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

UMI Number: 3519991

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3519991 Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Copyright by Deborah J. Robinson 2012

ii

iii

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.

iv

ABSTRACT Author: Title: Deborah J. Robinson A Comparative, Holistic, Multi-Case Study of the Implementation of the Strategic Thinking Protocol and Traditional Strategic Planning Processes at a Southeastern University Florida Atlantic University

Institution:

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. John R. Pisapia Degree: Year: Doctor of Philosophy 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,

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 organizations 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.

vi

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 teacheryou changed the direction of my life.

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

vii

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

viii

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 ix

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 x

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

xi

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

xii

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. McKinseys 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

xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction Higher education is experiencing environmental disruptions that challenge todays 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 1

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 todays 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 doesnt it work in times of uncertainty and ambiguity? More specifically why doesnt 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 decisionmaking, voluntary collaboration, multiple power and authority structures, and image as 2

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).

Statement of the Problem Universities that are dependent on state funding must change to reconcile the perceived gap between funding and meeting the publics 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 outwardlooking 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 publics needs. Scholars suggest that serving society is a 4

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. 5

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 organizations 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; OShannassy, 2003; Thakur & Calingo, 1992.

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 Schn (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); Schn (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).

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 8

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 organizations 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: 9

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 todays 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 10

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 plans execution, and accelerating organizational and individual learning (De Gus, 1988; Johnson, 1992). As Tregoe and Zimmerman (1980) suggest individual managers who can carry their organizations 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. Liedtkas (1998a) elements of strategic thinking include a systems perspective, focused intent, thinking in time, hypothesisdriven, 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 11

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. 12

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 organizations 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 leaders 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 13

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 Excellent Ineffective

Long Term Success

Success Unlikely

Execution
Maybe Successful for a while Failure

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: 14

Table 1.1 The Difference Between Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning Strategic Thinking Change Model Social Cognitive; elements of Political and Cultural. Only the shape of the future can be predicted. Strategic Planning Structural and hierarchical; relegation of external environment to minor role. A future that is predictable and specifiable in detail.

Vision of the Future

Strategic Thinking Skills Strategic Listening Strategic Conversations

Synthesis, systems thinking, reflection, reframing. Used through formal collection of perspectives, data, analysis and synthesis. Strongly evident participants understand the large system and how they connect to it.

Linear, analytic, planning is isolated process. Used through formal collection of data and analysis. 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. Lower-level managers need only know his or her own role well and can be expected to defend only his or her own turf.

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.

(continued on next page) 15

(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. Horizontal to gain synchronization among team.

Asserts control through measurement systems, assuming that organizations can measure and monitor important variables both accurately and quickly. Vertical to insure team compliance.

Alignment

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 Value Specification

Sees the planning process itself as a critical value-adding element. Strong component creates selfreference point in minds of participants. Uses values to control and coordinate activity.

Focus is on the creation of the plan as the ultimate objective. Not strong component uses measurement to control and coordinate activity. (continued on next page)

16

(Table 1.1 continued) Minimum Specification Strategic Fitness Minimum specifications. Maximum specifications.

Fit to external and internal Fit to external environment environment - process adds value to plan is ultimate objective. plan. Small incentives building on each other. Large stand-alone initiatives.

Chunking Change

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. 17

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.

18

Definition of Terms Alignment: is when a group of individuals function as a wholea commonality of direction emerges, and individuals 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 anothers 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). 19

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.

20

Presencing: to sense, to tune in, and act from ones 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 organizations 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 organizations 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). 21

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 22

 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 bachelors 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 23

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 24

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 constituents 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 25

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 Pisapias (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.

26

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 Tzus strategies were heavily 27

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 companys 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 organizations 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. 28

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 Harvards 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 industrys 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. 29

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).
Power of Suppliers

Threat of new entrants

Rivalry among industry competitors

Threat of substitutes

Power of buyers

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 30

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 7Ss. Unaligned, these factors work at cross-purposes; aligned, they drive out potentially needed change. (Liedtka, 1998b, p. 2)

31

Structure

Strategy

Systems

Shared Values Skills Style

Staff

Figure 3. McKinseys 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 McGills 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 Mintzbergs (1994b) research was the finding that strategy making to be a complex, interactive, and evolutionary process, best described as one of adaptive learningthe 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). Mintzbergs five dimensions of strategy include: intended strategy that may remain unrealized; deliberate strategy where 32

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 industrys 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. 33

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. Webelieve 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 Senges (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 34

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 individuals 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 individuals strategic thinking abilitystrategic 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)

35

Bonns 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. 36

The involvement of middle managers in the strategic decision-making process increases an individuals 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 37

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 38

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.

39

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 Mintzbergs 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.

40

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 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). 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. Views strategy formation as a visionary process. (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994). Recognizes the role of strategic thinking in strategy formation. Strategy exists as a leaders vision. Sees strategy formation as a cognitive process that takes place in the mind of the leader. Defines strategy formation as an emergent process. Emergent strategy opens the door to strategic learning because it acknowledges the organizations capacity to experiment (Mintzberg, et al. 1998). Strategy formation is a process of negotiation. Due to the ever present politics in the organization. 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. 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. Strategy formation as a process of transformation. Encompasses the work of the other schools. 41

Planning School

Positioning School

Entrepreneurial School

Cognitive School Learning School

Power School Cultural School

Environmental School

Configuration School

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). 42

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 Kotters vision creation to the step in the symbolic frame that creates a hopeful vision of the future that is rooted in the organizations 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 Pisapias (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 43

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 mindwhat 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 Bertalanffys (1972) general systems theory described the organization as a system where automated control systems can maintain the systems 44

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 45

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 Hollands 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 46

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 aggregatesnonlinear 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

47

typically jeopardizes long-range perditions based on simple trends (p. 25). A recycle effect is dependent on the systems 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; 48

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 organizations actual state is essentially hidden in its complexity as a whole from any single persons 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 individuals 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) nonlinear 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 49

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 Darwins 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 institutions 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 50

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 Kellers release of Academic Strategy in 1983 opens with the statement experts predict that between 10 percent and 30 percent of Americas 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

51

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 1990s 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 institutions planning efforts for accreditation purposes. Barker and Smith (1997) researched a dozen case studies in the 1990s 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, 52

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 Roses (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 managementone system concerns a mission that is 53

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 studys 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 States 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 universitys 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 institutions reputation as a member of the Big Ten, the 54

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 States experience does suggest that the universitys 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 55

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 56

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 57

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 1970s, 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 58

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.

