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

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe 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 manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3519991

Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.

UMI Number: 3519991

ii

Copyright by Deborah J. Robinson 2012

iii

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express her sincere gratitude to the faculty in the

Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology at Florida Atlantic

University for their support throughout her studies there. In addition, a special note of

gratitude goes to the members of her committee: Dr. John Morris, Dr. Anne Mulder and

Dr. Dianne Wright for sharing their wisdom, knowledge and encouragement of her in

completing this study. Also, the author wishes to acknowledge the key role that Dr. John

Pisapia played in this work. He was there at every step in the process and ultimately his

faith, coaching, and encouragement enabled her to “run for daylight.”

The journey was made possible through the love and encouragement of friends

and family, too numerous to list here, but to whom the author is forever grateful.

v

ABSTRACT

Author: Deborah J. Robinson

Title: A Comparative, Holistic, Multi-Case Study of the Implementation

of the Strategic Thinking Protocol© and Traditional Strategic

Planning Processes at a Southeastern University

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. John R. Pisapia

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Year: 2012

This study explores the strategic thinking and strategic planning efforts in a

department, college and university in the Southeastern United States. The goal of the

study was to identify elements of strategic planning processes that meet the unique

organizational features and complexities of a higher education institution. The study

employed a holistic, multi-case study approach, wherein three single case studies were

conducted with one unit of analysis. The findings in each case were then compared and

contrasted to provide more evidence and confidence in the findings.

The findings are framed by two constructs: strategic planning and strategic

thinking. The conceptual framework for the study identified the distinction between the

systematic nature of strategic planning and the more integrated perspective of strategic

thinking. Traditional business based strategic planning model uses an analytical process,

vi

logic, linear thinking and a calculating process to develop a plan. Strategic thinking

places a premium on synthesis, systems thinking and a social cognitive process that

results in an integrated perspective of the organization. The outcomes of the strategic

thinking process are described through changes in attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors

of the individuals and the organization.

The results of this study indicate that the use of the Strategic Thinking Protocol©

is suitable for higher education organizations to create a learning environment, to

implement creative and emergent strategies, that result in the organization’s positioning

and responses to a rapidly changing environment. The strategic thinking process in both

the department and college cases were found to be effective in altering the attitudes,

values, beliefs and behaviors of the participants. The integration of the plan is an ongoing

process with strong beginnings in both the department and college cases. The traditional

strategic planning process used in the university case was found not to be an effective

model for higher education organizations. Finally, the inclusion of strategic thinking

elements is an effective change model for higher education institutions.

DEDICATION

This manuscript is dedicated to my son Matthew, who knows what it has taken to

get here. He is a true believer in the pursuit of dreams and not letting anyone or anything

get in the way of reaching them.

≈

In memory of Lionel Mosher, my teacher…you changed the direction of my life.

vii

A COMPARATIVE, HOLISTIC, MULTIPLE-CASE STUDY OF THE

IMPLEMENATION OF THE STRATEGIC THINKING PROTOCOL©

AND TRADITIONAL STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

AT A SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xiii

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 4

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 5

Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 5

Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 7

Strategic thinking and strategic planning. ................................................... 7

The Study Framework ........................................................................................... 14

Method .................................................................................................................. 17

Definition of Terms ............................................................................................... 19

Role of the Researcher .......................................................................................... 23

Limitations ............................................................................................................ 24

Delimitations ......................................................................................................... 25

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 25

viii

Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 27

History of Strategy and Strategic Planning ........................................................... 27

Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning ............................................................ 34

Strategic Management and Strategic Leadership .................................................. 40

Vision and Vision Integration ............................................................................... 42

Open Systems Theory ........................................................................................... 44

Complexity Theory ............................................................................................... 46

Strategy in Higher Education ................................................................................ 50

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 58

Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 60

Research Design .................................................................................................... 61

Sample Plan ........................................................................................................... 61

Site Selection. ............................................................................................ 61

Southeastern University. ............................................................... 62

Southeastern College of Education. .............................................. 63

Southeastern Department of Educational Leadership and

Research Methodology .................................................................. 65

Participant Selection .............................................................................................. 65

Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 66

Interviews. ................................................................................................. 68

Documents. ................................................................................................ 69

ix

Observations. ............................................................................................. 69

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 69

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 74

Findings ............................................................................................................................. 76

Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology,

Southeastern University ........................................................................................ 77

Planning process: The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP). ................... 78

Formation and charge to the navigating committee. ................................. 81

Findings ..................................................................................................... 83

The Department Process Utilized a Strategic Thinking Process. .............. 84

Elements of study framework. ................................................................... 87

Successful Model of Change .................................................................... 104

Department Case Summary ................................................................................. 107

College of Education, Southeastern University .................................................. 108

Planning process: The Strategic Planning Protocol© (STP) ............................... 108

Formation and charge to the steering committee. ................................... 109

Findings ................................................................................................... 110

The College Process Utilized a Strategic Thinking Process. .................. 111

Successful Planning Process ................................................................... 131

College Case Summary ....................................................................................... 133

Southeastern University ...................................................................................... 134

Findings ................................................................................................... 136

The University used a traditional strategic planning process. ................. 138

x

Success of Strategic Planning Process .................................................... 162

University Case Summary ................................................................................... 168

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................ 169

Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................ 170

Cross-Case Analysis ............................................................................................ 176

Activity changes. ..................................................................................... 177

Belief changes. ........................................................................................ 178

Internal horizontal alignment. ................................................................. 181

Value of the process. ............................................................................... 184

Perception of the process. ........................................................................ 187

Summary of Cross-Case Findings ....................................................................... 187

Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 188

Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 190

Strategic thinking. ................................................................................... 190

Statement of strategic intent. ................................................................... 193

Complex adaptive systems and complexity theory. ................................ 195

Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP). ...................................................... 197

Limitations .......................................................................................................... 198

Recommendations ............................................................................................... 199

Higher education organizations. .............................................................. 199

Accrediting agencies. .............................................................................. 200

Higher education leaders. ........................................................................ 201

Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 202

xi

Future Research ................................................................................................... 203

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 205

A. Interview Protocol .......................................................................................... 205

B. Interview Request ........................................................................................... 209

C. Sample Adult Consent Form .......................................................................... 210

D. List of Documents .......................................................................................... 212

E. Observation Guide .......................................................................................... 218

F. First Level Coding Table ................................................................................ 219

G. Sample Statement of Strategic Intent ............................................................. 221

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 222

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 The Difference Between Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning ............. 15

Table 2.1 Strategic Thinking Adapted from Bonn (2005). ............................................. 36

Table 2.2 Overview of the Ten Schools of Strategic Management,

(Mintzberg, et al., 1998) ................................................................................. 41

Table 3.1. Participant Distribution by Function and Case .............................................. 66

Table 3.2. Open Coding Frequency Report .................................................................... 71

Table 3.3. Theme and Description Matrix ...................................................................... 73

Table 4.1. STP Questions and Outcomes (Pisapia, 2009) .............................................. 80

Table 4.2. Strategic Thinking/Planning Process Expected Results (Pisapia, 2009) ....... 83

Table 4.3. Findings and Data Sources for the Department ............................................. 84

Table 4.4. Study Framework and Findings for the Department ..................................... 85

Table 4.5. Findings and Data Sources for the College ................................................. 111

Table 4.6. Study Framework and Findings for the College .......................................... 112

Table 4.7. Findings and Data Sources for the University ............................................. 136

Table 4.8. Study Framework and Findings for the University ..................................... 137

Table 5.1. Study Framework and Cross-Case Findings ................................................ 171

Table 5.2. Themes Found In Cross-Case Analysis ....................................................... 177

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Combining strategic intent with execution as adapted from Pisapia (2009) ...14

Figure 2. Diagram of five forces that shape industry competition as cited in (Heracleous,

2003) ................................................................................................................................. 30

Figure 3. McKinsey’s “7S Model” as described in (Peters & Waterman, 1982) ............32

Figure 4. Strategic Thinking adapted from Bonn (2005) that reflects the intersection of

the three elements of strategic thinking ............................................. ….……………..…36

Figure 5. Strategic Thinking (Liedtka, 1998b). ................................................................37

Figure 6. The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009) ............................................78

Figure 7. The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009). .........................................109

Figure 8. Sample goal specification .................................................................................154

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Higher education is experiencing environmental disruptions that challenge today’s

higher education leaders and the academy itself to become more agile. It is proposed that

in such times leaders at every level of the organization must act in a strategic way,

meaning they must develop and implement actionable plans (Pisapia, 2009). The historic

manner in which higher education leaders have dealt with such disruptions is through

strategic planning which has not always resulted in actionable plans or increased the heart

beat of those that have to implement it. Higher education has adopted strategic planning

as a “cure-all” for dealing with the challenges that have presented themselves from the

local community to federal and state mandates, funding cuts, and increasing pressure to

produce measurable results. Mintzberg (1994b) suggests that the problem arises from the

application of a linear, simplistic planning system to a complex adaptive system of a

university. A complex adaptive system is a dynamic network of many entities acting in

parallel, while constantly acting and reacting to what other entities are doing. The control

of complex adaptive systems are highly dispersed and decentralized and the behavior of

the system is the result of decisions made every moment by individual entities in the

system (Holland, 1995).

The object of strategic planning is change (Fish, 2004; Pisapia & Robinson,

2010). Planning is a process in which long term goals are transformed into short term

2

tasks and objectives. In traditional strategic planning, the process is heavily dependent on

data analysis and operations research techniques such as SWOT analysis and scenario

planning. It is a process that inventories, sorts, analyzes and assesses substantial amounts

of data. It relies on long-term planning, linearity and rationality. The process results in a

strategic plan which many times displays hierarchies of goals that cascade throughout the

organization all tied to the central plan. There is clear agreement that the idea of strategic

planning is good. Unfortunately, it has been estimated that between 70-90% of all change

efforts fail (Axelrod, Axelrod, Jacobs, & Beedon, 2006; Covey, 2004; Kaplan & Norton,

2004; Mintzberg, 1994a; Sirkin et al., 2005). Although change is unavoidable, planned

change does not appear to be so. Strategic planning worked well in the pre-digital world

where formal structures held organizations together. There is also agreement that it works

less well in today’s more dynamic environments where values, culture, and commitment

to the common good of the organization are the glue that holds organizations together

(Baldridge, 1983; Birnbaum, 2000; Bonn, 2001; Chussil, 2005; Mintzberg, 1994b;

Robbins & Coulter, 2002; Shipengrover, 1996; Stacey 2007).

When strategic planning techniques are implemented in a mechanistic

organization with high levels of certainty and agreement they work well. So why doesn’t

it work in times of uncertainty and ambiguity? More specifically why doesn’t strategic

planning work well in higher education? Birnbaum (1999) and Kezar (2005) point to

distinctive organizational features found in universities: goals which are difficult to

quantify, relative independence from environmental influences, anarchical decision-

making, voluntary collaboration, multiple power and authority structures, and image as

3

opposed to bottom line performance measures which make universities difficult to

change. In addition to organizational features, Pisapia (2006) suggests that failure is due

to leader inadequacies such as:

(a) they are trained in and rely upon a linear thinking mindset, which does not

work in situations characterized by ambiguity and complexity; (b) they are unable

to identify critical societal and institutional forces impacting their environment

and thus do not connect their organizations to the major themes associated with

success; (c) their concept of change is also linear and therefore they overuse

quantifiable parameters in the change process and seek to rationally plan their

way to success; and (d) they do not see their organizations as dependent upon the

actions and views of other organizations and individuals, therefore, they do not

connect with significant forces on their critical paths of success. (p. 2)

While organizational and leader features are important facilitators or barriers, the

reason strategic planning works less well today is essentially due to its most important

feature of a heavy reliance on rational and linear assumptions of cause and effect about

events. This leads to difficulty of predicting in complex environments, results in

narrowing vision, creating a rigidity of the process, destruction of commitment, increase

of politics, shortened tenure of lead administrators, and the process itself becoming more

important than the results. Most scholars suggest that the process by which strategy is

created must be reconceived to meet the needs of a rapidly changing environment (Bonn,

2005; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Mintzberg, 1994c; Scharmer, 2001).

4

Statement of the Problem

Universities that are dependent on state funding must change to reconcile the

perceived gap between funding and meeting the public’s needs. Even those who wish to

remain independent must change to garner more resources. Change is inevitable, but

success is not (Pisapia, 2009). The problem confronting universities is how to transition

from an organization of inward-looking silos to an organization of collaborative outward-

looking departments and colleges that shrink the gap. Clearly the challenge concerns

organizational change that alters the attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors of the

institution, its employees and the public. In response to these important issues, scholars

and institutional leaders are calling for new models and “new thinking” to expand

institutional boundaries and restore the social compact between higher education and

colleges and universities (Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Walsh, 1995).

Higher education institutions are not mechanistic organizations, but complex

adaptive systems that must define viability in an ill defined future. Today, higher

education institutions are challenged to meet the needs of communities and the people

who live in them and serve public purposes; as the gap between the interests of the

university and the interest of society widens, their legitimacy is questioned (Boyer, 1994;

Ghoshal, Bartlett, & Moran, 1999; Magrath,1996). As this gap has expanded, state

appropriations have declined and are projected to continue to decline in the long term. In

response, universities have tightened enrollments, raised tuition, and negotiated new

relationships with their states to become quasi-private institutions (Mortenson, 2004;

Selingo, 2003). The argument advanced for funding declines is that colleges and

universities are not meeting the public’s needs. Scholars suggest that serving society is a

5

compelling obligation, yet the gap is growing between what society needs and what

higher education currently provides (Cherwitz, 2005; Newman, Couturier, & Scurry,

2004).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this multi-case study was to identify the elements of strategic

planning processes that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of a

higher education institution. The primary questions guiding this investigation were: What

were the elements of the strategic planning process used? Did the strategic planning

process follow a strategic thinking or strategic planning model? Did the process used

create an effective model of change for the organization? Additional questions that will

be asked:

Did the way the plan was developed affect its implementation, as perceived by

the participants?

How effective were the strategic planning processes as judged by management

and the participants in the planning process?

Significance of the Study

The study is important for several reasons. The claim that strategic thinking

overcomes the limitations of formal strategic planning is widespread in the literature.

There have been several attempts to develop description and prescriptive models of

strategic thinking found in the literature (Bonn, 2001; Liedtka, 1998a; Pisapia &

Robinson, 2010). However, there are fewer empirical studies of the models, their

elements and their relationships with important outcomes of their use. But, the elements

and the link between strategic thinking and plan execution have not been studied before.

6

The findings of this study provide guidance in how to increase strategic thinking

elements in university planning processes and provide empirical support to the study

process, as a useful management tool that integrates the internal and external aspects as

organizations search for a strategy that impacts outcomes. Traditional planning looks

outside to the external environment and limits internal looks to capabilities of the current

organization processes, thus limiting the range of solutions to what they have

experienced.

Furthermore, any attempt to embed strategic thinking within an organization’s

processes is stymied by the lack of a working model of strategic thinking (Amitabh &

Sahay, 2008; Masifern & Vila, 2002). This study potentially provides a strong model that

addresses the unique organizational and participant features of higher education

institutions as opposed to downloading a model created to operate in a for profit

corporation and in more stable times. This study contributes to the literature of effective

change in higher education, by generating an understanding of the difference between

strategic planning and strategic thinking. This study also clarifies differences between

strategic planning and strategic thinking found in the literature among authors such as

Bonn, 2005; Liedtka, 1998b; Mintzberg, 1994b; Morrissey, 1996; O’Shannassy, 2003;

Thakur & Calingo, 1992.

7

Conceptual Framework

The two constructs which frame this study: strategic planning and strategic

thinking are discussed in the following paragraphs. From this discussion, a framework

that identifies the potential elements of strategic thinking and strategic planning, and the

organizational responses to the processes used was extracted to guide the development of

the study purpose, questions and methodology used to determine which elements were

employed and to what effect.

Strategic thinking and strategic planning.

Strategic thinking, often intertwined with strategic management and strategic

planning in the literature, has been offered as the new planning organizer for dynamic

organizations including universities. The literature comparing these two constructs falls

into three categories.

The first category of research deals with the thinking skills of leaders. This

research proposes strategic thinking as a way of thinking about the strategy school and

draws on a large body of research of strategic thinking as an important leader skill in the

management literature. This line of thought is seen in the work of Argyris and Schön

(1978); Baron (1994); Bolman and Deal (1994); Cohen et al., (2000); Daghir and Zaydi

(2005); Dewey (1933); Halpren (1996); Morgan (2006); Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra &

Coukos-Semmel (2005); Schön (1983) and Senge (1990). The focus of much of this work

is on the use of the thinking skills to make sense of their environment such as systems

thinking, systems perspective, focused intent, thinking in time, combination of creativity

and analysis, and hypothesis oriented approaches (Pang & Pisapia, in press).

8

The second category of research centers on strategic thinking as a particular way

of thinking about strategy. For instance, Porter (1980) says it means thinking about

strategic issues. Hansen (1991) suggests that strategic thinking is more a state of mind

than a planning process. Raimond (1996) compared Western and Japanese ways of

thinking about strategy. Bates and Dillard (1993) identified individuals who have that

capability or predisposition. Ginsberg (1994) says strategic thinking is the process to

resolve strategic issues. Mintzberg (1994b) suggests it is a particular way of thinking with

characteristics of its own. To follow this line of thought, strategic thinking is concerned

with synthesizing the forces affecting the organization and is used to overcome the

perceived deficiency of traditional planning models that impede creative thinking.

