
Bates, D.L., & Dillard, J.E. (1993). Generating strategic thinking through multi-level
teams. Long Range Planning, 26(5), 103-110.
Birnbaum, R. (1986). Leadership and learning: The college president as intuitive
scientist. The Review of Higher Education (9)4, 381-395.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Birnbaum, R. (1999, May-June). Academic leadership at the millennium: Politics or
porcelain? Academe, 85(3), 14-19.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from,
what they do, why they fail. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s
report. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30 (1), 77-96.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
224
Bonn, I. (2001). Developing strategic thinking as a core competence. Management
Decision, 39(1), 63-70. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005408
Bonn, I. (2005). Improving strategic thinking: A multilevel approach. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 26 (5), 336-354.
doi:10.1108/01437730510607844
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Boyer, E. L. (1994). The academic profession: An international perspective. A special
report. Ewing, CA: California/Princeton Fulfillment Services.
Cherwitz, R. A. (2005, November/December). A new social compact demands real
change: Connecting the university to the community. Change, 46 – 49.
Chen, M. (1994, March-April). Sun tzu’s strategic thinking and contemporary business.
Business Horizons, 42-48.
Chussil, M. (2005). With all this intelligence, why don’t we have better strategies?
Journal of Business Strategy, 26(1), 26-33.
Cohen, M., Thompson, B., Adelman, L, Bresnick, T., Shastri, L., & Riedel, S. (2000).
Training critical thinking for the battlefield: Basis in cognitive theory and
research. Ft. Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Research Institute.
Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
225
Daghir, A. & Al Zaydi, K. (2005). The measurement of strategic thinking type for top
managers in Iraqi public organizations – cognitive approach. International
Journal of Commerce and Management, 15(1), 34-47.
De Gus, A. P. (1988). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 6(2), 70-74.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston, MA: Heath.
Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change.
Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, (1)1, 69-97.
Dooris, M. (2003). Two decades of strategic planning: Is strategic planning a useful tool
or a counterproductive management fad? Planning for Higher Education, 31(2),
26-32.
Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2009). Embedding strategic agility. Long Range
Planning, 43(2-3), 370-382.
Eckel, P., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher
education. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fairholm, M.R. & Card, M. (2009). Perspectives of strategic thinking: From controlling
chaos to embracing it. Journal of Management & Organization 15, 17-30.
Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. (2000). Leadership amid the constraints of trust.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(2), 102 – 109.
Fish, S. (2004, April). Plus ça change. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from http://chronicle.com/article/Plus-Ccedil-a-Change/44555/
French, J. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies
in social power, (150-167). Oxford, England: University of Michigan.
226
Ghoshal, S., Bartlett, C., & Moran, P. (1999, Spring). A new manifesto for management.
Sloan Management Review, 9–20.
Ginsberg, A. (1994). Minding the competition: From mapping to mastery. Strategic
Management Journal 15,153-174.
Gioia, D.A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change
initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448.
Gioia, D. A. & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity and issue interpretation: Sensemaking
during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3),
370-403.
Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: Towards understanding
the complementarities. Management Decision, 40(5/6), 456-462.
Hakim, C. (1987). Research design: Strategies and choices in the design of social
research. Contemporary Social Research Series (13). London: Allen and Unwin.
Halpren, D. (1996). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Hansen, S. W. (1991). Visions of strategic thinking. In J. Nase (Ed.), Arenas of strategic
thinking. Helsinki: Foundation for Economic Education.
Hardy, C., Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., & Rose, R. (1983). Strategy formation in the
university setting. The Review of Higher Education 6(4), 407-433.
Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1991) Strategic management: An integrative perspective.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
227
Heracleous, L. (1998). Strategic thinking or strategic planning. Long Range Planning
31(3), 481-487.
Heracleous, L. (2003). Strategy and organization: Realizing strategic management. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Heese-Biber, S. & Dupuis, P. (2000) Testing hypothesis on qualitative data: The use of
HyperRESEARCH computer-assisted software. Social Science Computer Review,
18(3), 320-328.
Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York, NY:
Helix Books.
Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence from chaos to order. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Hussey, D. (2001). Creative strategic thinking and the analytical process: Critical factors
for strategic success. Strategic Change, 10(4), 201-213.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Balogun, J. (2009). The practice and process of delivering
integration through strategic planning. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8),
1255-1288.
Johnson, G. (1992). Managing strategic change - strategy, culture and action. Long Range
Planning, 25(1), 28-36.
Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review
(July – August), 65-75.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into
tangible outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-
organization and complexity. New York, NY: Oxford Press.
228
Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating change in higher education in the 21st
Century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report 28(4), 1-177. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the
learning organization. New Directions for Higher Education, 131(Fall), 7–22.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2004, July/August). Meeting today’s governance
challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future
agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education,75(4), 371-399.
Kiechel, W. (2010). The lords of strategy: The secret intellectual history of the
new corporate world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create
uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotler, P., & Murphy, P. (1981). Strategic planning for higher education. The
Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 470-489.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B (1993). The credibility factor. The Healthcare Forum,
36(4), 16-21.
Kutschera, I., & Ryan, M. (2009, Summer). Implications of intuition for strategic
thinking: Practical recommendations for gut thinkers. SAM Management
Journal, 12-20.