59

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 60

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 multicase 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 universitys use 61

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 colleges 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 researchers 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 universitys charter class was 867 students. From the early 60s through the early 70s the university offered bachelor degrees in business, education, humanities, science and social science. Intercollegiate athletics began in 1969 and thus the transformation of the 62

university to a more traditional institution than was originally envisioned began. During the mid-1970s and into the late 1980s the institution enjoyed a period of fairly stable presidential leadership (2 presidents 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 colleges commitment to individuals seeking a second career in education and students pursing advanced degrees or certifications. The student population 63

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 colleges public web-site. Providing a broad program of degrees and certifications to students is a point of pride that is listed on the colleges 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 universitys third largest enrollment by major; elementary education. The colleges 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 Deans direction

64

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 65

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 Administrators Dean Alumnus/Trustee Faculty Staff Total 1 0 0 4 0 5 College 1 1 0 3 0 5 University 4 0 1 1 1 8 Total 6 1 1 8 1 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 66

accessible group of five or more participants for face-to-face interviews, and exclusion of the site from the researchers 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 67

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 participants 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 68

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 departments 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 colleges 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 69

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 70

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 AC AS BC BO BR CB CC CCA CH CR CT DA DC DePo DP EE FA FI GS HD HH HI IE IF IMG IMP INFN ING Description Activity Change Actionable Strategy Beliefs Change Bonding to Outcomes Breadth Coalition Building Collective Commitment Combination: Creativity and Analysis Change Desired Creativity Connectedness Use of Data Destruction of Commitment Decrease in Politics Depth External Environment Facilitator Focused Intent Generative Strategy Hypothesis Driven Hierarchical Horizontal Integration Internal Environment Inward Focus Image Implementation Informal Negotiation Integration Department Case 18 5 14 4 5 6 12 1 4 0 12 14 0 1 8 30 6 1 1 0 1 17 0 2 6 0 5 6 College Case 9 6 14 6 10 7 7 0 University Case 10 6 12 10 24 3 9 0

1 13 0 0 13 13 16 12 0 1 0 0 12 28 30 40 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 0 0 31 39 3 0 3 9 4 33 0 0 1 0 (continued on next page)

71

(Table 3.2 continued) INT Intuition IO Intelligent Opportunism IP Increased Politics LA Liner Assumptions LG Logic Based LI Linkage of Strategy and Change MI Multiple Interpretations NAR Narrative NV Narrow Vision OL Outward Looking OUT Outcomes PF Predict the Future PR Process PS Persuasion RL Role RP Rigidity of Process RT Rational Thinking SA Surfacing Assumptions SC Success of Process SHA Sharing Assumptions SI Strategic Intent SL Strategic Listening SP Systems Perspective ST Systems Thinking SY Synthesis TT Thinking in Time VA Values VELN Vertical Integration VI Vision Total

1 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 0 6 3 4 13 0 11 6 4 6 27 2 1 1 14 6 6 3 13 2 4 325

0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 5 7 13 0 6 0 1 7 13 3 0 1 13 1 12 1 11 0 6 292

0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 26 8 55 1 24 3 0 0 20 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 9 0 10 466

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 72

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 Department 34 Coding Results College 25 University 40

Activity Changes of Individual/Group

AC , AS, DePo, GS, HH, LI Beliefs Changes BC, IMG, Individual/Group/Organization MI, SA, SHA Internal Horizontal Alignment BO, BR, CB, CC, CT, DC, DP, HI, VELN Envisions Potential Futures FI, IF, INT, IO, PF, VI Perceived as Adding Value INFN, ING, VA Perceived as Successful CH, EE, Process FA, IE, IMP, IP, LA, LG, OL, OUT, RT, SC Other NAR, PS 73

29

28

24

47

50

88

14 24 100

14 12 95

20 9 176

0 1 (continued on next page)

(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 74

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.

75

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 = 76

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 proposedwe had a faculty member doing consulting all over the place on itto

77

convince them, that if he will lead the processthat 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 organizations 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

Navigating Team

Convene

Intent

Quality Committee & Action Teams

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). 78

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 organizations 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 79

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 What do others expect from us? What business are we in? What do we expect from ourselves? What is our aspiration? What are our priorities? Outcome Clear understanding of expectations for the organization. A mission statement A core values statement An aspiration statement 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 80

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.

81

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.

82

Table 4.2 Strategic Thinking/Planning Process Expected Results (Pisapia, 2009) Mission Statement Aspiration To contain no more than three crisp, clear, and compelling themes in one sentence. 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. 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 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. 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.

Guiding Principles

Priorities/Initiatives

Presentation

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 studys 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 83

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. 5/ 5 participants N/A 9/9 Documents Secondary Finding: The STP provided an effective model for change in the department. 4/ 5 participants N/A 9/9 Documents

Interviews Observations Document Review

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 departments decision making and resource allocation for the next 3-5 years.