Strategy in traditional planning models identifies the specific decisions and

concrete actions taken to create a competitive advantage. Strategy in the strategic

thinking sense results in a framework that facilitates the organizations adaptation to a

changing environment and guides the choices leaders make to determine the direction of

the organization. This is an important outcome of strategic thinking (Hansen, 1991; Hax

& Majluf, 1991; Tregoe & Zimmerman, 1980), but strategy does not dictate how the

strategy is to be implemented but rather, is left to leaders to decide. As Tregoe and

Zimmerman (1980) suggest; “if key strategic choices are made in the absence of a

[shared] framework, top management abdicates control and runs the risk of having a

direction which is fragmented in the hands of whoever is making these choices” (as cited

Mintzberg, 1994b, p. 320). Strategy in the traditional model is also executed by front line

managers waiting for a decision from above. It hinders middle management autonomy.

Strategy in the strategic thinking model is executed by front line managers who are

9

aligned with the autonomy to run to daylight and who are accountable to find the best

solutions on the basis of agreed upon purposes and priorities (Pisapia, 2009).

The third category of research deals with the less understood concept of

strategic thinking as a way of doing strategic planning that overcomes the limitations of

traditional planning models and guides practice. The idea is to move away from the

mechanical approach to a more creative approach to strategic planning by incorporating

elements of strategic thinking into the process. There is clarity on the critical nature of

strategic thinking rather than strategic planning to an organization’s success (Bonn, 2001,

2005; Graetz, 2002; Heracleous, 1998).

Liedtka (1998a) and Mintzberg (1994b) are among those who draw a clear

distinction between the systematic nature of pre-identified strategies called strategic

planning and the more integrated perspective of strategic thinking. Mintzberg (1994b),

for example, noted that thinking strategically is distinct from conventional conceptions of

planning. Traditional planning models, he says uses an analytical process, logic, linear

thinking and a calculating style of management to develop the plan. It involves being able

to manipulate words and numbers. Strategic thinking, he suggests places a premium on

synthesis, intuition and integration, and a committing style of management to develop the

plan. In strategic thinking, not only are the data sources different but the analysis of the

data is different than strategic planning.

There is also growing agreement in the literature that strategic thinking and

strategic planning are interrelated and both are necessary for effective change to occur

(Heracleous, 1998; Hussey, 2001; Liedtka, 1998a). Liedtka (1998a) summarizes the basic

understandings:

10

Finally, the literature leaves one with a strong sense that strategic thinking is

clearly incompatible with strategic planning as we know it. Yet, we know that

putting processes in place to ensure that managers attend to strategic issues,

amidst the day-to-day crisis that so capture their focus, is essential. Thus, we

cannot merely abandon all attention to the process of strategy formulation – we

need to know how to transform today’s planning process in a way that

incorporates, rather than undermines, strategic thinking. (p. 121)

Yet, Heracleous (2003) also believes that strategic planning and strategic thinking is two

distinct processes and strategic thinking should precede strategic planning. Pisapia and

Robinson (2010) suggest:

That the fault line is drawn by seeing the purpose of strategic thinking as

envisioning potential futures, discovering innovative strategies to move to the

future state, and internally creating horizontal alignment. The purpose of strategic

planning in this union is to operationalize the strategies and initiatives developed

through strategic thinking. Thus, organizations must first engage strategic

thinking, which creates a common direction and a broad set of initiatives to move

to a future state, and then strategic planning is put into place to develop the

details. (p. 7)

As Laurence (1999) suggests, “thus what is being proposed in large measure . . . is a

dialectical framework within which strategic planning and strategic thinking work in

tandem, rather than one in which strategic planning impedes the flourishing of strategic

thinking” (p. 13). An adaptation of the traditional strategic planning process is to say that

strategic thinking precedes planning. In this vein, strategic thinking generates a picture of

11

what the organization would like to look like in the future and actions are prescribed to

move toward the vision (Roberts, 1987). The result of this adapted model is a clear

indication of what it takes to gain competitive advantage in a changing environment and

the actions needed to be taken to secure it.

In strategic thinking cognitive processes are used to understand both internal and

external environments and the strategies that are developed (Pisapia, 2009). The result of

a strategic thinking process is the creation of an integrated perspective of the

organization; its mission, its values; and the strategy it will use to move in this direction.

In this way, using a strategic thinking process enables organizational leaders to change

the mental models of leaders throughout the organization, to guide the plan’s execution,

and accelerating organizational and individual learning (De Gus, 1988; Johnson, 1992).

As Tregoe and Zimmerman (1980) suggest “individual managers who can carry their

organization’s strategy in their head are always ‘with it’. Every plan that must be

developed, every decision that must be made, can be tested against this mental picture.”

As Doz and Kososen (2009) suggest, what matters is that a collective commitment and

bonding to the outcome of the decision process emerges from the strategic thinking

process.

There is little clear agreement on the core elements related to strategic thinking.

Several proposals have been put forth, but all agree that the activity results in a plan

commonly referred to as a statement of intent. Liedtka’s (1998a) elements of strategic

thinking include a systems perspective, focused intent, thinking in time, hypothesis-

driven, and intelligent opportunism. She says, "A strategic thinker has a mental model of

the complete end-to-end system of value creation, his or her role within it, and an

12

understanding of the competencies it contains" (p. 1). C. Gary Hamel and K. Prahalad

(1994) define strategic intent as something that “conveys a sense of direction. A strategic

intent is differentiated; it implies a competitively unique point of view about the future”

(p. 142). Strategic intent is a management process that:

holds out to employees the promise of exploring new competitive territory.

Hence, it conveys a sense of discovery. Strategic intent has an emotional edge to

it; it is a goal that employees perceive as inherently worthwhile. Hence, it implies

a sense of destiny. Direction, discovery, and destiny. These are the attributes of

strategic intent. (p. 142)

O'Shannassy (2003) also proposed a model, 'Modern Strategic Management Process', in

which strategic thinking is the starting point; "...strategic thinking combines creativity and

analysis which facilitates a problem solving or hypothesis oriented approach” (p. 57).

Bonn (2005) suggests the key elements of strategic thinking are systems thinking,

creativity and vision. She concluded that the "research on strategic thinking should

address the following levels: (a) the characteristics of an individual strategic thinker; (b)

the dynamics that take place within a group of individuals; and (c) the organization

context." (p. 340). She outlines a theoretical framework for strategic thinking that

addresses the cognitive processes of strategic decision making and “argues that strategic

thinking is an integrative process that encompasses a variety of organizational

dimensions spanning multiple levels of analysis” (p. 337). Strategic thinking is a way of

solving strategic problems that combines a rational and convergent approach with

creative and divergent thought processes. It is action oriented and concerned with

identifying how to resolve ambiguity and make sense of a complex world.

13

These scholars would contend that strategic thinking has to be formally managed

through a deliberative process if it is to overcome mental models managers carry in their

heads and are found in the organization’s culture. Pisapia (2009) is one of few authors

who attempt to define the steps involved in a strategic thinking model of change. He

suggests that what works in dynamic times is the leader’s ability to accomplish four

tasks: (a) anticipating changes, challenges and opportunities in internal and external

environments; (b) creating and articulating common values and direction in a

generative/minimum specifications manner; (c) establishing the social capital necessary

to mobilize actions; and (d) building the capacity of their organizations by anchoring the

learning in engaged, self-managed followers/teams. He offers the Strategic Thinking

Protocol© (STP) (a full description can be viewed in Pisapia & Robinson, 2010) which is

grounded in a social cognition/political model of change that seeks to alter mental models

suggested by Eckel & Kezar, 2003 as the most appropriate for higher education. It

employs a generative strategy – multiple interpretations and persuasion, informal

negotiation, and coalition building to develop an actionable strategy that frames the

values and aspirations of the organization and identifies a road map to its future. Pisapia

uses two key tools to run his protocol: a) strategic listening to the external environment

through data, values, and narrative, and b) surfacing and sharing assumptions,

understandings and passions through strategic conversations which break the pattern of

debate, and the strength of a one input perspective. The protocol results in a blueprint for

organizational behavior and initiatives that will move the organization towards its

aspiration. As seen in Figure 1.1, Pisapia (2009) proposes that a successful strategy is the

result of a combination of effective intent with excellent execution. His premise is that

14

organizations that follow the strategic thinking and strategic execution protocols he

describes will be able to identify a shared direction, values and priorities for action and

develop social capital and organizational capacity to meet the unique organizational

features and complexities of loosely coupled organizations such as higher education

institutions. The STP has been used in a state education agency, two public schools and at

the department and college level of a university; but it has not been empirically tested.

Strategic Intent

Effective Ineffective

Excellent

Execution

Poor

Figure 1. Combining strategic intent with execution as adapted from Pisapia (2009).

The Study Framework

The study framework was drawn from the theoretical literature as presented in

Table 1.1 which displays the elements of a strategic thinking process drawn from the

literature review. It offers an overview of the differing dimensions of strategic thinking

versus strategic planning. These dimensions include: vision of the future, strategic

formulation and implementation, managerial role in strategy making, control managerial

role in implementation, strategy making and process and outcomes. Table 1.1 provides an

overview of these differentiations:

Long Term

Success

Maybe

Successful for a

while

Success Unlikely

Failure

15

Table 1.1

The Difference Between Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning

Strategic Thinking Strategic Planning

Change Model Social Cognitive; elements of

Political and Cultural.

Structural and hierarchical;

relegation of external

environment to minor role.

Vision of the

Future

Only the shape of the future can be

predicted.

A future that is predictable

and specifiable in detail.

Strategic

Thinking Skills

Synthesis, systems thinking,

reflection, reframing.

Linear, analytic, planning is

isolated process.

Strategic

Listening

Used through formal collection of

perspectives, data, analysis and

synthesis.

Used through formal

collection of data and

analysis.

Strategic

Conversations

Strongly evident – participants

understand the large system and

how they connect to it.

Not used – needed

information is obtained –

plan is crafted and

disseminated for

implementation.

Managerial Role

in Strategy

Making

Lower-level managers have a voice

in strategy-making, as well as

greater latitude to respond

opportunistically to developing

conditions.

Senior executives obtain the

needed information from

lower-level managers, and

then use it to create a plan

which is, in turn,

disseminated to managers for

implementation.

Managerial Role

in

Implementation

All managers understand the larger

system, the connection between

their roles and the functioning of

that system, as well as the

interdependence between the

various roles that comprise the

system.

Lower-level managers need

only know his or her own

role well and can be

expected to defend only his

or her own turf.

(continued on next page)

16

(Table 1.1 continued)

Strategic

Formulation and

Implementation

Formulation and implementation are

interactive rather than sequential and

discreet.

The roles of formulation

and implementation can be

neatly divided.

Control Relies on self-reference – a sense of

strategic intent and purpose

embedded in the minds of managers

throughout the organization that

guides their choices on a daily basis

in a process that is often difficult to

measure and monitor from above.

Asserts control through

measurement systems,

assuming that organizations

can measure and monitor

important variables both

accurately and quickly.

Alignment Horizontal – to gain synchronization

among team.

Vertical – to insure team

compliance.

Strategy Making Sees strategy and change as

inescapably linked and assumes that

finding new strategic options and

implementing them successfully is

harder and more important than

evaluating them.

The challenge of setting

strategic direction is

primarily analytic.

Process and

Outcome

Sees the planning process itself as a

critical value-adding element.

Focus is on the creation of

the plan as the ultimate

objective.

Value

Specification

Strong component – creates self-

reference point in minds of

participants. Uses values to control

and coordinate activity.

Not strong component –

uses measurement to

control and coordinate

activity.

(continued on next page)

17

(Table 1.1 continued)

Minimum

Specification

Minimum specifications. Maximum specifications.

Strategic Fitness Fit to external and internal

environment - process adds value to

plan.

Fit to external environment –

plan is ultimate objective.

Chunking

Change

Small incentives building on each

other.

Large stand-alone initiatives.

Source: Adapted from Liedtka, 1998a and Pisapia, 2009.

Method

This study explores three recent planning efforts at a university in the

southeastern part of the United States (hereafter: Southeastern University). Two of the

efforts utilized the strategic thinking process (department and college), and the other

(university) followed a traditional strategic planning process.

The university case which utilized the traditional strategic planning method was

completed in 2006. The strategic planning process resulted in a plan that was detailed,

with goals, objectives and sub-objectives. Measures for each were established and the

expectation was that each college, department and unit would use the plan to create unit

plans. The process was led by internal administrators and an external consultant that

followed the traditional, political and cultural models of change. Little attempt was made

to change mental models or utilize multiple perspectives of those affected by the plan.

Value specification was not a core activity. The resulting plan relied on maximum

specification with large initiatives. A total of 12 goal areas and 35 objectives were

created. Transparency was afforded through sharing final drafts and requesting comment.

A dashboard of indicators was established to measure the implementation of the plan.

18

The administrative staff and Board of Trustees were satisfied with the outcome of

planning.

The department case which utilized the STP was completed in December 2009

and is in its second year of implementation. The protocol process resulted in a set of 7

flexible priorities for targeted areas that the department will address to accomplish the

identified aspirations and mission over the next 3 to 5 years. The process was led by an

internal consultant and followed the strategic thinking, social cognitive and political and

cultural change models. Value specification was a central activity and the formulation

and implementation were interactive, rather than sequential or discrete, with minimum

specifications resulting. The college case which also utilized the STP was begun in

January 2010 and will be completed in September 2011.

This study presents findings from two case studies of the application of the

protocol at a public 4-year, comprehensive research university in the southern United

States. The results of the case studies were then compared to the results of a case study of

a traditional strategic planning process utilized at the university level based on the

conceptual framework of the study.

The utilization of strategic management and strategic leadership to effectively

execute meaningful change and goal accomplishment, calls for an understanding of the

purpose of each model, the differences between them, empirical knowledge about the

models and the current research that supports the implementation of strategic

management and strategic leadership in effectively implementing change in colleges and

universities.

19

Definition of Terms

Alignment: is when a group of individuals function as a whole…a commonality of

direction emerges, and individual’s energies harmonize. There is less waste energy. In

fact, a resonance or synergy develops and there is commonality of purpose, a shared

vision, and understanding how to complement one another’s efforts (Senge, 1990).

Analysis: is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to

gain a better understanding of it. Approach problems holistically, make intuitive

assumptions, seek patterns and draw conclusions (Pisapia, 2009).

Complex Adaptive System (cas): describes a loosely organized academic field.

Complexity science is not a single theory – it encompasses more than one theoretical

framework and is highly interdisciplinary, seeking the answers to some fundamental

questions about living, adaptable, changeable systems. A complex adaptive system is a

dynamic network of many entities acting in parallel, while constantly acting and reacting

to what other entities are doing (Holland, 1995).

Complexity Theory: is a cluster of ways of thinking that have developed from branches

of ‘new science’ concerned with the behavior of natural systems such as: chaos theory,

dissipative structure theory, quantum physics and complex adaptive systems theory

(Tosey, 2002).

Coupling: subsystems in the university that are related to each other through shared

organizational elements. If these subsystems are tightly connected to each other, a change

in one would directly affect them all (Birnbaum, 1988).

Creativity: is defined as the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain

(Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996).

20

Effective Strategy Formulation: is a strategic planning process that incorporates the

elements of strategic thinking and is an interactive process rather than sequential and

discreet. Lower level managers have a voice in strategy making and greater latitude to

respond opportunistically to emerging conditions, both internally and externally (Liedtka,

1998a; Bonn, 2005).

Excellent Strategy Execution: is defined in this study as the successful implementation of

the guiding principles and organizational outcomes defined in strategic planning that

utilizes the elements of strategic thinking. Control of the process relies on self-reference –

a sense of strategic intent and purpose throughout the organization, alignment of

objectives is horizontal, all managers understand the larger system and the connection

between their role and functioning of the system, and sees strategy and change as

inescapably linked, and assumes that finding new strategic options and implementing

them successfully is harder and more important than evaluating them (Morrill, 2007;

Pisapia, 2009).

Innovation: is defined as the successful implementation of creative ideas within the

organization (Amabile et al., 1996).

Open Systems Approach: a systems approach to organizational management that builds

on the principle that organizations, like organisms, are “open” to their environment and

must achieve an appropriate relation with that environment if they are to survive

(Morgan, 2006).

Organizational Outcomes: are defined in this study as the goals and objectives that are

resultant from the strategic thinking and/or strategic planning process.

21

Presencing: to sense, to tune in, and act from one’s highest future potential – the future

that depends on us to bring it into being. Presencing blends the words “presence” and

“sensing” and works through “seeing from our deepest source” (Scharmer, 2009).

Reflection: the ability to use perceptions, experience and information to make judgments

as to what has happened in the past and is happening in the present to help guide future

actions (Pisapia, 2009).

Reframing: is the examining of the same situation from multiple vantage points using

different frames to gain insight and new options for action, Also, it is the ability to switch

attention across multiple perspectives, frames, mental models and paradigms in order to

generate new insights and options for actions (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Pisapia, et al.,

2005).

Strategic Execution: utilizes transforming actions, coalition building, negotiation,

building networks and promoting consensus (Pisapia, 2009).

Strategic Formulation: includes decision making and strategic intent, but couples it with

the capabilities necessary for motivating organizational members to join in the pursuit of

the organization’s intent (Pisapia, 2009).

Strategic Intent: envisions a desired leadership position and establishes the criterion the

organization will use to chart its progress. It is also an active management process that

includes: focusing the organization’s attention on the essence of winning; motivating

people by communicating the value of the target; leaving room for individual and team

contributions; sustaining enthusiasm by providing new operational definitions as

circumstances change; and using intent consistently to guide resource allocation

(Prahalad & Hamel, 1989).