229
Liedtka, J. (1998a). Strategic thinking: Can it be taught? Long Range Planning,
31(1),120-129.
Liedtka, J. M. (1998b). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategy and
Leadership, 26(4), 30-35.
Magrath, C.P. (1996, January, 30). Statement on Kellogg Commission of the future of
state and land-grant universities. Washington, DC: National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Masifern, E. & Vila, J. (2002). Strategic thinking: Strategy as shared framework in the
mind of managers. IESE Research Papers No 461. Barcelona, Spain: University
of Navarra.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mintzberg, H. (1994a). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business
Review. 107-114.
Mintzberg, H. (1994b). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1994c). Rethinking strategic planning part1: Pitfalls and fallacies. Long
Range Planning, 27(3), 12-21.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour
through the wilds of strategic management. New York, NY: The Free Press.
230
Mintzberg, H., & Rose, J. (2003). Strategic management upside down: Tracking strategies
at McGill University from 1829 to 1980. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences 20(4), 270-290.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Morrill, R. (2007). Strategic leadership: Integrating strategy and leadership in colleges
and universities. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.
Morrissey, G. L. (1996). A guide to strategic thinking: Building your planning foundation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Mortenson, T. G. (2004, January). Postsecondary education opportunity. (No.139).
Oskaloosa, IA: Mortenson Research Seminar on Public Policy Analysis of
Opportunity for Postsecondary Education.
Newman, F. Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004, October). Higher education isn’t meeting
the public’s needs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(8), B6.
Ocascio, W., & Joseph, J. (2008). Rise and fall – or transformation? The evolution of
strategic planning at the General Electric Company, 1940 – 2006. Long Range
Planning, 41(3), 248-272.
O'Shannassy, T. (2003). Modern Strategic management: Balancing strategic thinking and
strategic planning for internal and external stakeholders. Singapore Management
Review, 25(1), 53-67.
Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s
best-run companies. New York, NY: Warner Books.
231
Pang, N.S. & Pisapia, J. (in press). The strategic thinking skills of Hong Kong school
leaders: Usage and effectiveness. Educational Management, Administration, and
Leadership.
Pisapia, J. (2006). Mastering change in a globalizing world: New directions in leadership
(Education Policy Studies Series No. 61). The Hong Kong Institute of
Educational Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishers.
Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D., & Coukos-Semmel, E. (2005). Developing a strategic
mindset: Constructing the measures. Leadership Review, 5(1),41-68. Retrieved
from http://www.leadershipreview.org/2005spring/article2_spring_2005.asp
Pisapia, J., & Robinson, D. J. (2010, March). Transforming the academy: Strategic
Thinking and/or strategic planning. Paper presented at the American Institute of
Higher Education Conference, Williamsburg, VA.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and
competitors. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Porter, M. (2008, January). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard
Business Review, 79 – 93.
Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1989, May/June). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review.
63 – 76.
Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new
paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5-16.
232
Raimond, P. (1996). Two styles of foresight: Are we predicting the future or inventing it?
Long Range Planning 29(2), 208-214.
Robbins, S.P. & Coulter, M. (2002). Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Roberts, E. B. (1987). Generating Technological Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around
emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 137-150.
Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory u: Leading from the edge as it emerges. The social
technology of presencing. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Schein, E. H. (1993). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass, Inc.
Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems:
Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 351-365. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Shoup, J., & Studer, S. (2010). Leveraging chaos: The mysteries of leadership and policy
revealed. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Education.
Selingo, J. (2003). The disappearing state in public higher education. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. A25.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.
233
Shipengrover, . A. (1996). If it doesn’t embrace chaos, can it be called a strategic plan?
CUPA Journal, 47(2), 1-6.
Sirkin, H., Keenan, P., Jackson, A., Kotter, J., Beer, M., Nohria, N., & Duck, J.
(2005). Lead change - successfully, (3rd
ed.). Cambridge, MA: HBR
Article Collection.
Snyder, K. J., Acker-Hocevar, M., & Snyder, K. M. (2008). Living on the edge of
chaos: Leading schools into the global age. (2nd
ed.). Quality Press.
Stacey, R. (2007). Strategic management and organizational dynamics (5th
ed.).
Prentice-Hall.
Thakur, M., & Calingo, L. M. (1992). Strategic thinking is hip, but does it make a
difference? Business Horizons 35(5), 47-54.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the
essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.
Tosey, P. (2002, May). Teaching on the edge of chaos: Complexity theory, learning
systems and the idea of enhancement. Paper presented at University of Surrey,
Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Tregoe, B.B., & Zimmerman, J. W. (1980). Top management strategy: What it is and
how to make it work. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. (2007). Degree-
Granting institutions, by control and type of institution: Selected years, 1949–50
through 2006-07. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/
tables/dt07_255.asp
234
Vil , J., & Canales, J. I. (2008). Can strategic planning make strategy more relevant and
build commitment over time? The case of RACC. Long Range Planning, 41, 273-
290.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. The
Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407-426.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1974). Decision making as a social process. Decision
Sciences, (5), 743-755.
Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down
memory lane. Organizational Science, 6(3), 260-321.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.