84

Table 4.4 Study Framework and Findings for the Department Department Case Elements of Process Change Model Vision of the Future Data Analysis Supports the Following Used a social-cognitive model of change, including political and cultural elements. Beliefs of participants were that only the shape of the future can be predicted. Used synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing. Evidenced through formal collection of perspectives, data analysis and synthesis. Strongly evident participants understand the larger system and how they connect to it. Lower level managers have a voice in strategy making. 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. Not measured in study. 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. Horizontal gained synchronization among team. (continued on next page) 85

Strategic Thinking Skills Strategic Listening Strategic Conversations

Managerial Role in Strategy Making Managerial Role in Implementation

Strategic Formulation and Implementation Control

Alignment

(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. 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. Strong component creates selfreference points in the minds of the participants. Uses values to control and coordinate activity. Statement of strategic intent functions as a guiding document. Lacks measurable components and has minimum specifications. Not conclusive that process was a fit to external and internal environment. Did find the process adds value to the plan. Not measured in this study. Strategic Thinking

Process and Outcome

Value Specification

Minimum Specifications

Strategic Fitness

Chunking Change 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.

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. 86

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 departments 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 thats the new reality, thats 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 influencesthat impact our work and lives. D4s comments also supported the social-cognitive model that included the cultural elements of the department and the departments place in the wider university structure. Ive always seen it as a kind of ground up approach that weve 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 were clear about who we are in our boundaries. 87

Participant D1 felt that the process created a social connection between the participants, it creates a sense of community, creates a sense of, its a part of something bigger than you. That you are part of a group of people thats more like a family. The process created a change in D2s 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.Its a paradigm change thats 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 predictgiven the nature of the worldthat 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 isto 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, its really a matter of adapting to changing circumstances. 88

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.

89

D1: We looked at numberswe 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 informationother 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 theseexchanges 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 draftthen 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. 90

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 researchers 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 waysthere was some but not enough at all in my opinionI 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 members beliefs about the department, a change in participants 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:

91

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 hadnt 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.

92

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

93

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 theres an attempt. Theres 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 didnt 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.

94

It was a symbolic gesture [of the department chair] to show how important this was toput it in a prominent place and to make sure that people knew that we were working for something and it wasnt just an exercise. Hopefully, having spent all this time thinking about goals, mission and vision and that kind of stuff. Yes, I think thats 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 writingdeclaring it along the waywe have these aspirations, this mission and this notion of who we want to become, so now its the idea of becoming. Four of the participants agreed with D1s 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. Thats how we live it. Thats 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. Thats what we are doing now, so we have the aspirations and now the subcommittees whatever they are called, each of the aspiration committeeseach one of these committees are thinking about how do we get there and this is, this is part of the departmental process. 95

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 cant learn to respect people if we always silence them. In contrast to the other participants, D3s 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 studys framework. The element of control relies on selfreference 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 individuals 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 96

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 its in peoples mindsWell, 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 placeare there any gaps where they need to be more visible?and the worlds just going to keep

97

moving whether or not you put a structural or conceptual framework around it, its 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 prioritiesmuch more student friendly, much more efficient and organized in the way we deal with peopleSystems 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 meetingswe 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, thats where some people would say I dont remember us going there. Then the facilitator would turn to the people on the navigating committee. So I think that

98

was an effective method that does tend to reinforce a convergence. It doesnt 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 participants 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 Im a little skeptical of planning thats not connected to budgeting. Im 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 participants interviews. All of the participants saw the planning 99

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 commentsin terms of our values about being collegial, civil and respectful. When those things dont 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 departments 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. 100

I think its 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 atand 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 timesand 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? Thats yet to be seen. The example of the syllabi is the example of that theres been an attempt. Theres 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 101

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 cant 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 committees vision, especially when none of this is linked to SACS, NCATE or the Universitys plan. But, in terms of the utility of how useful it isthe 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 departments plan with the university.

102

The trick of that is bounding the university initiatives and visions into the department vision. And, eventually the university will startwith 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 thedepartment. 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 studys 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 studys 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 departments decision making and resource allocation in the future.

103

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 studys 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 dont have any idea whether it will have any impact on what we doI think it was very well doneit was very successful.Although it has been a lot of timeI would go in the direction of still already worthwhile. Even if it doesnt change anything organizationally, I would say it has been a worthwhile endeavor to have. D4s perception also supported the finding that the process was successful. The participant did include clarifying comments about this question asked being early in the 104

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 processbut to put that kind of judgment on itI dont 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 Ive heard comments around, we have, in terms of our values about being collegial, civil and respectful, when these things dont happen, the comment becomes so what happened to our values? I think we are starting and thats 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 Im lostbut we didnt 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

105

process that is it created a document. It created a living document. It created a tangible living document. Thats 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 contributemore focus on using data for decision makingthis 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 placeI 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 participants 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.

106

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 cant 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 107

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).

108

Strategic Thinking

Strategic Execution

Steering Committee

Convene

Intent

Quality Committee & Action Teams

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 colleges 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 109

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. Lets 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 committees 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 studys 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 110

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. Interviews Observations Document Review 5/ 5 participants 5/5 observations 17/17 Documents Secondary Finding: The STP process was perceived as successful by the participants. 4/ 5 participants 5/5 observations 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 colleges decision making and resource allocation for the next 3-5 years.