22

Strategic Leadership: is the ability (as well as the wisdom) to make consequential

decisions about ends, actions and tactics in ambiguous environments. Strategic leadership

marries management with leadership, politics with ethics, and strategic intent with tactics

and actions (Pisapia, 2009).

Strategic Management: focuses on strategy formulation through planning and decision

making based on creating a mission statement, goals, sub-goals, and action plans

(Pisapia, 2009).

Strategic Planning: is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and

making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy, including its capital

and people. It is a rational, linear, top-down structured process; whereby organizations

develop mission and goals (Ansoff, 1980; Porter, 1980).

Strategic Planning Elements: includes four basic elements: scanning the external

environment, assessing internal strengths and weaknesses, analyzing data drawn from

both the institution and its environment, and identifying major directions that promote

institutional vitality (Birnbaum, 2000).

Strategic Thinking: is defined as a “way of solving strategic problems that combines a

rational and convergent approach with creative and divergent thought processes” (Bonn,

2005, p. 337).

Strategic Thinking Elements: includes a focus on intent, links past, present and future, is

hypothesis driven, and whose outcome is an integrated perspective on the enterprise

(Liedtka, 1998a, 1998b).

Strategy: comes from the Greek strategos “office or command of a general”. A

definition related to current theory and practice is that strategy is a plan, or the equivalent

23

– a direction, a guide, a course of action into the future, a path to get from here to there

(Mintzberg, 1994b).

Synthesis: is the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole;

the combining of often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole; deductive reasoning.

Systems Thinking: is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has

been developed to make patterns clearer and to support effective change. The tools

include personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and building a learning

organization through adaptive and generative learning (Senge, 1990).

University: an institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities

constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award masters degrees and

doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor’s degrees.

Vision: a sense of direction that provides the focus for all activities within the

organization (Bonn, 2005; Prahalad & Hamel, 1994; Liedtka, 1998a).

Role of the Researcher

The researcher is a Caucasian, 50 year old, female doctoral candidate at Florida

Atlantic University. The researcher was employed at the Southeastern University from

2004-2007, and was employed there at the time the strategic planning process took place

at the university. She was not a member of the committee, nor did she participate in the

planning process. During her tenure, she attended several Board of Trustee Strategic

Planning Committee meetings, where she observed or co-presented information on

departmental activities. The meetings were open to the public. The researcher has over

seventeen years of senior university advancement experience at both public and private

colleges and universities, and has led and participated in strategic planning efforts at the

24

departmental, college and university levels at all of these institutions. Through this

personal experience the researcher has observed and formed opinions on the overall

effectiveness of strategic planning in higher education and believes that incorporating

elements of strategic thinking into the traditional planning model will increase the

effectiveness of strategic planning efforts in higher education.

Limitations

The study was limited to 1 institution of higher education in the southeastern

United States. The focus of the research was to compare the application of Strategic

Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009), as used in two planning processes, to a planning

process that did not use the protocol and to identify elements of strategic thinking utilized

in the planning processes. The themes, findings and conclusions are not generalizable to

any other institution of higher education.

Survey results and interviews with participants were limited to those members

that were identified as official members of the strategic planning and navigating

committees. Additional participants that have either retired, not served in a role for the

entire process, left the institution, are unavailable or unwilling to be interviewed were not

included in the sample. It was assumed that all participants sampled in the study were

candid in their answers and accurate in their recall of their perceptions. However, due to

the length of time elapsed between the university process and this study some participants

noted that they did not accurately recall their perceptions and some portions of the

process, and those comments have not been included in the study. Although a significant

amount of data was collected which was triangulated through the use of documents,

observations and interviews, not everyone that participated in the process or who

25

experienced the results of the process was interviewed. The additional data may have

altered, or added to the findings, particularly in the area of implementation of the plan in

two cases.

Delimitations

There were several factors that bounded the research for this study. This study

does not attempt to define the degree of relevance or importance of the strategic plans

developed at the department, college or university levels. The focus of the study is on the

planning process itself and how that process meets or does not meet the criteria of the

strategic thinking model, not on the outcomes of that process. Although the inclusion of

an outcomes line of questioning and research identified other factors that contributed to

the understanding of strategic thinking versus strategic planning, it was beyond the scope

of this study.

Chapter Summary

At a time of great change, increased accountability and continued calls for

incremental change in higher education, the need for an effective model to expand

institutional boundaries and restore constituent’s confidence in the values, mission and

roles of colleges and universities is needed. The use of a traditional strategic planning

model of change is ineffective in higher education. Therefore, it is important to assess the

Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP) to determine if the application of the STP is more

effective in meeting the unique organizational needs and complexities of higher

education.

This chapter introduced the study of the STP in the strategic planning process in

a department and college setting, in comparison to a traditional business strategic

26

planning process at a public university. Also in this chapter is the purpose, significance,

definitions, role of the researcher, delimitations and limitations, theoretical framework of

the study, and description of Pisapia’s (2009) STP. Chapter 2 discusses the historical and

current literature in the field of strategy, strategic planning, strategic thinking, strategic

management and strategic leadership which builds the context of the field and the study.

Chapter 3 presents the methodical approach used in the study. Chapter 4 presents

individual case findings and Chapter 5 outlines conclusions and recommendations, based

on the findings of the study.

27

Chapter 2

Literature Review

This study is marked by an analysis of two models of strategic planning; a

strategic thinking planning process and a traditional business model of strategic planning.

The processes are based on two very different philosophies and their application to higher

education. Therefore, it is important to examine the history of strategy; the differences

between strategic planning and strategic thinking; the differences between strategic

management and strategic leadership; a description of the use of strategy in higher

education, and analysis of the use of strategic planning/thinking in higher education. This

chapter looks to answer from the literature the following questions:

1. What are the differences between strategic management and strategic

leadership?

2. What are the differences between strategic planning and strategic thinking?

What empirical evidence supports each model?

3. How does higher education develop its plans for the future?

4. What implications does the research present for higher education leaders?

History of Strategy and Strategic Planning

The term strategy comes from the Greek word strategos “office or command of a

general” and has been widely credited to the writing and teachings of Sun Tzu and related

to the successful waging of war over 2500 years ago. Sun Tzu’s strategies were heavily

28

influenced by Taoist thought, which emphasizes the interrelatedness and relativity of

everything in the world (Chen, 1994). Taoist thought encompasses the five qualities:

wisdom (zhi), sincerity (cheng), benevolence (ren), courage (yong) and strictness (yan).

“Of the five elements, none is ever predominant; of the four seasons, none lasts forever;

or the days, some are long and others short; and of the moon, it sometimes waxes and

wanes. Hence, there are neither fixed postures nor constant tactics in warfare. He who

can modify his tactics in accordance with the enemy situation and thus succeed in

winning, may be said to be divine” (Chen, 1994, p. 46).

In more recent history, strategy has evolved from use in the planning and

execution of warfare, to the realm of business and is now utilized extensively in higher

education institutions. Kiechel (2010) describes the definition of strategy as a “struggle

between two definitions, strategy as positioning and strategy as organizational learning”

(p. 7). In the 1960s Igor Ansoff founded the design school of strategic management. His

premise was that the “purpose of strategy was to match a company’s capabilities to the

opportunities in the environment” (Ansoff, 1980, p. 26). In Strategic Success Hypothesis

he proposed that an organization will optimize its success when the aggressiveness of its

behavior and its openness to the external environment are both aligned with the

turbulence level of the organization’s external environment (Ansoff, 1991, p. 459).

Ansoff and the corporate strategy consultants and scholars; Bruce Henderson, founder of

the Boston Consulting Group (BCG); Bill Bain from Bain & Company; and McKinsey &

Co.; all embraced and utilized strategy as “position” process. Position is all about where

the business is in relation to competition by looking at your costs versus theirs, and who

has the lead in experience.

29

This “planning view” of strategy, which was developed in the 1960s at Harvard

purported that strategy was a rational, linear, top-down, structured process; whereby

organizations developed missions and goals. The process involved extensive analysis of

both the internal operations and external environment, from which identified changes

were implemented through formal control structure (Ansoff, 1980; Porter, 1980).

In the mid-1980s Harvard’s Michael Porter defined strategy as “positioning” or

the choice that the organization makes “of where you want to complete, in what industry

and from what spot within that industry, and how-on price, with distinctive price, or by

finding a niche” (Kiechel, 2010, p. 7). Porter (1980) developed his five forces framework

based on the industrial organization (IO) model of management. Industrial organization

was developed from the work of two other Harvard economists, Edward Mason in the

1930s and Joe Bain in the 1950s. The IO model is a group of models that illustrates the

effects that forces have on different industries. The models explain why in some

industries there is a lack of competitors versus others, hence why they are more

profitable. Porter based this new perspective on competition and strategy, utilizing the IO

model because it was “detailed and nuanced enough to explain the situation of particular

companies” and from this “… the first set of ideas that became the five forces framework

for looking at an industry” (Kiechel, 2010, p. 125). Porter (2008) stresses that

“understanding the competitive forces, and their underlying causes, reveals the roots of

an industry’s current profitability while providing a framework for anticipating and

influencing competition (and profitability) over time” (p. 80). The five forces framework

(Figure 2) was adopted and was widely spread throughout the business community by

consultants, businesses and business schools to develop strategies for their organizations.

30

While Porter had his critics, he remained steadfast to the idea that strategy was about

choosing one option and sticking with it and hence ensconced himself as the head of the

“strategy as positioning” school (Kiechel, 2010).

Figure 2. Diagram of five forces that shape industry competition as cited in (Heracleous,

2003).

By the early 1980s McKinsey & Co. expanded on the importance of strategy to

business. Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman (1982) two of their consultants,

published In Search of Excellence. Their study identified seven factors that made the

companies in the study highly successful. Their theory became known as the “7S Model”

of strategy development. Each factor begins with the letter “s”; skills, staff, style,

systems, structure, strategy, and shared values (Figure 3). The book immediately became

a New York Times best-seller and was broadly incorporated into business planning at the

Threat of new entrants

Power of buyers

Threat of substitutes

Power of Suppliers

Rivalry among industry

competitors

31

time. As widely accepted and promoted as these early practitioners and their models

were,

academics and consultants have preached the revered McKinsey “7S Model” that

aligns strategy, structure, systems, superordinate goals, staff, skills, and shared

values, because we know that purposeful, efficient, organizational action cannot

be achieved if these factors work at cross-purposes with each other. Yet, once

aligned, the factors become powerful impediments to change. As we come to

accept oft-repeated admonition that the only sustainable source of advantage is

the ability to learn faster than your competition, the desire to develop a capacity

for learning, for continuous change, for flexibility and opportunism, begins to

collide head-on with our desire to align the 7S’s. Unaligned, these factors work at

cross-purposes; aligned, they drive out potentially needed change. (Liedtka,

1998b, p. 2)

32

Figure 3. McKinsey’s “7S Model” as described in (Peters & Waterman, 1982).

There is agreement among researchers including Ansoff (1980), Porter (1980),

and Peters and Waterman (1982), who promoted and defined strategic planning processes

that functioned as “exclusively top-down, and ignore[d] the role of emergent strategy”

(Heracleous, 2003, p. 17). In the early 1990s McGill’s Henry Mintzberg published The

Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (1994b) opening an entirely new dialogue on strategy

formation, strategic management, organizational success and leadership. The importance

of Mintzberg‘s (1994b) research was the finding that “strategy making to be a complex,

interactive, and evolutionary process, best described as one of adaptive learning…the

process was often significantly emergent, especially when the organization faced

unpredicted shifts in the environment, and all kinds of people could be significantly

involved in the creation of new strategies” (p. 110). Mintzberg’s five dimensions of

strategy include: intended strategy that may remain unrealized; deliberate strategy where

Strategy

Skills

Staff

Style

Systems

Structure

Shared

Values

33

resources are invested in the intended strategy; realized strategy whether intended or not;

unrealized strategy that is intended but remains unrealized and emergent strategy that

rises out of the grassroots of the organization (Heracleous, 2003). Mintzberg (1994b)

believed that no organization that is already in existence can base its strategy as if it were

not operating. He argued that no strategy ever works as planned. Therefore, learning

from past mistakes and responses requires the organization to adjust its strategy. He

further defined strategic planning as: a) future thinking; b) controlling the future; c)

decision making; d) integrated decision making; and e) a formalized procedure to

produce an articulated result, in the form of an integrated system of decisions. Mintzberg

(1994b) surmised that “strategic planning” cannot be synonymous with strategy

formulation but is much broader and emergent in nature.

Also critical of the planning school of strategic planning were researchers Hamel

and Prahalad (1994), who argued that an organization cannot know exactly what the

future will hold, so planning for the long-term, to begin at one specific point in the future,

is unrealistic. The short and long term occur at the same time and organizations must be

aware of what is happening in the “now” and understand what strategies are acting on the

short and the long term. ‘Whereas the broad direction of an industry’s future evolution

may be predictable, the precise routes along which it will evolve in terms of technology,

standards, specific products, and services cannot be fully anticipated” (p. 134). The

planning school of strategy formation and strategic planning has been widely

incorporated into business and higher education organizations. But, the current social and

economic climates point towards a different approach to strategy formation and execution

in higher education today.

34

The importance of the history of the development of strategy and strategic

planning in higher education is evidenced in the unsuccessful application of the business

model to the university setting. Just as businesses were incorporating strategic planning

into their business planning efforts, so too was higher education, but with lackluster

results. “We…believe that the conventional view of strategy - as a plan, or a set of

explicit intentions preceding and controlling actions - is too narrow to permit satisfactory

understanding of strategy formation in the university setting” (Hardy, Langley, Mintzberg

& Rose, 1983, p. 407). This linear approach to strategic planning “stands almost totally at

odds with what really happens” (p. 407) in universities, and has created an entire research

agenda to better understand and attempt to predict how higher education might

effectively implement the formation and implementation of strategies, to meet the ever

changing demands and expectations of both internal and external constituencies today.

Strategic Thinking and Strategic Planning

Strategic thinking can be described as double-loop learning and strategic planning

as a form of single-loop learning. Argyris (1977) suggests that single-loop learning

occurs when the problem is identified and then corrected, but without any critical review

of the underlying variables that may have caused the error to occur. Double-loop

learning, he suggests, occurs with the correction of problems by examining and altering

the governing variables, as well as, the actual actions themselves. Peter Senge’s (1990)

levels of learning are defined as “adaptive” and “generative” learning. Adaptive learning

is about using existing frames of reference to solve problems and closely aligns with the

concept of single-loop learning. Generative learning is about being creative and finding

new ways to view the world: double-loop learning. Although there are differences in

35

terminology, both Senge (1990) and Argyris (1977) agree that double-loop and

generative learning as a “central concept common to them all involves on the one hand

thinking and acting within a certain set of assumptions and potential action alternatives or

on the other hand challenging existing assumptions and action alternatives, potentially

leading to new and appropriate ones” (Heracleous, 2003, p. 44).

There is agreement among researchers including Bonn (2005), Heracleous (2003),

Liedtka (1998a), Pisapia (2009), Senge (1990), and Scharmer, (2009) that systems

thinking, creativity and vision are key elements of strategic thinking. Systems’ thinking

provides clarity of patterns and supports effective change, thereby increasing creativity.

Vision helps provide meaning and gives a sense of direction in the decision making

process. Strategic thinking is at the intersection of these three elements (Bonn, 2005).

Strategic thinking is not just an individual activity, but is influenced by the individual’s

environment and social interactions. “

Hence, an understanding of strategic thinking in a complex organizational setting

requires that we go beyond a focus on individuals and carefully examine the

group context and its influence on an individual’s strategic thinking

ability…strategic thinking within a group is not the simple aggregate of all group

members’ strategic thinking ability, but a function of the interplay between

strategic thinking abilities of individual group members, the perceived diversity

between the negotiated belief structures of senior manager groups, and

organizational influences. (p. 342)

36

Bonn’s theoretical framework of strategic thinking incorporates a multi-level approach

to strategic thinking that defines strategic thinking as an integrative process that crosses

inter-organizational boundaries and spans multiple levels of analysis (Figure 4 and Table

2.1).

Figure 4. Strategic Thinking adapted from Bonn (2005) that reflects the intersection of

the three elements of strategic thinking.

Table 2.1

Strategic Thinking Adapted From Bonn (2005)

Decision makers with high strategic thinking abilities will show a greater diversity in

representational systems than decision makers with low strategic thinking abilities.

Senior manager groups that are heterogeneous in terms of job related forms of diversity

have higher strategic thinking abilities than senior manager groups that are heterogeneous

in terms of non-job related forms of diversity.

Task related conflict increases the diversity in representational systems of individual

senior leaders.

Task related conflict increases the strategic thinking capabilities of senior manager

groups.

Relationship related conflict decreases the strategic thinking capabilities of senior

managers groups.

The involvement of middle managers in strategic decision-making process fosters

strategic thinking within the organization.

37

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

an individual’s diversity in representational systems.

Organic organization structures foster strategic thinking within an organization.

Reward systems that include a high proportion of long term qualitative performance

measures in the pay matrix of total compensation foster strategic thinking within an

organization.

The need to make complex judgments and multiple assessments is the hallmark of

strategic thinking (Kutschera & Ryan, 2009). Strategic thinking is built on the premise

that the strategic thinker has knowledge of the entire system of the organization,

understands the connection within the organization and knows the value of these

linkages. A systems perspective also demands that the strategic thinker has knowledge of

the external environment as well as the internal environment of the organization. “The

strategic thinker sees vertical linkages within the system from multiple perspectives”

(Liedtka, 1998a, p. 122), and see Figure 5.