111

Table 4.6 Study Framework and Findings for the College Department Case Elements of Process Data Analysis Supports the Following Change Model Vision of the Future Strategic Thinking Skills Strategic Listening Strategic Conversations Managerial Role in Strategy Making Managerial Role in Implementation Strategic Formulation and Implementation Control Used a social-cognitive model of change, including political and cultural elements. Beliefs of participants were that only the shape of the future can be predicted. Used synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing. Evidenced through formal collection of perspectives, data analysis and synthesis. Strongly evident participants understand the larger system and how they connect to it. Lower level managers have a voice in strategy making. Implementation not measured in study, but participants understood the larger system and the functioning of the system. Not measured in study.

Alignment Strategy Making

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. Found that process was horizontal gained synchronization among team. 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. (continued on next page)

112

(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. 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. Found the statement of strategic intent will function as a guiding document. Lacks measurable components and has minimum specifications. Observed that process was a fit to external and internal environment. Did find the process adds value to the plan. Not measured in this study.

Value Specification

Minimum Specifications

Strategic Fitness

Chunking Change 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 socialcognitive 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 113

political realities of the college, support the finding that this element was present in the colleges 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 were 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 colleges ability to make substantial change. Depending what you are thinking about programmaticallyvery little independence, we have to do what we are told. The education programs, the initial certification programseverything is driven by [the state]. DOE type of things 114

and of course our national accreditation also drives whatand 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 sessionone of the speakers was the chairman of the house higher education committee of the [state] legislature, who talked about from a legislators standpoint, how do we see higher education. Not surprisingly, they dont 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 its because it is all process.I think its why some people in our college dont 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 115

revealed that the groups 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 dont want us to lose sight of whats important for the collegethere 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 dont know how we are perceived, we dont 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 its 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 didnt 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 predictedbut you dont 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.

116

Nobut I think you can still strategize and plan around possible outcomes. But totally predicted; no. I wouldnt say its predictable but yet you try to think about the possible and alternative avenues and outcomes. Then strategize them in multiple ways so you [dont] 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 dont 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 cant 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 peoples 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 117

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 datasome of it is data driven. Some it would come out of discussionwhich again I like. Its a mixture. You dont 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. 118

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. Its not meaningful. It ceases to become meaningful when you get that much data especially when you dont stop at each level and say okaywhat 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 addressit 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. Thats 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, its validating people at a different level, but at the same timeits still the steering committees decision. We have to in the end, be charged with 119

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 researchers observations that steering committee members 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, its 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, its something we just need to do, its 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 its going to be different here at the college because theres 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.

120

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 cant be a bad thing getting it clarifiedI 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 collegeSo, I now feel that bending over backwards to be inclusive, that I didnt give that a thought to that when I started, I just gave my opinionI think we are in that process right now. I think its starting to take shape and its 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 wont say it changed my beliefs because I have always had positive beliefs. I believe we are really cool and that people are doing wonderful thingsbut it has helped to add to my information base and thats 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 stakeholdersbut when you take peoples time and you pick their brains, and you do nothing, its an insultThis approach here is much more thorough, because its longitudinal and we are not always just talking to each other, but were looking

121

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 thingMy 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 planningI think strategic plans are words and unless those words are supported by a commitment and investment by administration thats all they are is wordsthe 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 122

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 teamthe 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. Its 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 dont 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 doesyou 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 wouldnt say all managers. Some people, its 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.

123

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 doesnt 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 beonce 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, its hard to address that if you dont 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.

124

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 individuals 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.

125

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 Ive gotten to know different facultyand its helped me to get to know other people that Ive worked withI 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 didnt 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 were 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 whats being forced upon us by our government, how we are going to 126

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. 127

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. Yesperhaps 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 wont do any harm and it might clarify things. Participant C4 stated strategy and change yes I do. Thats 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 participants 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 institutions 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 thats 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 128

lot of times people think that going through this process, just kind of going through the motions, its something we just need to do, its 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. Its 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. Thats 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. 129

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 studys 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 studys 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 studys 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 130

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 colleges 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 studys 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 thats back to just everyones 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. 131

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 lotsame 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 visionI think it should anticipate the future. What I had hoped for, especially when you look at how things are changing in terms of whats 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? D3s 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 132

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 its turned out the way I wanted. I mean its a very comfortable strategic process and its 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 institutions ability to face up to critique and not just compliments. And we still dont know because its 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 133

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 presidents 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 nightand I asked [my colleague] if anything had happened while I was gone? She said, you didnt 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 134

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 wasnt 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 Universitys 2006 -2013 Strategic Plan in January 2006. The strategic plan contained a mission, vision, values, and seven goals and objectives for the university. 135

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. 7/ 7 participants N/A 11/11 Documents Second Finding: Process failed to alters attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors. 7/ 7 participants N/A 11/11 Documents

Interviews Observations Document Review

An outline of the elements of the studys 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.

136

Table 4.8 Study Framework and Findings for the University University Case Elements of Process Data Analysis Supports the Following Change Model Vision of the Future Strategic Thinking Skills Strategic Listening Strategic Conversations Managerial Role in Strategy Making Managerial Role in Implementation Strategic Formulation and Implementation Control Alignment Strategy Making Process and Outcome Value Specification Used a structural and hierarchical model of change and relegated external environment to a minor role. Participants view the future as specific and predictable. Were not found. The process was linear, analytic and the process was isolated from input from internal and external input and data. Not used. Found that there was formal collection of data. Not used. The needed information was obtained and the plan was crafted and disseminated for implementation. 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. Found that managers only need know his or he own role. Found the roles of formulation and implementation were clearly divided. Found control asserted through formal measurement systems. Found that alignment was vertical. Found the challenge of setting the strategic direction was primarily analytic. Focus was on the creation of the plan as the ultimate objective. This was not a strong component. University used measurement to control and coordinate activity. (continued on next page)

137

(Table 4.8 continued) Minimum Specifications Strategic Fitness Found the plan had maximum specifications. Found process was a fit to the external environment. The plan was the ultimate objective. Found the plan consisted of large, stand-alone initiatives.

Chunking Change

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 138

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 weekendhe said, well, [chair], you already have your strategic plan. Its 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 universitys] legislative budget request, the list we put together every year for special funding, kind of pie-in-the-sky stuffhe had taken our legislative budget request and cut it up and scotch-taped portions of it within the BOGs goals. He had put all of those in a loose leaf binder and presented it as [the universitys] 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 themat the very end of the process, when I looked to see 139

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 Id 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 plana 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 goalsand 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 bebut I do think its the administration of the university that has to say, this is what we are going to be. In describing the goal setting process, U5s 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 140

constrained.I mean there were definitely goals as related to the big vision. Not losing the fact that the university wasa regional institution servinglocal 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 butthat was part of the consideration. I think they were fairly well developed at the meetingsthe BOG goals were in consideration and initially I dont 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.Theres an environment, well, an environment that developed at [the university] over a period of time where new faculty learned

141

rapidly that it was not healthy to make waves. So theres 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 literallythe 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 142

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 wouldnt say its 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 systemthe state allocation of funds its 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 dont 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 its completely dependent on external forces. I just dont know that administration and leadership always revolves around that. 143

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. Its hard to do something that is ambitious, that is creative or that you actually think might [work]. Thats why people get discouraged about the strategic plans, like who caresas 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 dont is because you know, its another twenty percent cut. We are laying people offso its 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 its very integratedthe 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 dont think there is undue influence. We are not dictating whats happening in the community, and the community is not dictating directly whats happening at the university. At the state level we are all pretty much connected. The influence of the state was apparent in the participants 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 governors office are the strongest external influence on the universitys planning and decision making. 144

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 environments 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 didnt so the objectives were just really pretty straightforward, X degrees. So, when I say the plan describes what we do, its like what we would get to if we just kept doing business as usual. In other words, I dont 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 universitys 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 145

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 moments notice.You very often, especially in bi institutions, just say okay, well this isnt working for XYZX, lets 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.

146

U5 agreed with U6 in the near-term future being predictable, but not very far into the future. Well, I thinkthere 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 whats 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 147

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 dont 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 its gone. As described above the plan was posted on the institutions website for dissemination to the broader organization. U6 did not perceive that this was effective and did not add to greater understanding of individuals role in the broader system. This is a lot of time and money spent and thats, I think one of the difficult things; you know its 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 managementeverybody 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. 148

There was a considerable amount of data concerning data. I think thats probably the biggest driver. So you had institutional research looking at high school graduation estimateslooking at population changesthat was expected at the community colleges and then how would that translate to the number of freshman or transfer students coming into the institutionso I think thats 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 thatbut the provost was just using his projected enrollment growth, just where we were almost. In other words, they were not stretch goalsbut the provost was very cautious and he didnt 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 wasnt about to do that. But I thought, why go through this process if youre not really going to be thinking strategicallywe 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 getif you believe in continuity. Thats an element of that, its important to get 149

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 stuffS.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 its 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 150

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. U2s 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. Employees evaluations were supposed to be based on whether they contributed to the goals. But I dont 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

151

goals were. But, they did not know what everybody else was doing and there just wasnt that kind of forumat 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 shouldnt 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 donecomprehensive fashion from the beginning. I mean thats what the goal was to do it that way. They wanted to have a lot of broad based participation. I dont 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 didnt 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. U7s 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 152

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. Its important that department heads should have people that know whats going on and then thats 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 developmost would think about because they want that.They want everybody to be part of it and to buy into it and understand that its 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 universitys planning was 153

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 Establish a systematic model for delivery of a centralized, comprehensive career development services across all campuses. Campus Outcomes All Number of students utilizing the center and satisfaction rating of the availability and quality of career development services will increase by 10%. Date 20092010 Resources Status $5,000 to Progressing $7,000

Meeting Community Needs and Fulfilling Unique Institutional Responsibilities Strategy Campus Outcomes Utilize a database All Two new options for system to track the community input will status of all contacts be piloted and within the evaluated for community. effectiveness Figure 8. Sample goal specification. Date Resources Status 2007 TBD Progressing

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

154

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 unfortunatelybefore 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 provosts office. Ideas come up, but proposals have to be cleared by the provosts 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. 155

No. You can create the best strategy in the worldit 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 takeversus 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 dont 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. 156

The elements of process and outcomes and value specification were evidenced in the data analysis of the participants 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 selfreference 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 cancreate a good positive atmosphere, because people

157

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 hardit would be really hard to do the right thing, and its not just a question of hiring faculty. Its 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 thats 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 its reasonable, to get a hearing. The explanation for the value of planning, in U2s 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 dont 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. 158

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 outcomesbecause 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 its got to be something that doable, and youve got to look at it everyyearto 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 doesnt matter where we stand, because all that matters is how they perceive where we stand. So theres 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.

159

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 dont 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.

160

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 studys 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.

161

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 studys 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. 162

Certainly, that I learned about elements by activitiesI learned about great management throughout the university and Ive always considered, I consider myself very well informedand 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 didnt. It didnt 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 departments 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 dont think it had a transforming change in my beliefs of the institution. Its a phenomenal institution. Its had a rich history and its 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 dont think it became part of the culture at

163

all. U4 responded No I dont think it did. Participant U7 answered I dont think so. U3 also believed there was no change. I dont. By the time we were finishing the plan I retired. I have talked to people since thenthey all seem to be complaining about lack of resources and morale is low because you cannot pay them enough. You dont have enough people to work with the studentsso 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. 164

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 dont think ever got off the shelfit is probably just average. I think some of it, in many ways, was just too generic, too dry. And it wasnt 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 dont 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 dont 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?