Figure 5. Strategic Thinking (Liedtka, 1998b).

More recently, Fairholm and Card (2009) define the five foundational concepts of

38

strategic thinking as holistically-focused, looking to ensure that meaning and purpose are

diffused throughout the organization so that appropriate goals and tactics can be

developed to meet the real needs of the organization. Their research found the critical

importance that purpose, meaning and values as foundational elements of strategic

thinking are to managing organizational change. They suggest five unique statements

about strategic thinking that helps to focus the planning process on the purpose, meaning

and values of the organization. “View oneself as an organizational philosopher more than

a technical expert” (p. 24) allows one to ask important questions about why the

organization exists and where does the organization fit on a grander scale. “Distinguish

strategic planning from strategic thinking,” (p. 25) demands synthesis of information and

ideas, rather than analysis to allow for flexibility, innovation and creativity to be

incorporated in the planning process. “Adopt a values, vision, and vector orientation

rather than goals, objectives, metrics mentality,” (p. 25) which is linked to leadership and

good management and will eventually lead to goals and accountability measures.

Visions operationalize the values set; making sense for others what the value

really mean or what they can do for us now and in the future. Vectors

operationalize the magnitude and direction of vision-driven action and are akin to

the idea of group missions. Voice is shorthand for that which makes leadership

relationship work – the nature of the interaction (or lack thereof) between leader

and led – and emphasizes a voluntary one based on the level of alignment with the

values, vision, and vector at play. (p. 26)

The fourth foundational statement “concentrate on the flow of information and the quality

39

of relationships that emerge rather than the control of information,” (p. 26) expresses the

strategic thinking element of free flowing information that allows for honest assessment.

When information is controlled and restricted, trust between individuals is restricted.

Strategic thinking needs an environment that is characterized by mutual trust,

interpersonal interactions and is harmonious and united (Fairholm & Fairholm, 2000;

Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Lastly, “learn[ing] to accept and work with ambiguity and the

qualitative nature of organizations, rather than try[ing] to control and quantify all

organizational endeavors,” (p. 27) recognizes the concept that all change is related to

people. Strategic thinkers are adept at understanding how change affects people in the

organization and in managing those reactions to keep the organization on track to meet its

goals and objectives.

The point here is to understand that strategic thinking and strategic planning are

distinct processes in conception and execution. Although there has been extensive

research conducted on strategic planning (Ansoff, 1980; Birnbaum, 2000; Dooris, 2003;

Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Hardy, et al., 1983; Kotler & Murphy, 1981; Mintzberg, 1994b;

Mintzberg & Rose, 2003; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Porter, 1980; Stacey, 2007), there

has been no research in the application of a strategic thinking protocol to the process of

strategic planning. Therefore, the need to assess the effectiveness of such an application

is the central purpose of this study. Identifying the processes, comparing and contrasting

the perceptions of the participants, and assessing implementation of the Strategic

Thinking Protocol© may build upon the strategic thinking frameworks already presented.

40

Strategic Management and Strategic Leadership

Having defined strategy, strategic planning and strategic thinking, it is equally, if

not more important, to understand the elements of successful execution of strategy in

organizations and in particular, in higher education. The costs of failed implementation

efforts are enormous to an organization and include wasted resources of time and money,

low faculty and staff moral, a diminished trust and faith in senior administrators, and ends

up creating an even more change resistant organization (Heracleous, 2003). The

utilization of strategic management and strategic leadership to effectively execute

meaningful change and goal accomplishment, calls for an understanding of the purpose

of each model, the differences between them, empirical knowledge about the models and

the current research that supports the implementation of strategic management and

strategic leadership in effectively implementing change in colleges and universities.

There is agreement in the literature that strategic management incorporates the

historical practices of business planning and strategy (Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998;

Heracleous, 2003; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998; Mintzberg & Rose, 2003), yet

the elements of strategic management differ from the traditional, linear approach in the

execution of strategy. Strategic management is described as revolving around the discrete

phases of formulation, implementation and control, carried out in cascading steps

(Mintzberg, et al., 1998). In Mintzberg’s Strategy Safari (1998), strategic management is

further broken down into ten schools of strategic management (Table 2.2), the perceived

benefits and drawbacks to each school, the authors’ look at the broader connection to

strategic leadership, and the difference between strategic management and strategic

leadership.

41

Table 2.2

Overview of the Ten Schools of Strategic Management, (Mintzberg, et al., 1998)

Design School Developed at Harvard

External and internal appraisal and analysis SWOT

Model

Does not allow for emergent strategies

Looks for a grand overall strategy to “appear”

Planning School Elaboration of the design school through the process of

highly programmed execution. Responsibility for the

execution of the plan stays with the CEO.

“Plans by their very nature are designed to promote

inflexibility – they are meant to establish clear

direction, to impose stability on an organization” (p.

64).

Positioning School Michael Porter (1980) and Sun Tzu examples. Perfect

for consultants use.

Critique of the school is that it is based on focus,

context, process and the strategies. Process is about

staying in your company and analyzing, instead of

getting out and learning about what others are doing.

Entrepreneurial School Views strategy formation as a visionary process.

(Prahalad & Hamel, 1994).

Recognizes the role of strategic thinking in strategy

formation.

Strategy exists as a leader’s vision.

Cognitive School Sees strategy formation as a cognitive process that takes

place in the mind of the leader.

Learning School Defines strategy formation as an emergent process.

Emergent strategy opens the door to strategic learning

because it acknowledges the organization’s capacity to

experiment (Mintzberg, et al. 1998).

Power School Strategy formation is a process of negotiation. Due to

the ever present politics in the organization.

Cultural School Strategy formation is a collective process. Strategy is a

process of social interaction, based on the beliefs and

understandings shared by members of the organization.

It is all about culture.

Environmental School Strategy formation as a reactive process.

The organization must react to the environment,

leadership then becomes a passive element and

organizations end up clustering together in distinct

ecological-type niches.

Configuration School Strategy formation as a process of transformation.

Encompasses the work of the other schools.

42

“The key to strategic management, therefore, is to sustain stability or at least adaptable

strategic change most of the time, but periodically to recognize the need for

transformation and be able to manage that disruptive process without destroying the

organization” (p. 305). Although Mintzberg and his colleagues concluded that the

formation of strategy is a process of transformation as outlines in the configuration

school of strategic management, they understood the relationships and building blocks

presented by the earlier schools of strategic management. Having a solid understanding

of the growth and evolution of strategic management is critical to understanding the more

recent research and application of strategic leadership implementing effective strategic

organizational change.

Vision and Vision Integration

Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) define strategic change as an attempt to change

current modes of cognition and enable the organization to take advantage of important

opportunities or cope with consequential environmental threats. They developed a

conceptual overview of sensemaking and sensegiving from an ethnographic study in a

large, public, multi-campus university. The researchers found that a “captivating vision”

is a key feature in the “initiation of a strategic change because it provides a symbolic

foundation for stakeholders to develop an alternative interpretive scheme” (p. 446). In the

most recent study, Gioia and Thomas (1996) found a relationship between image and

vision. Whereas “the top management team believed that altering image was the path to

altering identity, the projection of a compelling future image would destabilize identity

and ‘pull’ it into alignment with the desired future image (p. 24).

43

The critical role that vision plays in effective strategic management and strategic

leadership occupies a substantial portion of study of successful implementation of

strategic change. Kotter (1996) found that without the development of and

communication of a strategic vision, organizations cannot implement strategic change.

Bolman and Deal (2008) compared Kotter’s vision creation to the step in the symbolic

frame that creates a “hopeful vision of the future that is rooted in the organization’s

history” (p. 395). Dooley (1997) theorized that the first step in change strategy in a

complex adaptive system “must focus on developing a shared vision” (p. 91). Hamel and

Prahalad, (1994) and Pisapia’s (2009) statement of strategic intent; creates the vision and

incorporates a shared understanding of where the organization wishes to go. The

statement of strategic intent serves as the guiding plan for the future and how to get there.

Values and vision are closely connected concepts in strategic leadership. “To focus

strategy in a vision is to learn again in a compelling way that leadership is about the

human condition” (Morrill, 2007, p. 142).

The development of a shared vision for the organization is vital in a learning

organization that strives for a generative learning environment. As mentioned earlier in

this chapter, generative learning is about finding new and creative ways to view the

world, or in this case the organization. “Generative learning occurs only when people are

striving to accomplish something that matters deeply to them. In fact, the whole idea of

generative learning – ‘expanding your ability to create’ – will seem abstract and

meaningless until people become excited about some vision they truly want to

accomplish” (Senge, 1990, p. 206). But for all of the research that has found a critical

link between vision and successful management of change, it is also essential for the

44

strategic leader to understand what is of value to others in the organization. Vision cannot

be pushed down from “on high” but rather must be built from within the organization and

communicated by the leadership. This is where the literature on strategic management

and strategic leadership begin to diverge in their definitions. A large portion of the

literature on strategic management defines who is responsible for strategy as the chief or

leader (Mintzberg & Rose, 2003), whereas strategic leadership requires integrative and

systems thinking, quantitative reasoning, collaborative decision making, effective

community sensitivity to narratives and values, and a capacity to work in structured

group processes (Morrill, 2007, Pisapia, 2009).

The integration of vision deep into the organization aligns organizational behavior

toward the accomplishment of the vision. Ocascio and oseph (2008) and Vil and

Canales (2008) propose that integration requires a rationalized process of executive

decision making; coupled with decision making channels from different organizational

levels are important to achieving collective engagement in strategic planning. “Successful

business strategies result, not from rigorous analysis, but from a shared understanding

and a particular state of mind…what is internalized in the heads of people is more

important than what ends up on paper” (Vil & Canales, 2008, p. 276). Where the goals

of the organization are to accomplish the future vision, integration activities need to vary

in order to have integrative effects on the organization as a whole (Jarzabkowski &

Balogun, 2009).

Open Systems Theory

Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s (1972) general systems theory described the

organization as a system where automated control systems can maintain the systems

45

behavior at a desired level or to reach a desired goal. Systems are affected by external

forces that force the system to adjust in order to maintain equilibrium. Morgan (2006)

further explored the “open systems approach” in organizations, using the metaphor of an

“organism” to describe organizations as open systems. The theory “builds on the

principal that organisms are ‘open’ to their environment and must achieve an appropriate

relationship with that environment in order to survive” (p. 38), yet are also interrelated

sub-systems and alignment that must occur between those subsystems of the

organization.

The concept of loose coupling in educational organizations was defined by Karl

Weick (1976) as a situation in which elements are responsive, but retain evidence of

separateness and identity (p. 3). Later research by Birnbaum (1986), on loose coupling, is

also critical to understanding the effectiveness of strategic planning in higher education.

Coupling allows for changes and adaptations in units of the university, not just the entire

university. All departments do not need to focus on the same elements in the external

environment. In other words, when the national standards for accounting certification are

changed, the College of Business’ department of accounting can make changes that in

turn do not cause disruption to other departments in the college, even in the case of major

restructuring. Birnbaum (1999) also espoused that leaders are important as a class. As

individuals, most university leaders have less influence the majority of the time than they

are willing to believe. Loose coupling allows for greater organizational learning,

flexibility, and ability to respond to external conditions, leading to improved decision

making (Senge, 1990). Higher education is part of an open system and “higher education

clearly must be responsive to changes in the environment. At the same time, we should

46

not lose sight of the fact that intersections in an open system are a two-way street, and

that, within limits, we can also influence the environment that then influences us (p. 19).

Other researchers have defined the university as a “professional bureaucracy”

(Birnbaum, 1988; Mintzberg & Rose, 2003) where highly trained experts carry out the

work that is complex, but rather stable and established through professional training.

“This enables the operating work to be “pigeonholed”, that is, divided up, with each

portion attributed to individual professionals who can work free of the need for much

adaptive mutual adjustment with their colleagues. This is loose coupling with a

vengeance: just consider the independence of departments, of teaching, and research

(even from each other), of courses, and of professionals themselves as individuals” (p.

284).

Complexity Theory

Continuing the metaphor that higher education is an “organism” (Morgan, 2006),

it is important to better understand the concept of complexity theory and complex

adaptive systems and how these concepts relate to the successful facilitation of change in

universities and colleges. The development of complexity theory in leadership research is

not as extensive in the literature as general systems theory, but it is beginning to be

shown to have an effect in the leadership efforts in complex adaptive systems. In 1995,

ohn Holland’s Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity he introduced

Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) as a theoretical framework applicable to a multitude of

settings and environments, including education. CAS describes a loosely organized

academic field. Complexity science is not a single theory – it encompasses more than one

theoretical framework and is highly interdisciplinary, seeking the answers to some

47

fundamental questions about living, adaptable, changeable systems. A CAS is nonlinear;

it is made up of a large number of active elements that are diverse in form and capability,

and is both self-organizing and learning. Holland identified the seven basic elements that

make up every CAS to include:

Aggregation: By aggregating; similar items into categories and then treating them

as similar. Aggregation allows for the construction of models in the system. In a CAS “we

decide which details are irrelevant for the questions of interest and proceed to ignore

them” (Holland, 1995, p. 11). Aggregation also refers to what we do, versus how to

model a CAS: “it concerns the emergence of large-scale behaviors from the aggregate

interactions of less complex agents” (p. 11).

Tagging: The use of tagging forms boundaries within the CAS. Tagging allows

the individual to ignore certain details, while paying attention to others. An example

would be of a banner or flag to rally individuals that have similar persuasions or interests.

The university has multiple examples of tagging from the Greek societies, to social clubs

and the universities colors and seal.

Nonlinearity: Linearity is best explained through mathematics. “Linearity means

we get a value for the whole by adding up the value of its parts” (p. 15). “Nonlinearities

can interfere with linear approach to aggregates…nonlinear interactions always makes

the behavior of the aggregate more complicated than it would be predicted by summing

or averaging” (p. 23).

Flows: There are two properties of flows, multiplier effect and recycling effect.

The multiplier effect is “particularly evident when evolutionary changes occur, and it

48

typically jeopardizes long-range perditions based on simple trends” (p. 25). A recycle

effect is dependent on the system’s ability to capture and recycle critical resources.

Diversity: Is not accidental or random, but rather is a product of progressive

adaptations in the system.

Internal models: This is the mechanism for anticipation. There are two kinds of

internal models, tacit and overt. “A tacit internal model simply prescribes a current

action, under an implicit prediction of some desired future state, as in the case of

bacterium. An overt internal model is used as a basis for explicit, but internal,

explorations of alternatives, a process called look-ahead. The quintessential example of

look-ahead; is the mental exploration of possible moves sequences in chess prior to

moving the piece” (p. 33).

Building blocks: Human beings have the ability to deconstruct a complex scene

into distinct parts. Humans search the scene looking for pieces that we recognize and then

relate to the situation at hand. We reuse old information and add it to a new scenario for

understanding.

There is little published research on the implications of complexity theory and

CAS to leadership theory and the process of leadership, particularly in a university

setting, but Dooley (1997) attempted to “forge a unified description of complex adaptive

systems from several sources” and utilize the framework of CAS to better understand

organizational change in a business setting. Although, the earlier research discussed in

this chapter has confirmed that higher education operates in a very different manner than

the typical business model, there are some similarities that can be gleaned from this

research that could help to better understand the issue of change in a university setting;

49

that has been defined as a complex system. The key elements of the CAS model of

organizational change is a process where “agents scan the environment and adapt

accordingly (organic), using schema to interpret reality and context, and trigger decisions

and actions (cognitive), while competing and cooperating with other agents for resources

and information (organismic)” (p. 76). The nature of change in a CAS is that there is no

consistent pattern of change. The organization’s actual state “is essentially hidden in its

complexity as a whole from any single person’s view, exceeding human potential,

intellectual, and analytical capabilities; the perceived organizational state is an amalgam

of images, stories, thoughts, beliefs, and feelings” (p. 91). Therefore, to implement

effective change strategy in a CAS, a shared vision must be developed and an individual’s

perspective on the current state of the organization must be altered. The process must also

cultivate inquiry, learning, experimentation, divergent thinking, and the creation of a

mechanism to generate rapid feedback loops.

Contrasting general systems theory to complexity theory gives further

understanding and guidance to creating effective leadership models under complexity

theory. “There are three inter-related building blocks of CT (complexity theory) – non-

linear dynamics, chaos theory, and adaptation and evolution” (Schneider & Somers,

2006, p. 354). Non-linear dynamics is based on the hypothesis that small actions in one

part of a system can generate different and disproportionate change in another part.

Commonly referred to as the “butterfly effect” is the concept that a butterfly flapping its

wings in North America can influence and change the weather pattern in South America

(Kauffman, 1995). Properties of a system may emerge from its parts, rather than just

being imposed by the environment (Holland, 1998). The theory of chaos has its roots in

50

quantum theory, has been extensively researched and incorporated into complexity

theory, wherein disorder is natural, yet there are structures within the randomness that

remain the same (Snyder, Acker-Hocevar, & Snyder, 2008). Adaptation and evolution are

based on Darwin’s theory that evolution is dependent on the process of natural selection

i.e., survival of the fittest. Organizations can evolve, but “highly ordered systems are too

rigid to coordinate new behaviors and likewise tend to fail” (Schneider & Somers, 2006,

p. 355).