165

U6 responded I know its pretty successful overall and U2 also perceived the process as successful in creating a plan. Its 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 dont 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 teachyes, faculty senate and a few leaders cared. And do I think that people got excited about it? No. I dont 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 166

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 beenmore helpful. Yeah, its like its key to have a plan where you are going, that now you have to change it. I mean thats 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. Its hard to do something thats ambitious, or thats creative, or that you actually think mightthats why people get discouraged about strategic plans, like who caresas 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 its a really tough environment. U7 also suggested narrowing the plan. The first one would be, tonarrow 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 dont 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 167

there and say this is the thing I am doing. I have trouble separating my concern with that outcomebecause 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, soyouve 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 isnt really , its 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 studys 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 168

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.

169

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.

170

Table 5.1 Study Framework and Cross-Case Findings Cross Case Analysis Department College Elements of Process Change Model Used a socialcognitive model of change. Used a socialcognitive model of change, including political and cultural elements. Beliefs of participants were that only the shape of the future can be predicted. Used synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing Evidenced through formal collection of perspectives, data analysis and synthesis. Strongly evident participants understand the larger system and how they connect to it. Used a structural and hierarchical model of change and relegated external environment to a minor role. Participants view the future as specific and predictable. University

Vision of Future

Beliefs of participants were that only the shape of the future can be predicted. Used synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing. Evidenced through formal collection of perspectives, data analysis and synthesis. Strongly evident participants understand the larger system and how they connect to it.

Strategic Thinking Skills

Strategic Listening

Were not found. The process was linear, analytic and the process was isolated from input from internal and external input and data. Not used. Found that there was formal collection of data. Not used. The needed information was obtained and the plan was crafted and disseminated for implementation. (continued on next page)

Strategic Conversations

171

(Table 5.1 continued) Lower level Managerial managers have a Role in voice in strategy Strategy making. 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. Found that managers only need know his or he own role.

Department chair Managerial and program Role in Implementation 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. Not measured in Strategic study. Formulation and Implementation Control Relies on selfreference 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.

Implementation not measured in study, participants understood the larger system and the functioning of the system.

Not measured in study.

Found the roles of formulation and implementation were clearly divided.

Did not find a sense Found control asserted of strategic intent through formal and purpose measurement systems. 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. (continued on next page) 172

(Table 5.1 continued) Alignment Found to be horizontal gained synchronization among team. 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. See the planning process itself as critical value-adding element. Strong component creates selfreference points in the minds of the participants. Uses value to control and coordinate activity. Statement of strategic intent functions as guiding document. Lack measurable components and has minimum specifications. Found to be horizontal gained synchronization among team. 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 See the planning process itself as critical value-adding element. 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 Found statement of strategic intent perceived as guiding document. Lacks measurable components and has minimum specifications. 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. This was not a strong component. University used measurement to control and coordinate activity.

Value Specification

Minimum Specifications

Found the plan had maximum specifications.

(continued on next page) 173

(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. Not measured in this study. Strategic Thinking Model Observed the process was a fit to external and internal environment. Did find that process adds value to the plan. Not measured in this study. Strategic Thinking Model Found process was a fit to the external environment. The plan was the ultimate objective.

Chunking Change Finding 1: Type of Planning Process Used Finding 2: Type of Change Created and Effectiveness of Process

Found the plan consisted of large, stand-alone initiatives. Traditional Strategic Planning Model

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 174

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 colleges 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 175

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 studys 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 studys research questions guided the analysis: What were the elements of the strategic planning process used? Did the strategic planning 176

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 Belief Changes Internal Horizontal Alignment Value of Process Perception of Process Changes in activity were found in the department and college cases. There were no changes in activity found in the university case. Changes of beliefs were found in the department and college cases. There were no changes in beliefs found in the university case. Alignment and synchronization of team found in department and college case. Vertical alignment found in university case. Found to be a strong component in department case. Not found to be a strong component, but still present in college and university case. 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 177

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 topdown, 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 178

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; Vil & 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 (Vil & 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 participants beliefs. 179

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 others 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. Scharmers (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 meetingsit drives me batty. I would sit there for two or three hours and think I 180

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 selfreference - a sense of strategic intent and purpose that is embedded throughout the organization, will guide the organizations 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 181

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.

182

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 individuals 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 studys 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.

183

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 184

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 committees vision, especially when none of this is linked to SACS, NCATE or the universitys 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

185

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 researchers 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.

186

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 participants 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 studys 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 187

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 participants 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 1960s. It was then adopted as a tool for higher education in the early 1980s. 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

188

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 organizations 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.

189

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 190

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 leaders 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 191

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 192

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 topdown 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 organizations 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 193

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 departments decision making in the implementation phase, to the universitys decision making process in the implementation stage, the researcher found that the departments 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

194

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 Birnbaums (1988) definition. But, there are additional aspects of the university organizational structure. It is a loosecoupled (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 195

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. Morgans (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 196

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. Pisapias (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 organizations environment and its internal resources through the creation of a statement of strategic intent. 197

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.

198

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 199

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 200

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

201

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; OShannassy, 2003; Pisapia, 2009; Thakur & Calingo, 1992, in clarifying the differences between strategic planning and strategic thinking found in the literature.

202

Future Research The limitation of this studys 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 203

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.