Although this line of research is still emerging, it expands our understanding of

the barriers and ever expanding issues that leading effective change can present in a

complex system such as higher education. Exploring the connections between systems

and complexity theory, strategy formation and strategy execution in higher education lays

the groundwork for this study in assessing the implementation of the strategic thinking

protocol in a university setting to identify factors that create an effective model of change

in higher education.

Strategy in Higher Education

Even in its earliest evolution, the justification for incorporating strategic planning

designs in higher education highlighted the lack of long term planning and the

institution’s need to react to the crisis of the economic and social issues in the late

seventies and early eighties (Keller, 1983; Kotler & Murphy, 1981). Early attempts to

introduce and implement strategic planning in higher education were met with

inconsistent results and failure in most institutions. Early on, Kotler and Murphy (1981)

defined a Strategic Planning Process model for higher education around the same time

the premier business consulting firms of McKinsey & Co. and the Boston Consulting

51

Group, were widely implementing strategic planning processes in the business world.

The planning processes of the time were systematic, linear and followed the numerous

business models of strategic planning discussed earlier in this chapter. The process was

hieratical; in that the goals were generally generated at the top of the organization. “The

strategic planning process is a sequential one where the goals and broad assumptions go

from the top down, but the detailed plans come from the bottom up” (p. 472). The stages

were followed sequentially; conducting an environmental analysis, threat analysis,

opportunity analysis, and resource analysis. The next steps included goal formulation,

creation of a mission statement, and organizational objectives. Only then did the

organization begin strategy formulation. The limitations of this model, cited by the

researchers themselves, were that the model only defined parts of the process and did not

address the critical issues of the implementation of those developed strategies.

George Keller’s release of Academic Strategy in 1983 opens with the statement

“experts predict that between 10 percent and 30 percent of America’s 3100 colleges and

universities will close their doors or merge with other institutions by 1995” (p. 3). Not

only has that prophecy not come to fruition, but as of 2007, higher education institutions

have multiplied to 4,314 colleges and universities in the United States (U.S. Department

of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, 2007). Keller continued his dire

predictions that student enrollments would decline significantly, and colleges and

universities would be forced to close, merge, or adapt to the changing environment.

Although his predictions have proven not to be completely true, the argument at that

time, of a “crisis” in higher education formed the justification and backdrop for

52

incorporating strategic planning in higher education and was taken up by institutions

across the country in the late 1970s and 1980s.

Academic strategic decision making was defined as a process that a college,

school or university and its leaders were active in determining, rather than passive about

their position in history. The process looked outward and was focused in keeping the

institution in step with the changing environment. It recognized that higher education was

subject to economic market conditions and to increasingly strong competition;

concentrated on decisions, not on documented plans, analysis, forecasts and goals; was a

blend of rational and economic analysis, political maneuvering, and psychological

interplay, was participatory and highly tolerant of controversy; and concentrated on the

fate of the institution above everything else (Keller, 1983).

In the early 1990’s strategic planning processes in higher education were

incorporated into the criteria for accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges

and Schools (SACS), which is still the case today. The process was not identified as

strategic planning per se, but was described as a “systematic, broad based, interrelated

planning and evaluation process” (sacsorg/staff/mjohnson/SCI-CR%202.5-msj.pdf) that

universities and colleges had to adopt, then deliver the supporting documentation that

proved those efforts had been incorporated in the institution’s planning efforts for

accreditation purposes. Barker and Smith (1997) researched a dozen case studies in the

1990’s that examined the implementation of strategic planning processes in colleges and

universities across the U.S. They found that just as planning was being widely adopted in

higher education, strategic planning was “being disparaged for being too linear, for

relying too heavily on available hard information, for creating elaborate paperwork mills,

53

for being too formalized and structured, for ignoring organizational context and culture,

and for discouraging creative, positive change” (Dooris, 2003, p. 27).

By the end of the decade, strategic planning had been mainstreamed and “higher

education had moved beyond a focus niche and competitiveness to encompass ideas such

as reengineering, business transformation, and continuous quality improvement” (p. 28).

Yet, other research on strategic planning implementation in higher education, identified

university and college administrators as poor strategic planners, utilizing old business

model strategic planning rhetoric and adhering to an outmoded corporate bureaucracy

that has been abandoned by successful corporations (Barrow, 1996; Hardy et al., 1983;

Tierney, 1988). “Strategic plans usually incorporate contradictory objectives, as

administrators attempt to soften political resistance with concessions to internal and

external constituents that often have competing visions of higher education” (Barrow,

1996, p. 78). Also, administrators in higher education tend to be short-term and strategic

plans are long-term. Each new administration begins its own planning process and “the

result is a strategic planning and restructuring movement that creates chaos rather than

change” (p. 78). So, how is the strategic planning process utilized in higher education

today? Is it effective and what is the research telling us about where strategy formation

and the effective implementation of those strategies need to be in higher education?

Mintzberg and Rose’s (2003) case study of strategic planning at McGill

University and Dooris’ (2003) case study at Penn State examined processes at both

institutions over extended periods of time; McGill from 1829 to 1980, and Penn State

from 1983- 2002. Mintzberg and Rose (2003) found that McGill University appeared to

have a bifurcated system of strategic management…one system concerns a mission that is

54

infused throughout its operations, and the second is more aggregated, and sometimes

more centralized and more integrated, influential in its indirect impact (p. 286). The

study’s guiding research question: Where is strategy in all this? Or, perhaps more to the

point, where is strategy as pattern, whether or not intended, and where are intentions? (p.

282), explored the long-term strategic decisions of the institution. The finding and

conclusion that “something has been going on in this institution beyond the formal

leadership, namely a rather complex social system, at least by standards of most of the

literature of strategic management...and dramatic change – turnaround, renewal,

restructuring, and all the rest – would thus hardly seem to be the appropriate focus of the

effective leader of a university. But the other side of the coin is that those leaders who

can influence process by a significant way – by making strong appointments, establishing

key procedures, and encouraging cultures of quality – can have a great long term impact

on the institution, probably far longer than most corporate managers” (p. 285), provided

additional opportunities for continuing research in strategy formation and strategic

planning in colleges and universities.

Penn State’s annual system-wide strategic planning process “has, in its broad

strokes, followed a basically consistent approach: a participative, top-down/bottom-up,

annual process that connects planning and budgeting” (Dooris, 2003, p. 29). Goals and

directives come from the top, whereas bottom-up “refers to the importance, and relatively

high autonomy, of the university’s 34 individual strategic planning units” (p. 29) with the

effect that strategic planning cascades throughout the university. The researcher

attempted to answer the question of how well strategic planning worked at the university

and cited the growth of the institution’s reputation as a member of the Big Ten, the

55

addition of a law school, reorganized feeder campuses into a system of colleges, creation

of a new honors college, expanded facilities, and increased gifts to the university as

evidence of the success of strategic planning. However, Dooris concluded that, “no one

can prove whether this university (or ultimately, any organization) is more or less

successful because of strategic planning than it would have been without it. Nonetheless,

the evidence of Penn State’s experience does suggest that the university’s long-term

commitment to strategic planning – clearly defined in its broad parameters, but flexible

and adaptive in its details – has been productive” (p. 31).

Much of the research of strategic planning in higher education reveals that the

external environment is highly influential on the internal behaviors of colleges and

universities. “A university is in the business of responding to such forces, or creating and

disseminating conceptual knowledge about what is happening in society. As a result,

change is the business of the university; that is why we probably saw no significant

strategic change; “at a micro level, everything in the university is always changing”

(Mintzberg & Rose, 2003, p. 287). The conclusion in this research was that with a

rapidly changing external environment and an internal loosely coupled, complex systems

environment; institutions of higher education are hungry for an effective process of

successful strategy formation and implementation.

Kezar (2001) acknowledges change as a human process. She suggests combining

change processes to develop a systematic and systemic process of change. One that works

with individuals, is sensitive to the distinctive characteristics of higher education, is

context-based, achieves balance of internal and external forces, and is open to leveraging

change through a better understanding of organizational change in higher education and

56

the application of those change models. Kezar (2001) suggests that three types of change

models: political, social-cognition and cultural, form the more recent basis of strategic

planning models in higher education.

There is broad agreement that organizations are collections of assorted

individuals and interest groups, with differing values, beliefs, information, interests and

perceptions of reality (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Morgan, 2006; Scharmer, 2009).

Transcending those differences, to implement change is addressed in similar, yet

differing tactics and actions. Senge (1990) advocates for building a shared vision that is

“over and above self-interest, [as] people truly want to be part of something larger than

themselves. They want to contribute toward building something important” (p. 275), and

in doing so, transcend the political environment of organizations. Through the use of

transforming actions, and utilizing political actions that include coalition building,

negotiations, network building, and promoting consensus to accomplish objectives,

leaders can address and overcome the political issues of the organization (Pisapia, 2009).

Also, “by recognizing that organization is intrinsically political, in the sense that ways

must be found to create order and direction among people with potentially diverse and

conflicting interests, much can be learned about the problems and legitimacy of

management as a process of government and about the relation between organization and

society” (Morgan, 2006 p. 150). Kim and Mauborgne (2005) recognize that the

conventional theory of organizational change rests on transforming the mass, requiring

steep resources and long time frames that few organizations have the luxury of being able

to afford. “The more likely change becomes, the more fiercely and vocally these

negative influencers – both internal and external- will fight to protect their positions, and

57

their resistance can seriously damage and even derail strategy execution process” (p.

166).

The social cognition theories explore how people within organizations influence

processes and how learning occurs within organizations or how people make sense of

their environments (Argyris, 1994). French and Raven (1959) proposed the theory of

social influence and power in that “we assume that any change in the state of a system is

produced by a change in some factor upon which it is functionally dependent” (p. 312).

Vroom and Jago (1974) also viewed decision making as a social process. When a

problem presents itself in an organization, there are alternative processes that that can be

used to solve the problem. Their research of power in organizations and the role of that

power in change were expanded by Kanter (1979), who defined power as a critical

element in effective managerial behavior. “Organizational power can grow, in part, from

being shared. By empowering others, a leader does not decrease his power; instead he

may increase it – especially if the whole organization performs better” (p. 73).

Although a comprehensive review of organizational cultural theory is beyond the

scope of this study, it is important to understand the role that culture in organizations

plays in the leading and managing of change. Culture and the understanding of the role of

culture in organizational change, is a critical component of the success or failure of

organizational change (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1993; Senge, 1990; Tierney,

1988). The research of how institutional culture affects change processes and strategies

focuses on understanding the process of institutional transformation. Kezar and Eckel

(2004) conducted a multi-case study across six universities to identify whether “change

processes [are] thwarted by violating cultural norms or enhanced by culturally sensitive

58

strategies” (p. 436). Their findings challenge the conventional beliefs of change process,

“namely, that one can follow a general principle or approach and not be aware of how

distinct organizational cultures impact process” (p. 437). The researchers define

comprehensive change as a change that is pervasive, affecting numerous offices and units

across the institution; deep, touching upon values, beliefs and structures, it intentional

and occurs over time (p. 437).

To reiterate, colleges and universities are different from for-profit organizations in

their design, processes, systems and cultures. The one size-fits-all approach to strategic

planning created in the 1960s, widely implemented in the business world in the 1970’s,

and subsequent introduction and adaptation into higher education in the 1980s until now,

has not proven to be an effective process in the formation and implementation of strategic

change. However, the reality of the environment that higher education is operating in

today demands ever greater change and adaptation to that environment, a new approach

to strategic leadership and a new model of strategic thinking and planning.

Chapter Summary

In compiling this review, there was a mix of historical theory and practice of

strategic planning in for-profit organizations, and not-for profit colleges and universities.

The definition of; and implementation of strategic thinking in conjunction with strategic

planning, helps to place this study in the larger context of the field. Also discussed are

some recent and current authorities that are advancing the field of strategy, strategic

thinking and strategic planning in higher education. While this review attempted to give

a comprehensive understanding of strategic thinking, its focus was ultimately to

understand the possible usefulness of the Strategic Thinking Protocol© model in the

59

effective formation and execution of strategy in a university setting. In researching and

building this review, there were nearly unlimited relevant studies, articles, and documents

that were excluded, particularly in the application of strategic planning in for-profit

organizations.

60

Chapter 3

Methodology

The purpose of this qualitative “holistic multiple-case” study was to identify the

elements of a strategic planning process that meet the unique organizational features and

complexities of a higher education institution. The rationale for the qualitative approach

with the topic of this research is that the elements of strategic thinking (from an empirical

perspective) have not been studied before. The study employed a Type 3 design, that Yin

(2003) calls "holistic multiple-case." A holistic multiple-case study refers to research

with more than one case study but with only one unit of analysis. Multiple cases are

examined because they provide more evidence than a single case and add confidence to

the findings (Hakim, 1987; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003). Informing the choice

of this methodology was that a qualitative methodology is most appropriate when the

researchers are attempting to establish meaning from the views of participants. Creswell

(2003) states “if a concept of phenomenon needs to be understood because little research

has been done on it, then it merits a qualitative approach” (p. 18).

The study sought to answer the primary research questions: What were the

elements of the strategic planning process used by the department, college and

university? Did the strategic planning process follow a strategic thinking or strategic

planning model? Did the process used create an effective model of change for the

organization? In addition several second level questions were asked: What was the effect

61

of the way the organization developed the plan on the implementation of the plan as

perceived by the participants? And, how effective were the strategic planning

implementation processes as judged by the participants in the planning process?

The remainder of this chapter will outline the research protocols this study followed;

the research design, the sample plan, data collection, data analysis, case summaries, and

the role of the researcher.

Research Design

The researcher decided to use a Type 3 multi-case study as an approach based on

the following assumptions. First was the belief that the research questions could be best

answered through the dimensions of a compare and contrast process, which a multi-case

design provides, to provide a test of the ideas in the conceptual framework. Also, case

study designs rely on multiple sources of evidence: direct observation, analysis of

archival documents and interview of the participants in the process of strategic planning.

“However, the most important advantage presented by using multiple sources of evidence

is the development of converging lines of inquiry, a process of triangulation and

corroboration” (Yin, 2003, p. 115).

Sample Plan

Site selection. The selection of the site for this study incorporated the critical multi-

case study concept (Miles & Huberman, 1994) related to the issue of generalizability.

Since the researcher is generalizing from one case to another on the basis of a match to

the conceptual framework and not across a larger universe, it was important that the cases

were selected on conceptual grounds, not on representational grounds (Miles &

Huberman, 1994). The unit of analysis is the department, college, and the university’s use

62

of the strategic thinking and strategic planning processes. These three cases studies were

drawn from one higher education institution; Southeastern University. The Strategic

Thinking Protocol© (STP) developed by Pisapia (2009) guided the department and

college planning processes. The university strategic plan was completed in 2006 and

used a traditional business strategic planning process. The departmental strategic plan

was completed in December 2009 and the college’s strategic planning process was begun

in January 2010, and was completed in September 2011.

Convenience and opportunistic strategies also played a role in the

consideration of the selection of the site. Southeastern University was in close

proximity to the researcher’s home and work, allowing for ease of access to

participants and observations in real-time of the college planning process. Where

opportunities might arise to follow new leads or take advantage of unexpected

data, the researcher desired the ability to do so. Once the sites were selected the

researcher made a determination to maintain the confidentiality of the sites, in

addition to the individuals. A brief profile of each site is detailed below.

Southeastern university. Southeastern University opened in 1964 and was the fifth

university in a newly created state system designed to serve the first wave of the baby

boom generation students. The university offered only upper level division and graduate

work, believing that freshmen and sophomores would be served by the growing

community college system. The university’s charter class was 867 students.

From the early 60’s through the early 70’s the university offered bachelor

degrees in business, education, humanities, science and social science.

Intercollegiate athletics began in 1969 and thus the transformation of the

63

university to a more traditional institution than was originally envisioned began.

During the mid-1970’s and into the late 1980’s the institution enjoyed a period of

fairly stable presidential leadership (2 president’s in 15 years) that resulted in a

substantial growth of philanthropic support for the academic enterprise, as well as

the physical plant. Enrollment grew to just over 11,000 students and 41,000

graduates. The university also opened its first branch campus in a nearby county

and expanded its academic offerings to include a full-four year degree in 1980.

The period of greatest physical plant and academic growth occurred from

1990-2002 with the building of four additional branch campuses and the addition

of over three dozen new degree programs. Enrollment reached 23,000 students

and the university expended over $500 million in new facility construction across

all campuses. The endowment also increased from $18 to $150 million in assets.

Most recently, the university has expanded to encompass a stronger research

profile with just over $40 million a year in research revenues and a growing

reputation across the state. The university completed its last strategic plan in 18

months and it was adopted by the Board of Trustees on January 18, 2006. A new

president was hired in 2010 and has already begun the process of updating and

revising this current strategic plan.

Southeastern college of education. The College of Education opened its doors to

students in 1964 and has a current enrollment of over 3,200 students. It is the fourth

largest college at the university with nearly one-third of its students over the age of 30.

This reflects the college’s commitment to individuals seeking a second career in

education and students pursing advanced degrees or certifications. The student population

64

is predominately in-state residents and there are 132 full-time faculty and 48 staff

members. There was no mention of the number of part-time or tenured faculty members

in the archival documents or on the college’s public web-site.

Providing a broad program of degrees and certifications to students is a

“point of pride” that is listed on the college’s website. Programs are varied from

teacher education and training to exercise science. The college is nationally

accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

(NCATE), the American College of Sport Medicine, National Strength and

Conditioning Association, and others. The college includes two elementary lab

schools; a high school; environmental education center located on 150 acres of

undeveloped land; a holocaust and human rights education center; center for

communication and autism related disorders; an exercise science department, and

the university’s third largest enrollment by major; elementary education. The

college’s Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology

ranks third in graduate enrollment in the university.