204

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 Question No. 1.1 1.2 Roles Participants Played in the Strategic Planning Process Question Please describe your position at Sun Coast State College. How long have you been with the college/Department/University? 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? 205

1.3

1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9

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, assignmentif so, by whom? What did the other members of the committee do at the department/college/university? Please describe their positions. Did you role change over the course of this planning process? Probe: If yes, in what way? Do you feel differently about your role being able to look back and reflect? 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? 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. 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. The Assumptions Participants Hold Toward Planning Question Do you believe the future can be predicted? Do you believe that strategy and change is linked? Does the plan or the planning process add value to the organization? The Process Used Question 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? What was the charge given to the committee? Probe: Who gave that charge? Probe: How well was it followed? Probe: What problems occurred? 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 206

Part 2 Question No. 2.1 2.2 2.3 Part 3 Question No. 3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 Part 4 Question No. 4.1

beginning? Do you believe that lower level managers need only know their role and leave planning to the upper levels? Do you believe that all managers need to understand the forces impinging on the department/college/university? Does your plan include a statement of intent? How were the goals of the College formulated? Probe: Were they assigned by someone else, or did the committee develop them? Was the process dependent on data? Probe: If yes, how much so? What techniques were used (SWOT, Scenarios, Environmental Assessments, etc. How close did you process inventory, sort, analyze and assess substantial amounts of data? If you could alter anything about the strategic planning process, what would it have been? The Effectiveness of the Process Question 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? In your opinion, how successful was the strategic planning process? Probe: If unsuccessful, please describe why you think the planning process was unsuccessful. In your opinion, did the strategic planning process change the activities of the (university, college, or department)? In your opinion, has the strategic planning process changed your beliefs about the organization? How well did the process answer the following questions: What do we do? Where do we stand? Where do we want to go? How do we get there? The Effectiveness of the Implementation and Degree of Connectedness Question What were the plans for implementing the goals of strategic plan? Probe: Were there written or some other formal directive about 207

4.2

4.3 4.4

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Part 5 Question No. 5.1

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

5.7

5.8 5.9

implementation? How are the goals being implemented today? Please describe the implementation process. Probe: Are there changes or improvements that might facilitate the implementation better? Do people here fundamentally understand the direction and goals set in the plan? Probe: Do they understand the process needed to enact the plan? How successful do you believe the implementation of that plan has been to date? Probe: From 1-10, with 10 being completely successful. 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. 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. If you could alter anything about the strategic implementation process, what would it be? 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.

208

APPENDIX B Interview Request FROM: Deborah Robinson Doctoral Candidate, Florida Atlantic University Educational Leadership Higher Education Request for Interview

RE: 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.

209

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 subjects 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 investigators 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 210

(responsible principal investigator) at (561) 297-3550, jpisapia@fau.edu, or Deborah J. Robinson (main investigator) at (561) 252-4314, drobin1@fau.edu. 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:

211

APPENDIX D List of Documents Table 1: University Documents Document # U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 Title of Type of Document Document Strategic Plan Webpage Strategic Plan Webpage Strategic Plan Webpage Strategic Plan Webpage Start Your Planning With a SWOT! Report Date of Document n.d n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. Date of Retrieval 06/1/2011 06/1/2011 06/1/2011 06/1/2011 06/1/2011 Comments Strategic Plan 2006-2013 Website Statement of Vision and Mission Values Statement Goals and Objectives Report from Institutional Effectiveness & Analysis Results of SWOT in the Spring of 2005. Portion of meeting was on strategic planning initiatives

U6

Strategic Planning Audit and Finance Committee, Joint Committee Meeting Strategic Planning Committee Strategic Planning Committee Strategic Planning Committee

Minutes

06/13/2007

09/9/2010

U7 U8 U9

Minutes Minutes Goal 4 Task Force Report and Update

10/24/2007 10/17/2006 10/24/2007

09/9/2010 09/9/2010 09/9/2010

Reports on Strategic Goals Reports on Strategic Goals Reports on Strategic Goals

212

U10 U11

U12

Strategic Planning Team List President Delivers State of the University Address Strategic Plan Goal 4 Task Force Report Strategic Plan: Division of Student Affairs Strategic Planning Committee Meeting BOT Strategic Planning Committee MeetingBOT Strategic Planning Committee BOT Strategic Planning Committee BOT Strategic Planning Committee BOT

Power Point Slide Press Article

n.d. September 2005

09/9/2010 07/5/2010

Simple List of members State of the University Address Report of the strategic planning process of Goal 4. Report of Progress on Goals Minutes of Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes Board of Trustees

Report

October 2007 06/1/2011

U13

Report

05/4/2010

07/2010

U14

Minutes

06/14/2006

07/20/2011

U15

Minutes

12/13/2006

07/20/2011

U16

Minutes

04/25/2007

07/20/2011

Minutes board of Trustees Minutes Board of Trustees Minutes Board of Trustees

U17

Minutes

06/13/2007

07/20/2011

U18

Minutes

12/12/2007

07/20/2011

213

Table 2: College of Education Planning Documents Documen Title of t# Document C1 College of Education Strategic Thinking/Plannin g C2 COE Strategic Thinking Protocol: Charge to the Steering Committee C3 COE Strategic Thinking Protocol: The Strategic Thinking Protocol C4 Signals from our Environment: Student Feedback Summary C5 Signals from our National Environment: Summary National Perspective C6 Signals from our State Environment C7 Signals from our University Environment Signals from our Local Environment Summary of College of Type of Document Committee work plan Date of Document n.d. Date of Retrieval 07/10/10 Comments Meeting schedule for steering committee Work Plan

Charge and n.d. timeline for completing the work Description n.d.

07/10/10

07/10/10

Description of the strategic thinking process

Report

n.d.

07/10/10

Report

2010

07/10/10

Report

2010

07/18/11

Report

n.d.

07/18/11

C8

Report

n.d.

07/18/11

C9

Report

n.d. 214

07/18/11

Report of student panel that responded to two specific questions. Report of remark by Arne Duncan to Harvard (2010) and Columbia (2009). Report of listening session with State representatives. Report of comments from University representatives. Report of comments from local community representatives. Overview and report of data

Education Perspectives C10 Results of Strategic Conversation #1 Report Jan 2010 January 2011 07/18/11

C11

Conversation #2 Input Deans Welcome College of Education Faculty Assembly Meeting Strategic Thinking Meeting Strategic Conversation #3 What we are in Business to Accomplish? Our Values 2011 Strategic Conversation #4 Our Aspiration

Report

February 11, 2011 n.d. 04/16/201 1

07/18/201 1 07/10/201 1 07/09/201 1

C12 C13

Webpage Minutes

C14

C15

Power Point Presentatio n Report

08/18/201 0 03/14/201 1

07/09/201 1 07/09/201 1

related to the College of Education. Synthesis of faculty, staff and administrator perceptions of Strategic Listening Sessions. Report of Strategic Conversation 2/11/11. Welcome and invitation to participate. Meeting minutes that contain Strategic Thinking/Plannin g updates. Presentation of University Data. Summary of Conversation

C16 C17

Report Report

03/14/201 1 04/15/201 1

07/09/201 1 07/09/201 1

Values Statement Report on Conversation #4

215

Table 3: Department of Educational Leadership Planning Documents Title of Document An Application of the Strategic Thinking Protocol: Department of Educational Leadership Change to the Navigating Team The Navigating Team Work Plan Sample Statement of Strategic Intent Type of Document Report Date of Document 2009 Date of Retrieval 07/2010 Comments Description of the Protocol

D1

D2 D3

Report Report

2009 August 2009

07/2010 07/2010

D4

Report

2009

07/2010

D5 D6

Strategic Intent Report Statement Agenda for Departments 2009 Fall Retreat Strategic Conversation #1 Department Chairs Welcome Department Website Report

2/24/2010 n.d.

07/2010 07/2010

D7 D8 D9

Report Webpage Webpage

n.d. 12/13/2010 12/13/2010

07/2010 07/09/2011 07/09/2011

Charge to the Navigating Team Schedule of meetings for the Navigating Team. Outline and overview of a Statement of Strategic Intent. Adopted Statement of the Department Agenda of Retreat for Strategic Conversations Results of 10 interviews.

Mission, Values and Aspirations

216

All Cases Document Summary Form

Document # Document Name Date Collected

Significance:

Brief Summary of Contents:

Question This Document Addresses:

217

APPENDIX E Observation Guide # Event Date/Location Occurrences 1 2 Guide 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. 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.

218

APPENDIX F First Level Coding Table 1st Round Code AC AS BC BO BR CB CC CCA CH CR CT DA DC DePo DP EE FA FI GS HD HH HI IE IF IMG IMP INFN ING INT IO IP LA LG LI MI NAR Description Activity Change Actionable Strategy Beliefs Change Bonding to Outcomes Breadth Coalition Building Collective Commitment Combination: Creativity and Analysis Change Desired Creativity Connectedness Use of Data Destruction of Commitment Decrease in Politics Depth External Environment Facilitator Focused Intent Generative Strategy Hypothesis Driven Hierarchical Horizontal Integration Internal Environment Inward Focus Image Implementation Informal Negotiation Integration Intuition Intelligent Opportunism Increased Politics Liner Assumptions Logic Based Linkage of Strategy and Change Multiple Interpretations Narrative Department Case 18 5 14 4 5 6 12 1 4 0 12 14 0 1 8 30 6 1 1 0 1 17 0 2 6 0 5 6 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 219 College Case 9 6 14 6 10 7 7 0 1 0 13 16 0 0 12 30 5 3 0 0 2 0 31 3 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 University Case 10 6 12 10 24 3 9 0 13 0 13 12 1 0 28 40 2 0 0 0 15 0 39 0 9 33 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0

NV OL OUT PF PR PS RL RP RT SA SC SHA SI SL SP ST SY TT VA VELN VI Total

Narrow Vision Outward Looking Outcomes Predict the Future Process Persuasion Role Rigidity of Process Rational Thinking Surfacing Assumptions Success of Process Sharing Assumptions Strategic Intent Strategic Listening Systems Perspective Systems Thinking Synthesis Thinking in Time Values Vertical Integration Vision

0 6 3 4 13 0 11 6 4 6 27 2 1 1 14 6 6 3 13 2 4 325

0 0 5 7 13 0 6 0 1 7 13 3 0 1 13 1 12 1 11 0 6 292

0 0 26 8 55 1 24 3 0 0 20 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 9 0 10 466

220

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.

221

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), 11541184. 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, 131148. 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. & Schn, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Axelrod, R., Axelrod, E., Jacobs, J., & Beedon, J. (2006). Beat the odds and succeed in organizational change. Consulting to Management, 17(2), 6-9.

222

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 partys 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. 223

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 tzus strategic thinking and contemporary business. Business Horizons, 42-48. Chussil, M. (2005). With all this intelligence, why dont 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.

224

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 a 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. 225

Ghoshal, S., Bartlett, C., & Moran, P. (1999, Spring). A new manifesto for management. Sloan Management Review, 920. 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. 226

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 selforganization and complexity. New York, NY: Oxford Press. 227

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), 722. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2004, July/August). Meeting todays 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. 228

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. 229

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 isnt meeting the publics 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 Americas best-run companies. New York, NY: Warner Books.

230

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.

231

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: JosseyBass, 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 Schn, 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.

232

Shipengrover, . A. (1996). If it doesnt 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). DegreeGranting institutions, by control and type of institution: Selected years, 194950 through 2006-07. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/ tables/dt07_255.asp

233

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, 273290. 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.

234