The college is served by a dean who was appointed in the spring of 2009.

Although the Dean is new to this role, he/she has been in administration in the

college since 1988. The new leader follows a period of reported strife and

infighting under the previous leadership, and is working to rebuild trust and a

collegial atmosphere in the college. The college has undertaken a strategic

planning process to review the mission and goals of the college under the Dean’s

direction

65

Southeastern department of educational leadership and research methodology.

The Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology graduated its first

master degree level graduates in 1966. The first doctoral degree was conferred in 1973.

There are a total of over 4000 alumni across all departmental degree offerings. There are

14 full time faculty members, 6 visiting and 14 adjuncts teaching in the department.

Programs include a Master of Educational Leadership in program areas: the K-12 school

sector, higher education, and adult and community education. The department also offers

a Specialist in Educational Leadership in K-12 Schools and Adult and Community

Education, and a Doctor of Philosophy in all program areas.

The Department Chair instituted a strategic planning process in August 2009

and the department completed the process in December 2010. During the planning

time period, the economy in the United States was in the midst of a recession and

state budget allocations were being cut each year. The department has worked to

maintain the quality of its teaching, scholarship and service in the community, but

recognizes the need for planning to help manage change and build a vision of the

future.

Participant Selection

Participants were selected for the study based on their involvement with the

strategic planning process at each site. All participants served as members of their

respective strategic planning committee. Although the names given to the actual

committees varied, the roles and responsibilities for each member were similar

across all three cases. Participants in the department and college planning

processes consisted mainly of tenured faculty members and one administrator in

66

each case. The participants in the university case study were predominately senior

level administrators, with a faculty and trustee representative. Table 3.1 lists the

distribution of the participants across the three cases.

Table 3.1

Participant Distribution by Function and Case

Department College University Total

Administrators 1 1 4 6

Dean 0 1 0 1

Alumnus/Trustee 0 0 1 1

Faculty 4 3 1 8

Staff 0 0 1 1

Total 5 5 8 17

Data Collection

Data collection was obtained through three primary sources: interviews, direct

observations, and documents. The data were collected in two phases. In the first phase,

a pilot study was conducted in November 2010 by the researcher. The purpose of the

pilot study was to gain experience in conducting qualitative research, and to test

components of the data collection and analysis protocols. The site of the pilot study

[Sun Coast State College (pseudonym)] was selected after a search of several colleges

and university web-sites, in close proximity to the researcher. The sites were then

reviewed for evidence of a recently completed strategic planning process, provided

access to public documents related to strategic planning, a clearly identified and

67

accessible group of five or more participants for face-to-face interviews, and exclusion of

the site from the researcher’s future dissertation study.

Sun Coast State College is a public, decentralized, multi-campus, baccalaureate

degree granting institution in the southeastern United States. The researcher selected a

sample of five participants that were identified as key members of the strategic planning

steering committee. The participants included the Vice President of Academic Affairs,

Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, Manager of Outcomes Assessment,

Associate Dean of Communications, and the Dean of Curriculum and Planning. All of the

participants were Caucasian females over the age of 50 and had been employed by the

college from six to twenty years.

The pilot study informed the design of this study through the refinement of the

interview protocol and the identification of initial and process coding schemes. A

standardized questionnaire was used in the pilot study, but was later refined for this

study. Some questions were eliminated and others added. As part of the data analysis

in the pilot study, interview transcripts were coded with an initial set of twenty-eight

codes. The codes then were grouped into five subgroups that directly related to the five

distinct areas of the questionnaire: roles participants played in the strategic planning

process, assumptions participants held toward planning, the process used, effectiveness of

the process, and the effectiveness of the implementation. The subgroups groups were then

analyzed to assess the data in relationship to the comparative sections of the conceptual

framework (Figure 1) that includes a vision of the future; strategic formulation and

implementation; managerial role in strategy making; control; managerial role in

implementation; strategy making and process; and outcomes. Codes for this study were

68

adapted from the pilot study with deletions and additions to create an initial code list for

this study.

The second phase of data collection began in January 2011 and consisted of

interviews, document collection of all three cases, and included direct observation of

the college planning process. The university concluded their strategic planning process

in 2008 and the department in 2010, eliminating observation as a data collection

strategy in those two cases.

Interviews. Structured in-depth interviews were the primary data collection method

utilized in all three case studies. The interviews were structured and focused on the

questions outlined in the Interview Protocol (Appendix A). Participants were contacted

via email requesting a meeting time and outlining the research project (Appendix B). At

the time of each interview all participants read and signed an Adult Consent Form

(Appendix C) prior to the commencement of the interview. All interviews were

approximately one hour in length and were digitally recorded with each participant’s

permission. The researcher kept field notes during the interview and manually recorded

observations immediately following the interview. Interviews were then transcribed and

to validate the accuracy of the transcription, shared with the participants to allow them

the opportunity to read the transcriptions and make any corrections, update their

responses and comment at that point in time. Merriam (1998) refers to this method of

triangulation as a “member checks - taking data and tentative interpretations back to the

people from whom they were derived and asking them if the results are plausible” (p.

204), as a method to enhance internal validity. All but one participant (U6) responded to

the request for review and approval of the transcript. U6 was contacted repeatedly via

69

email and phone messages to respond if there were any changes. There was no response

and the researcher assumed there to be no changes in the transcription.

Documents. The second source of data collection came from a review of documents

in all three planning processes that were available to the public on the university, college

and departmental websites. A document analysis was conducted of historical and current

strategic planning documents created in 2006 – 2008 for the university process; strategic

planning documents created during the college wide strategic planning process from

January, 2010 – August, 2010; and documents that from the department’s strategic

planning process that occurred from August, 2008 – December, 2009. A list of the

documents can be found in Appendix D.

Observations. The third source of data came from direct observations of the

college’s planning process. The purpose of the observation was to gain insight into the

process, topics, keywords, and key concepts to identify elements of strategic thinking in

the planning process. The researcher observed 5 different college-wide strategic thinking

sessions, for a total of 10 hours of observation. These observations of strategic planning

related meetings utilized an observation guide (Appendix E). After each observation,

notes and memos were recorded.

Data Analysis

Yin (2009) defined data analysis as it “consists of examining, categorizing,

tabulating, testing, or otherwise recombining evidence, to draw empirically based

conclusions” (p. 126). Utilizing the conceptual framework (Liedtka, 1998a; Pisapia,

2009) elements of strategic thinking versus strategic planning, the researcher created a

coding process to identify from the raw data the differing dimensions (Figure 1.1). Data

70

analysis for this multi-case study analysis was based on the conceptual framework

contained in the literature review. The researcher employed a cross-case synthesis model

of analysis. Cross-case synthesis treats each case as a distinct study and then aggregates

findings across a series of individual studies (Yin, 2009) and “requires standardization of

instruments so that findings can be laid side by side in the course of analysis” (Miles &

Huberman, 1994, p. 35). To provide the standardization of instruments the researcher

used the same first-level codes (Appendix F) across all three cases.

Data coding and analysis was a two-step process and was aided with the use of a

computer software program: HyperRESEARCH©. The software is designed to

accomplish qualitative analysis tasks of coding of text; coding of multi-media sources

including audio; video and graphics; retrieval of coded text based on researcher defined

parameters; creation of customized reports; testing of propositions based on researcher

identified codes or combination of codes; hypothesis testing; and statistical analysis

through frequency of codes and displays of results.

For this study the researcher utilized the coding, retrieval and customized report

functions of the software. Use of the hypothesis testing capacity of the software was not

utilized as it “requires the researcher to examine the directionality of his or her codes and

to consciously code for the presence or absence of a given phenomenon” (Heese-Biber &

Dupuis, 2000, p. 322). As stated earlier in this chapter, the coding table for this study was

refined through the use of a pilot study. After transcripts of the interviews were member

checked by the participants, the files were converted to text files and the researcher then

used an open coding process to identify concepts and dimensions in the source files. As

the open coding progressed across all three cases, the researcher kept a manual research

71

(continued on next page)

journal to enter emerging ideas, concepts, and themes that emerged from the initial

coding process. The open coding process resulted in 1083 pieces of data coded (Table

3.2).

Table 3.2

Open Coding Frequency Report

1st Round

Code

Description Department

Case

College

Case

University

Case

AC Activity Change 18 9 10

AS Actionable Strategy 5 6 6

BC Beliefs Change 14 14 12

BO Bonding to Outcomes 4 6 10

BR Breadth 5 10 24

CB Coalition Building 6 7 3

CC Collective Commitment 12 7 9

CCA Combination: Creativity and

Analysis

1 0 0

CH Change Desired 4 1 13

CR Creativity 0 0 0

CT Connectedness 12 13 13

DA Use of Data 14 16 12

DC Destruction of Commitment 0 0 1

DePo Decrease in Politics 1 0 0

DP Depth 8 12 28

EE External Environment 30 30 40

FA Facilitator 6 5 2

FI Focused Intent 1 3 0

GS Generative Strategy 1 0 0

HD Hypothesis Driven 0 0 0

HH Hierarchical 1 2 15

HI Horizontal Integration 17 0 0

IE Internal Environment 0 31 39

IF Inward Focus 2 3 0

IMG Image 6 3 9

IMP Implementation 0 4 33

INFN Informal Negotiation 5 0 0

ING Integration 6 1 0

72

(Table 3.2 continued)

INT Intuition 1 0 0

IO Intelligent Opportunism 2 0 0

IP Increased Politics 1 0 1

LA Liner Assumptions 1 0 0

LG Logic Based 1 0 0

LI Linkage of Strategy and

Change

6 8 8

MI Multiple Interpretations 1 1 0

NAR Narrative 1 0 0

NV Narrow Vision 0 0 0

OL Outward Looking 6 0 0

OUT Outcomes 3 5 26

PF Predict the Future 4 7 8

PR Process 13 13 55

PS Persuasion 0 0 1

RL Role 11 6 24

RP Rigidity of Process 6 0 3

RT Rational Thinking 4 1 0

SA Surfacing Assumptions 6 7 0

SC Success of Process 27 13 20

SHA Sharing Assumptions 2 3 0

SI Strategic Intent 1 0 0

SL Strategic Listening 1 1 0

SP Systems Perspective 14 13 3

ST Systems Thinking 6 1 3

SY Synthesis 6 12 0

TT Thinking in Time 3 1 0

VA Values 13 11 9

VELN Vertical Integration 2 0 0

VI Vision 4 6 10

Total 325 292 466

The development of a thematic code in social science research is probably one of

the most frequently used approaches (Boyatzis, 1998) and created the foundation used for

the second step of data analysis. It is proposed in this study that the use of a strategic

thinking process to formulate strategy in higher education would create an effective

model that envisions potential futures, changes activities of the organization, creates

73

internal horizontal alignment through altering beliefs of the participants, increases the

connectedness of the participants to each other and the organization, and is perceived as

adding value to the organization. Therefore, the researcher sorted the open coding result

into a two dimensional matrix which correspond to the phenomena the researcher

observed and the predicted themes of the conceptual framework. Open coded source data

was entered into the matrix (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3

Theme and Description Matrix

Theme Description First Level

Codes

Coding Results

Department College University

Activity Changes of

Individual/Group

AC , AS,

DePo, GS,

HH, LI

34 25 40

Beliefs Changes

Individual/Group/Organization

BC, IMG,

MI, SA,

SHA

29 28 24

Internal Horizontal Alignment BO, BR,

CB, CC,

CT, DC,

DP, HI,

VELN

47 50 88

Envisions Potential Futures FI, IF, INT,

IO, PF, VI

14 14 20

Perceived as Adding Value INFN, ING,

VA

24 12 9

Perceived as Successful

Process

CH, EE,

FA, IE,

IMP, IP,

LA, LG,

OL, OUT,

RT, SC

100 95 176

Other NAR, PS 1 0 1

(continued on next page)

74

(Table 3.3 continued)

Characteristics of Process CCA, DA,

FI, PR, RL,

RP, SI, SL,

SP, ST, SY,

TT

77 66 110

After all the open coding was sorted into the matrix, the data were analyzed and

coded for common patterns and themes in each case. The themes were then analyzed to

identify any levels of congruence across the participants with-in each case. From the

dominant themes initial findings emerged. Documents and observations were then coded

and analyzed to determine if the data from this source supported or refuted the themes

identified in the interview data.

Each with-in case finding was analyzed across the three cases to identify any level

of convergence of themes and findings. Yin (2009) defines this process as an important

tool in qualitative research, “An important caveat in conducting this kind of cross-case

synthesis is that the examination of the word tables or cross-case patterns will rely

strongly on argumentative interpretations, not numeric tallies” (p. 160). This results in the

researcher being able to develop strong and plausible arguments, which are supported by

the data.

Chapter Summary

This study utilized a qualitative, Type 3 “holistic” multi-case research design to

evaluate the research questions of the study. The goal was to analyze and then compare

and contrast three strategic planning processes of a department, college and university

from one institution. A pilot study refined the interview protocol for this study, guiding

75

the questions and initial coding process of the data collected. Participants were all

members of the strategic planning teams in each case. Collected data was triangulated

through the use of interview responses, archival document analysis and observations. The

researcher used a qualitative software program (HyperRESEARCH©) to code the data

and sort the data into recurring themes. From the coding process and theme identification,

an initial set of findings emerged and are discussed in the Chapter 4.

76

Chapter 4

Findings

The following chapter presents the research findings of this “holistic” multi-case

study that attempted to identify the elements of strategic planning processes that meet the

unique organizational features and complexities of a higher education institution. This

chapter presents the findings pertaining to each “with-in” case study: Department of

Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, Southeastern University; College of

Education, Southeastern University; and Southeastern University. The chapter also

presents the findings that emerged from a compare and contrast analysis of the three

cases to test the ideas of the conceptual framework. In all cases, the data emerged from a

two-step data coding and analysis process of the transcribed text of seventeen interviews

over the course of three months between April 2011 and July 2011, an analysis of

documents pertaining to each planning process, and observations of the planning

processes. Findings and supporting evidence are presented sequentially in each case, with

a discussion of the findings at the end of each chapter. Finally, results of the analysis

were sent to key participants to check consistency of the interpretations to help validate

the findings. The combination of triangulated data, member checks and participant

validation limited the possibility of researcher bias.

To protect the anonymity of each participant, each is referred to throughout the

study as participant 1, 2, 3, etc., with a case indicator code preceding each number (D =

77

department, C = college, U = university). The researcher has attempted to ensure an

additional level of anonymity by not connecting participant responses to identifying roles,

such as President or Vice President. At the beginning of each case, there is a brief

description of backgrounds and roles of the participants collectively to give a frame of

reference for experience, responsibilities and roles within the organization and the

strategic planning process used in each case.

Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, Southeastern

University

The Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology (hereafter

referred to as the department) undertook a strategic thinking/planning initiative in August

2009 under the leadership of the Chair of the department. The Chair joined the

University in 1989 as Chair of the department of teacher education. Then in 1994 he/she

became Associate Dean for the College of Education, returned to the faculty in 2003 in

the Department of Education Leadership and subsequently took on the role of

Department Chair in 2007. The researcher asked the Chair to recall how he/she decided

to begin a strategic planning process and the selection of the use of the Strategic Thinking

Protocol© to guide the process.

I [was] frustrated that our college and our university did not have a strategic plan

that I thought was viable. They were not thinking strategically. They were not

acting strategically. And yet, as a department, I did not feel that we were in any

structure that enabled us to act strategically. In one of our annual retreats I

proposed…we had a faculty member doing consulting all over the place on it…to

78

convince them, that if he will lead the process…that we would undergo a strategic

thinking and strategic intent process.

Planning process: The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP). The strategic

thinking process is described in the following paragraphs to orient the reader to how it

was used by the department. Strategic thinking is the ability to analyze influencing

factors both inside and outside the organization, to discover strategic direction that should

guide the organization’s decision-making and resource allocation for a period of 3 - 5

years. Using this definition, Pisapia, (2009) created a six step process to develop and

execute a statement of strategic intent (Appendix G). The process has two phases:

strategic thinking and strategic execution (Figure 6).

Strategic Thinking Strategic Execution

Figure 6. The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009).

In the strategic thinking process quantitative and qualitative data are collected from

internal and external environments. Quantitative data comes from the institution

(university database) and qualitative data are gathered from interviews and listening

sessions with individuals outside of the department. Pisapia (2009) calls the process, the

strategic thinking protocol (STP).

Navigating

Team

Intent Convene

Quality

Committee

& Action

Teams

79

The STP (Figure 6) follows a look, listen, and learn sequence. It is coordinated by

a facilitator and a navigating team which acts as a synthesizing agent and crafts a

recommended statement of strategic intent. A key understanding of the process is that all

organizational members receive the same information as the navigating team. This

guideline provides transparency, allowing all members to understand the problems facing

the department and assist them in participating in crafting the direction that will be taken.

A web site is created to house the data gathered and the decisions made in the process of

creating the statement of intent.

The STP uses two main processes, strategic listening and strategic conversations

to create a statement of strategic intent. Strategic listening is used to receive perception

and quantitative information from the external and internal environment. All

organizational members are invited to participate in the listening process. At a typical

session, representatives from the organization’s major stakeholders are invited to share

their perceptions of the opportunities and threats facing the organization in an interview

process. The facilitator begins the questioning using a standard interview protocol so that

comparisons are readily made across the stakeholders. Then the questioning is opened up

to members of the organization who have been listening. At the end of each strategic

listening session, a summary is created and shared with all members of the organization

and feedback is solicited.

The strategic conversations process is structured around 5 questions in a

sequenced meeting structure (Table 4.1). What do others expect of us? What business are

we in? What do we expect of ourselves? What is our aspiration? What are our priorities?

The conversations begin as a call by the facilitator for organizational members to offer

80

their perspectives through an email. These perspectives are collated, synthesized by the

navigating team and shared with all organizational members via email and then face to

face feedback by convening a conversation. In the conversation, the facilitator uses a

dialogue rather than discussion approach with all members able to voice their

perspectives and opinions. At the end of each of the conversations the navigating team

assesses all feedback and proposes a synthesizing statement regarding the conversation to

the full membership. The result of the first conversation is a group understanding of what

the environment expects of the organization. The output of the second conversation is a

mission statement. The third conversation produces the core values statements; the fourth

conversation produces the aspiration statement. The fifth conversation produces the

priorities that will move the organization closer to the aspiration.

Table 4.1

STP Questions and Outcomes (Pisapia, 2009)

Conversation Outcome

What do others expect from us? Clear understanding of expectations for the

organization.

What business are we in? A mission statement

What do we expect from ourselves? A core values statement

What is our aspiration? An aspiration statement

What are our priorities? A statement of initiatives to move the

organization closer to its aspiration

When the protocol has been completed, the navigating team proposes a statement

of intent containing the mission, values, aspiration and priorities that will guide the

organization over the next 3-5 year planning period. The statement of strategic intent is

81

adopted through normal organizational channels and becomes policy. At this point, the

strategic thinking phase is over and the navigating committee is disbanded and the

organization enters into the strategic execution phase.

The strategic execution phase is entered into when the statement of intent

becomes the policy of the organization. Since strategic execution is not the focus of this

study it is only briefly described here. Two mechanisms are utilized: a quality committee

and action teams. The quality committee is created and charged with developing a

reporting mechanism to continuously review the implementation of the approved

statement of intent. They identify the indicators of progress toward the aspiration of the

organization, monitor and guide the implementation teams working on each of the

identified priorities, and annually assess movement toward the aspiration. Self-organizing

action teams are created around each priority identified in the statement of intent. These

teams are responsible to identify and implement initiatives that will move the department

toward its aspirations.

Formation and charge to the navigating committee. The navigating committee

was comprised of six individuals (all tenured). Membership included the Chair of the

department, four faculty members and the facilitator. Participants represented the various

programs in the department. The combined years of experience in the department among

the participants interviewed for this study was 46 years, with one faculty member just

joining the department two years before the study, but he/she had over 25 years of

teaching and research experience at the university. D5 described the committee and that

there was no adjunct or part-time faculty on the committee.

82

So in a sense there is no diversity at all on the navigating committee except for

programmatic differences: a higher education rep, an ACE representative, a K-12

representative, a research methodology representative and you had a structural

reporting secretary . . . the facilitator, but it was homogenous and it did not reflect

the new make-up of the department.

The initial charge to the navigating committee was to execute the STP and clearly

define expected results at the end of the process. The first step was for the committee to

meet prior to the opening day of classes in August 2009, review the accreditation report

and the university and college priority initiatives. This initial meeting was to be followed

by monthly meetings to develop a statement of strategic intent, guiding core values, and

priorities for action. The committee met monthly from August, 2009 – November, 2010

to conduct listening sessions, discuss five strategic conversation questions, provide

feedback to the entire department on what they believe they heard in these sessions, and

draft a written statement including: mission, core values, aspiration, and priorities for

action. The goal of the process was to produce a written statement of intent that included

the following elements listed in Table 4.2.

83

Table 4.2

Strategic Thinking/Planning Process Expected Results (Pisapia, 2009)

Mission Statement To contain no more than three crisp, clear, and compelling

themes in one sentence.

Aspiration To contain a stretch statement of what the department

should look like in 3-5 years. The aspiration specifies a

clear, concrete, measurable end but not the means to that

end.

Guiding Principles Definition of what the department stands for and how it

will act in the daily flow of activity. When these values are

agreed upon no faculty and staff should be exempt from

accountability to these values.

Priorities/Initiatives Priorities focus the department on what it needs to do to

achieve its aspiration. They are NOT pre-identified goals.

They are best guesses of the areas the organization should

explore to work towards its aspirations. The priorities

should set clear direction for administrators and faculty to

adjust their work priorities toward over the next two years

and thereafter. Responsibility for the initiatives will be

distributed, and individuals or group responsible should be

held accountable for their success.

Presentation A draft of the statement of strategic intent with mission,

aspiration, guiding principles and priorities/initiatives

should be presented to the full department for discussion

and eventual adoption. Once agreed upon, this common

vision should be used to make hiring decisions, develop

working relationships, and allocate resources.

Findings

The results of the data analysis in this case support the primary finding that the

department process followed a strategic thinking model of planning. The analysis also

supports a secondary finding that the process created a successful model of change as

perceived by the participants in the process. Table 4.3 outlines the elements of the study’s

conceptual framework, with a brief description of what was found in the analysis of the

data and described in more detail. At the time of the study, the department had

progressed through the first four steps of the STP and was actively working through the

84

fifth step of the process: the formation of a quality control committee. The purpose of this

study was to identify the elements of a strategic planning process that meet the unique

organizational planning features of a higher education organization. Therefore, data on

the implementation steps of the STP was not collected.

Table 4.3

Findings and Data Sources for the Department

Primary Finding:

Department process

utilized a strategic

thinking process.

Secondary Finding: The

STP provided an effective

model for change in the

department.

Interviews 5/ 5 participants 4/ 5 participants

Observations N/A N/A

Document Review 9/9 Documents 9/9 Documents

The department process utilized a strategic thinking process. The primary

finding of the study is derived from analysis of the archival documents and interviews

with the participants that served on the navigating committee of the department. The

study framework (Figure 1) served as the guiding matrix for the development of codes,

themes and analysis. The researcher then created a third matrix, using the study

framework, and compared the data against the framework (see Table 4.4). The analysis

of the data supported the finding that the process utilized the elements of strategic

thinking to create a statement of strategic intent for the department that provides a

strategic direction that should guide the department’s decision making and resource

allocation for the next 3-5 years.

85

(continued on next page)

Table 4.4

Study Framework and Findings for the Department

Department Case Data Analysis Supports the Following

Elements of Process Change Model Used a social-cognitive model of

change, including political and cultural

elements.

Vision of the Future Beliefs of participants were that only

the shape of the future can be

predicted.

Strategic Thinking Skills Used synthesis, systems thinking,

reflection and reframing.

Strategic Listening Evidenced through formal collection

of perspectives, data analysis and

synthesis.

Strategic Conversations Strongly evident – participants

understand the larger system and how

they connect to it.

Managerial Role in

Strategy Making

Lower level managers have a voice in

strategy making.

Managerial Role in

Implementation

Department Chair and Program

managers understand the larger

system, the connection between those

roles and the functioning of that

system, as well as the independence

between the various roles that

comprise the system.

Strategic Formulation

and Implementation

Not measured in study.

Control Relies on self-reference – a sense of

strategic intent and purpose embedded

in the minds of the managers

throughout the department that guides

their choices on a daily basis in a

process that is often difficult to

measure and monitor from above.

Alignment Horizontal – gained synchronization

among team.

86

(Table 4.4 continued)

Strategy Making Did not find that participants viewed

strategy and change as inescapably

linked nor assumptions that finding

new strategic options and

implementing them successfully is

harder and more important than

evaluating them.

Process and Outcome Sees the planning process itself as a

critical value-adding element.

Department did not focus on the

creation of the plan as the ultimate

objective.

Value Specification Strong component – creates self-

reference points in the minds of the

participants. Uses values to control

and coordinate activity.

Minimum Specifications Statement of strategic intent functions

as a guiding document. Lacks

measurable components and has

minimum specifications.

Strategic Fitness Not conclusive that process was a fit

to external and internal environment.

Did find the process adds value to the

plan.

Chunking Change Not measured in this study.

Findings

Finding #1: Type

of Planning

Process Used

14 out of 16 elements

measured and 11 of 14

used in the planning

process. Evidenced in the

analysis of the data.

Strategic Thinking

Finding #2: Type

of Change Created

and Effectiveness

of Process

Successful

Altered the attitudes, values, beliefs,

and behaviors of the department.

Created systems thinking and

perceived as an effective process by

participants.

87

Elements of study framework. It is proposed in the study framework that a

strategic thinking process uses a social-cognitive model of change that includes political

and social elements in the change process. Evidence in this case of a change process that

recognized the cultural and political realities of the organization, support the

determination that this element was present in the department’s planning process.

Participant D5 was aware of the political and cultural elements, saw the inclusion of these

in the process and a resulting change in his/her belief about the change process.

I could walk away from the faculty meeting and say, even in this transition away

from tenure track positions, it that’s the new reality, that’s the new world of

higher ed[ucation], then we can still make this work.

Other participants were aware of the political issues surrounding the department and the

impact of those issues on the planning process itself. D3 noted “legislative changes that

impact us, in many ways, are not predictable and are outside influences…that impact our

work and lives.” D4’s comments also supported the social-cognitive model that included

the cultural elements of the department and the department’s place in the wider university

structure.

I’ve always seen it as a kind of …ground up approach that we’ve tried to craft our

own identity and map out our own mission, set of beliefs and values in the way

that we operate; knowing that we are nested within a college, university and wider

community. But, given the size of the university and all the fragmentation, I think

there has been some interest in trying to make sure we’re clear about who we are

in our boundaries.

88

Participant D1 felt that the process created a social connection between the participants,

“it creates a sense of community, creates a sense of, it’s a part of something bigger than

you. That you are part of a group of people that’s more like a family.” The process

created a change in D2’s view of the department in the larger social and cultural context

of the university.

So you have to sort of broaden your view a bit and that has been an interesting

kind of thing….It’s a paradigm change that’s fairly large to think of the larger

community rather than your own department.

The STP attempts to help participants shape a vision for the future and to help

them understand that only the shape of the future can be predicted. All of the participants

believed the future could not be predicted, but some expressed the belief that one could

construct some parameters around what the future might look like, based in knowing

historical data and looking outward to the surrounding environment. D2 explained his/her

belief as:

I mean we can hypothesize and learn from history, we learn from the past and we

have expectations, but no, I think more than ever it is harder to predict…given the

nature of the world…that we live in. I think we need to be facile and adaptable.

When asked about whether one can predict the future, D1 suggested it is more of being

able to respond, then actually predicting what might happen. “I think the key to

leadership at any institution level is…to be able to quickly anticipate the consequences

and where things might be going as you resolve that.” D5 commented that “I think

people need to think that in order to live in a predictable kind of life, but in fact, it’s

really a matter of adapting to changing circumstances.”

89

The framework of the study proposes that strategic thinking skills include the

synthesis of data, systems thinking, and the use of reflection and reframing in a strategic

thinking planning process. Synthesis of data was a key part of the STP process. An

analysis of the archival documents found throughout the process, evidence that the

collection of data and the synthesis of that data took place during the strategic listening

and strategic conversation steps in the process (see Figure 4.2). Through the use of

strategic listening sessions, emails and face-to-face meetings; the navigating committee

collected data, observations and comments from the entire department; created memos

that were then distributed to all department members for comments and final

presentations on the data. The use of these elements was found in the archival

documents listed in Appendix D.

The participants confirmed the document findings that the process used a strong

process of synthesis to evaluate data collected. Participants described the processes of

synthesis, reflection and reframing during the interviews. They also described use of

systems thinking through their description of the broadly inclusionary activities of

meetings, on-line comment sessions and draft memos shared with all department

members. The use of synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing ultimately

resulted in the formulation of a statement of strategic intent for the department to guide

the priorities and work of the department. All but one participant described the process of

synthesis, systems thinking and reframing, as it occurred in the planning process. The

following comments support the finding of use of strategic thinking in the STO process

and the formulation of a statement of strategic intent.

90

D1: We looked at numbers…we looked at involvements; we looked at data,

patterns and trends. We saw feedback from policy makers and people that run on

the cutting edges. [There were] people that gave us their perceptions of what we

do.

D5: For analyzing qualitative data… the secretary created the minutes. Then we

could do the same kind of qualitative coding. We had minutes, so yes whether you

call it data or information…other times it was listening and getting input from

faculty. Trying to make sense of what people said, synthesize it and then put it

together to go to the faculty and say “Is this what we said? Is this what we want?

And, then go through the struggles, tensions and dialogue around that.

D4: Our assignment was to take in some of what we learned and the other was to

have these…exchanges with faculties around a table in terms of what do you

value? Why do you value that? Then the navigating committee would go back

and try to put it in a form to then feed back to the group. They would then reflect

on it. There would be more fine-tuning and going forward, then going back until it

became a final draft…then move on to the next step of seeing how different parts

connected….I remember, you know, certain meetings where we would go on and

on over a word and what something meant. It was important because words matter

and they are going to be posted. We are going to live by these words. So, there

was a lot of give and take.

D2: This was an alien sort of thing to me, but it was kind of interesting. The most

interesting part of the whole process itself was the chatting with your colleagues

and hearing what they have to say in their opinions and such.

91

The one exception to this consistent recall of the actual process was participant D3.

He/she did not believe that data had been analyzed in such a way as to support the

researcher’s finding that there was synthesis of data, systems thinking, reframing and

reflection in the STP process.

The big problem I had with the data collection process is that I did not really see

the quantitative perspective in this process in meaningful ways…there was some

but not enough at all in my opinion…I worked very hard to prepare a report and

presented data, much like I would have presented at a scholarly conference or for

a consulting job. But, it did not go anywhere. We did not do anything with the

data.

The STP used reframing to move participants toward a shared understanding of

where the department is, where it is headed and how it will get there. The actual process

of reframing was viewed as a key benefit in the process by the participants. The analysis

of data found that use of reframing did result in a change in member’s beliefs about the

department, a change in participant’s assumptions about the department and planning,

and in some cases, reframing lowered resistance to a strategic thinking process versus the

traditional business model of strategic planning. Participant D1 noted “my beliefs about

the department have really changed” and D2 stated that “I am probably learning more

about other people, so in some sense, yes.” D3 felt the process changed some of his/her

assumptions “I have a better idea of some issues. But, it has helped me to learn more

about the thinking of the visiting and junior faculty.” D5 described a change in his/her

assumption about their role in the process:

92

As the process continued and it was clear that it was attempting to get a consensus

from every member of the department, I started to feel obligated to take it more

seriously, because I was no longer able to just think about myself. I had to think

about the fact that I was reposting back to faculty….I felt there was a leadership

responsibility that I hadn’t felt before when I first started, so in that sense I

changed.

D5 continued to describe reframing of the data collected from the outside, as well as from

internal members of the department. He/she felt a responsibility to ensure that all voices

were heard and took on a broader view of the department, resulting in a more systems

thinking based approach to the work.

The charge was to take what we heard at the department meeting and make sure

that we considered everything that was said, so we were not dismissive and

because the committee was made up of representatives from different programs. It

was not unusual for one person to recollect something that others had forgotten

and then bring it back to the table. So in fact, if the word is voice, I would say the

voices of the faculty were definitely heard, definitely considered and then the

synthesis priority process came together so that we could report back….so the

process was and that is what the process was meant to do. The process is meant to

come up with convergence commonalities.

And, D4 confirmed the use of synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing in

his/her description of the process of taking in the data, then creating documents to present

back to department members, until consensus was reached.

93

Actually it was a good year, each month, faculty meetings having an outsider, an

external individual speak to us. That happened at a variety of levels and from a

whole number of angles. The intent was to learn, to find out about the world out

there and what do they expect from us? What do they see going on and what are

their concerns? Challenge wise [it was] to digest and think about, and dismiss it,

use it, make sense of it as more background information as we went forward to

the next stage. Which was then given what we know, what do we want to do?

The managerial role in strategy making and implementation in the study

framework proposes that lower level managers have a voice in strategy making and that

those managers have an understanding of the larger system, the connection between those

roles and the functioning of the system. It is also proposed that managers clearly

understand the independence between various roles that comprise the system. There was

limited data on the implementation element of the study framework, but participants

described the managerial role in the creation of strategy and some comments on

implementation were collected. The participants articulated their knowledge of the larger

system and their roles within it. D2 described the committees that have been formed to

begin implementing the strategies, supporting the finding that there is an understanding

that the department chair alone is not responsible for the implementation of the statement

of strategic intent.

What has happened is that there are committees that have been created to explore

and make actionable the various aspirations. So there are committees that are

currently doing that and discussing those things that might be done in support of

94

that aspiration….It takes time to change paradigms after you have done what you

are doing for scores over the years.

D5 understood the managerial role in strategy making and implementation as being

measured against activity to date. He/she expressed the perception that lower level

faculty, not just the chair of the department, have a real voice in strategy making.

Look what we did last year. We looked to integrate the values so success of the

first year process, absolutely. Are we seeing evidence of it in follow up activities?

That is yet to be seen. Unlikely, but hopeful….The example of the syllabi is the

example of that there’s an attempt. There’s a good faith attempt. So if at the end

of this year, people look at whether or not we have embedded the core values into

the syllabi and if we see deficiencies, if there is the commitment and the will to

insist that those professors didn’t go far enough. Then we can say it has life….So

again, the strong point is the fact that these things have been written down and it

now allows any professor at any level to raise their hand and ask the question.

Which is the strategic planning question that I think is the real value of the

strategic plan.

The use of a centrally posted statement of strategic intent, in the department entrance

hallway, was signed by everyone (faculty and staff) in the department. It has, in the

opinion of participant D4, created an environment where every individual in the

department understands their role and the connection between those roles. It has fostered

knowledge about the functioning of those roles in the larger universe of the college,

university and external environments.

95

It was a symbolic gesture [of the department chair] to show how important this

was to…put it in a prominent place and to make sure that people knew that we

were working for something and it wasn’t just an exercise. Hopefully, having

spent all this time thinking about goals, mission and vision and that kind of

stuff…. Yes, I think that’s probably the biggest effect… I think that we actually

intend to shape our future, to have sense of who we are, and put some of that in

writing…declaring it along the way…we have these aspirations, this mission and

this notion of who we want to become, so now it’s the idea of becoming.

Four of the participants agreed with D1’s perception that the managerial role in the

making of the strategy and the implementation is not just the role of the manager at the

top of the organization, but as a result of this process, falls to the lower levels, and is

being incorporated at the lower levels.

We got these committees set-up, our plans being set-up of how we can get to

where we want to go. That to some extent is part of the piece of the still living

document. That’s how we live it. That’s how we make decisions…..There were

committees that have been developed around their priorities. People themselves

selected the committees that they wanted tied into looking into our priorities.

D2 perceived the role of strategy making and implementation as happening at the lower

level also.

That’s what we are doing now, so we have the aspirations and now the

subcommittees whatever they are called, each of the aspiration committees…each

one of these committees are thinking about how do we get there and this is, this is

part of the departmental process.

96

D5 described the change in his/her belief that strategy making and implementation

needed to just happen at the top level of management.

What it did for me was it gave me – because the process was so participatory –

the ability to see the thinking of individual people….I would not have experience

if the traditional hierarchical model where the department chair peaks to full

professors and we move on to the next item on the agenda [was used]. This

changes that for me. So in sense it did change my thinking about strategic

planning. It gave me more insight into how a participatory leader is good in itself.

We can’t learn to respect people if we always silence them.

In contrast to the other participants, D3’s perception was that the lower level manager,

i.e.: faculty did not have voice in strategy making.

The reality is that faculty is not as independent as they may think. Faculty can

spend as much time as they want talking about whatever in their academic world,

but at the end of the day, the real priorities of the institution are set at senior levels

and faculty are the recipients of those priorities.

The analysis of archival documents and participant interviews found that the

process created a framework that generated a picture of what the organization will look

like in the future. This framework encompassed the strategic thinking process elements of

control and alignment from the study’s framework. The element of control relies on self-

reference and is measured by whether a sense of strategic intent and purpose is embedded

in the minds of the managers throughout the department. This sense of strategic intent

then helps to guide individual’s choices on a daily basis; in a process that is often difficult

to measure and monitor from above. This difficulty in measuring progress from above

97

was described by D3, and whose beliefs ascribe to a traditional business model of

strategic planning.

Lofty goals are wonderful, but we should be able to measure progress along the

way, in objective ways if they were to be truly useful….The charge at the

beginning of the year was that all-subcommittees were going to give a report at

the final departmental faculty meeting. Well there was no report from any

subcommittee. This was not even on the agenda. So to me that was a good

indication that it petered out.

The element of alignment was found to have been used in the department

planning process. Alignment is a vertical and horizontal action, across all members of the

organization that is measured by whether or not the process has gained synchronization

among the members of the team. In other words, are all members of the team working

together in the common pursuit of the aspirations and priorities, expressed in the

statement of strategic intent? D4 perceived that this is possibly just beginning and is

ongoing in the work of the department.

We have to see what happens. How it evolves. I mean it’s in people’s

minds…Well, one thing we have done, I have been on another committee, where

we have taken the core courses and also in our program area meetings, we are

looking at the program area specific courses to see where are those values

reflected. And so, we have looked at every single course trying to identify where

they [values] are already present and then thinking is there some place…are there

any gaps where they need to be more visible?…and the world’s just going to keep

98

moving whether or not you put a structural or conceptual framework around it,

it’s going to happen.

D1 perceived a change to a more horizontal behavior across the department and cited the

changes in how the department is working to better meet the needs of the student and a

change in the work during faculty meetings.

Yes, there are committees that have been developed around their priorities. People

themselves selected the committees that they wanted to be tied into looking in on

our priorities…much more student friendly, much more efficient and organized in

the way we deal with people…Systems have been set up for new protocols of how

we deal with admissions to other processes. We have some attitudes that are

starting to filter in the way we communicate with students, much differently than

the way we did before….Oh, hugely changed the activities of how we spent our

time in faculty meetings and the time allocated for meetings…we spent more time

talking in faculty meetings about values and budgeted time to interview people.

D5 expressed the importance of giving an opportunity to everyone during the process to

be heard, and then how those voices were integrated into the direction of the department.

Ultimately, this helped to build synchronization among the team members.

We were giving voice to the voices of the department. I think that modulated the

differences that could have emerged at the navigating committee. When we went

back to the department and reported back what the navigating committee said,

that’s where some people would say “I don’t remember us going there.” Then the

facilitator would turn to the people on the navigating committee. So I think that

99

was an effective method that does tend to reinforce a convergence. It doesn’t have

the ability to resurrect divergence.

In the making of strategy, the study framework proposes that a strategic thinking

model of planning sees strategy and change as inescapably linked. The strategic thinking

model also proposes that finding new strategic options and implementing them

successfully is harder and more important than evaluating them. The participants in this

case were not in agreement when asked whether they believed strategy and change are

linked. There was no data found to support the participant’s perception of linkage. D2

stated “I think what happens is usually we have strategy and we ignore the strategy we

create.” D3 was focused on the need for resources as a key to this linkage.

It is much easier to be strategic when there is plenty of money because money

covers up a lot of errors; but, when resources are being cut back, then those with

votes “circle the wagons” to protect themselves and form coalitions to help

protect their interests.

D5 also answered the question in relation to the planning process needing to be linked to

the budgeting process.

So that means I’m a little skeptical of planning that’s not connected to budgeting.

I’m also skeptical that when it leaves, when the plan goes to the policy makers,

the planners lose control of the process.

D4 believes “change happens with or without strategy. I also think you could have

strategies and no change.”

The elements of process and outcomes and value specification were evidenced in

the data analysis of the participant’s interviews. All of the participants saw the planning

100

process itself as a critical value-adding element. In addition, all of the participants

indicated the specification of values was present as a self-referencing point in the minds

of the participants. In addition to the process itself having value, the process creates a

self- reference point in the minds of the participants, where the traditional strategic

planning model uses measurement to control and coordinate activity.

When participants responded to the question of whether the process itself added

value to the plan, all of the participants agreed that it did. D4 said that “already I have

heard comments…in terms of our values about being collegial, civil and respectful. When

those things don’t happen, the comment becomes: So what happened to our values?” D3

initially answered the question stating that “I think planning can add value. I think it can

also be a potential bomb.” He/she then expanded further on that statement.

I think planning can backfire if the follow through is weak or non-existent. Often

the discussions about vision and values were fun, but I fear that some of our

important bread and butter issues did not get addressed this year….One cannot

really argue with anything in that value statement. The department’s statement is

that our values lead the way, but our behavior is the true indicator of our values.

D3 also described how the values were a self-referencing point in the work being done in

the department.

Each department, each preliminary committee was charged with a curriculum

point of view, to review their curriculum in regard to the priorities. The priorities

seem to be the values primarily and then how we can embed those values into the

course

D1 described the creation of value and resulting alignment of the group.

101

I think it’s true that process of really talking about who we are and what our

values are, that you create more than just a value. You create a sense of cohesion

to a group; an identity with that group. So it creates something better than just a

value itself….an opportunity to when we are making decisions at the department

level to talk about them. To reference back to what our values are. So it really is a

good source for us to live it in other words. We have been taking our values that

we all collectively approve and we devote about half an hour to each meeting, just

to talk about what this does mean….We have a discussion about it. So we are not

letting those values leave the room.

D5 described the attempt of integration of the values in helping to control and coordinate

the activities of the department.

So, the first couple of syllabi were looked at…and then someone like me says, but

wait a second, I thought last year we went through a strategic planning process.

Should the syllabi reflect the values, mission and goals of the strategic plan, even

before it reflects the external authorities? That has to get said two or three

times…and then the activity changes….Look at what we did last year. We looked

to integrate the values so success of the first year process, absolutely. Are we

seeing evidence of it in follow-up activities? That’s yet to be seen. The example

of the syllabi is the example of that there’s been an attempt. There’s a good faith

attempt.

The framework for the study proposes that a strategic thinking planning process

only creates minimum specifications related to goals and objectives. The strategies for

meeting the aspirations of the statement of strategic intent are created during the strategic

102

execution phase of the STP. Again, the researcher did not collect data on the strategic

execution phase of the process, but participants made some observations about this

element of minimum specifications. In particular were the comments from D3 who was

frustrated that goals were not created in greater specificity.

An outcome was a mission, values, aspiration and priorities. No goals. So, I can’t

answer that question because I do not see any goals….Assigning sub-committees

to come up with work plans for all the priorities has created a nightmare process.

One the worst things that administrators can do, is create a new committee to

implement a committee’s vision, especially when none of this is linked to SACS,

NCATE or the University’s plan. But, in terms of the utility of how useful it

is…the statements look great on the wall and have some utility regarding a better

understanding of who we are and what we are now. But, statements are empty if

the behavior is not congruent with the words.

The element of strategic fitness is determined by whether the planning process is

a fit to external and internal environment of the organization. As was discussed above in

the elements of process and outcome, and value specification, the planning process was

perceived to add value to the plan. But, the study also found evidence that participants

perceived that the process collected, synthesized, and incorporated data from both

internal and external environments. The analysis of the archival documents supported this

finding with evidence of numerous speakers, reports and readings from the college,

university, local, state and national sources. There was an underlying recognition from

D1 about alignment of the department’s plan with the university.

103

The trick of that is bounding the university initiatives and visions into the

department vision. And, eventually the university will start…with the president

moving toward her vision or an interaction with her university. She is moving

strategically. I see evidence around and at some point in time we will have to

translate that into the…department.

And, as was noted in the preceding section D3, did not perceive that the planning process

was a fit externally with the university or the external accrediting agencies. The

researcher is unable to conclude that the element of strategic fitness resulted from the

STP process in this case. The final proposed strategic thinking dimension of the study’s

framework, chucking change, is part of the strategic execution phase of the STP.

The first finding of this study; that the department followed a strategic thinking

planning process, was evidenced in the data, wherein the 14 measured dimensions of the

study’s framework, 11 were found to be used in the planning process of the department.

The elements included: social-cognitive model of change; vision of the future; strategic

thinking skills; strategic listening; strategic conversations; managerial role in strategy

making; managerial role in implementation; control; alignment; process and outcome,

and value specification. The remaining 3 elements measured in this study: strategy

making, minimum specifications and strategic fitness were not found to be supported in

the analysis of the data. The use of the STP ultimately resulted in the creation and

adoption of a statement of strategic intent for the department. The purpose of the

statement of strategic intent is to provide a strategic direction for the department’s

decision making and resource allocation in the future.

104

Successful Model of Change

The purpose of this study was to identify elements of strategic planning processes

that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of a higher education

institution. The researcher proposed that the use of a planning process that incorporated

the study’s framework of strategic thinking elements would result in creating an effective

process. A successful strategic planning process is defined in this study as a process that

alters the attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the institution, its employees and the

public. As described above, the data found that the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of the

participants had been altered. In addition, the analysis of interview data supports the

finding that the participants viewed the process as a successful strategic planning process.

Most of the participants perceived the process as successful, with the noted

exception of one participant. D1 summed up his/her answer to the question of whether

the process was a success or not as “extremely.” Participant D2 thought it was too early

to make a judgment on the longer term impact of the process, but perceived that the

process was successful.

So this has been kind of fun, kind of interesting and certainly educational for me

in the sense of the process. I don’t have any idea whether it will have any impact

on what we do…I think it was very well done…it was very

successful….Although it has been a lot of time…I would go in the direction of

still already worthwhile. Even if it doesn’t change anything organizationally, I

would say it has been a worthwhile endeavor to have.

D4’s perception also supported the finding that the process was successful. The

participant did include clarifying comments about this question asked being early in the

105

process. He/she felt that they might possibly not be able to make a final judgment until

further implementation of strategies that are developed, as a result of the work of action

committees.

It was a process, it was a good process. I think a healthy process…but to put that

kind of judgment on it…I don’t know until I see how we evolve as a department,

as a unit, as a culture, and also productivity. What kind of action is taken? I mean

already I’ve heard comments around, we have, in terms of our values about being

collegial, civil and respectful, when these things don’t happen, the comment

becomes so what happened to our values? I think we are starting and that’s where

I would expect us to be at this phase.

The definition of a successful process was unique for each participant. D5 defined a

successful process as understandable by all and the resulted creation of the statement of

strategic intent, which was ultimately adopted by the department.

Yes, so I think that speaks to the fact that it was comprehensive for everyone.

They could comprehend what they were being asked to do at every single stage,

otherwise you would hear comments like “I’m lost”…but we didn’t hear any of

that….I think it was very successful for producing a document, extremely

successful and I think for example, if you look at the wall, when you walk in the

to the department of educational leadership, you see the end products of the

strategic plan with signatures like the declaration of independence. You actually

see people walk by it, both the signers as well as the service in the department.

The smile on their faces across the board point to the success of that aspect of the

106

process that is it created a document. It created a living document. It created a

tangible living document. That’s a success.

In contrast to the other four participants, D3 perceived that the process was not

successful because it took too long, his/her expectations of expected outcomes were not

met, data was not assessed and the planning took place without regard for the other

planning processes occurring at the university level.

As the process progressed, it was clear that many of us were headed toward

“burn-out.”…I would ask that there be a limit to the amount of contact hours that

we are expected to contribute…more focus on using data for decision

making…this plan should not be undertaken in isolation of other plans and

planning processes that are recognized and in place. That is a biggie. We have

NCATE, SACS and the university strategic plan already. This process seemed to

be clearly outside all that and was viewed, at least by me, as being an add on; to

what we already have in place…I think it was mildly successful, but it depends on

how you measure success. How successful has the process been? I would say not

as successful as I would have liked….I also feel this has been an incredible

exercise in group think. I have learned a lot about group think….I would not do it

this way, no.

The researcher also asked whether the process had helped to change the

participant’s beliefs about the department. The researcher found that the process had

resulted in altering the beliefs of most of the participants. D3 described the change in

his/her own thinking and activities.

107

I have a better idea of some issues. I love to learn. I think this may have been of

particular use to junior faculty and those in visiting lines. But, this has helped me

learn more about the thinking of the visiting and junior faculty. I think that faculty

is doing whatever they were doing before this planning process, but they are

finding a new way to link it what they have been doing to these priorities.

Participant D5 was clear that the process was working toward a shared vision for all and

described that patterns and priorities did emerge from the planning process. The level of

participation of the department was also noted as a result of the process.

What is did for me was it gave me – because the process was so participatory –

the ability to see the thinking of individual people. And I was impressed. I walked

away from the table saying, how lucky I am to be sitting at the table with such

talented people.

I would say it had 98-99% participation at the department level….Both patterns

and priorities emerged. I can’t say I know logically that one would want to first

have the pattern and then the priority, but I think the interface of pattern priority

was so fluid that when someone heard more than one statement, on a particular

topic, the people focus and identify that statement as important. They could

recognize it.

Department Case Summary

In summary, the two findings of this case study were that the STP provided a

strategic thinking planning process for the department and the process was found to be

successful as defined in this study and was also successful in the opinions of the

participants. The majority of the elements of the study framework were found to be used

108

in the process in both the archival documents and the interview data of the navigating

committee members. The success of the process was evidenced in the data analysis of the

interviews of the participants. The use of the STP resulted in the creation and adoption of

a statement of strategic intent that included mission, aspiration, guiding principles and

priorities/initiatives to guide the department in program and hiring decisions in the future.

The participants were supportive of the process, felt that there was clear value in the

process and are optimistic about the implementation of the plan going forward.

College of Education, Southeastern University

The College of Education undertook a strategic thinking/planning initiative in

January, 2010 under the leadership of a recently appointed Dean of the college. The Dean

has been a member of the faculty and administrator in the college since 1988. Upon

appointment, the Dean observed the planning process that the Department of Educational

Leadership had undertaken and was interested in conducting the same or similar process

at the college. The process was introduced to the executive committee (faculty and

administrators) of the college by the Dean, and a steering committee for the strategic

thinking/planning process was formed.

Planning process: The Strategic Planning Protocol© (STP)

The strategic thinking process as described in the Department of Educational

Leadership and Research Methodologies case study was essentially the same process

used by the college. The only difference was the planning committee was called a

steering committee in the college versus the navigating committee in the department case.

The process used the two phases: strategic thinking and strategic execution (Figure 7).

109

Strategic Thinking Strategic Execution

Figure 7. The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (Pisapia, 2009).

Formation and charge to the steering committee.

The steering committee had an initial membership of ten individuals. Membership

included the Dean, eight tenured faculty members, including the facilitator, and one

administrator. Steering committee members that agreed to participate in this study

represented various programs in the college and included 4 tenured faculty members and

1 administrator. The combined years of the faculty participants interviewed for this study

was 74 years. The single administrator had been with the college for just over three years.

The college’s website provided an introduction, statement about the process from

the Dean and list of committee members:

The College is embarking on a journey to discover our future. The College of

Education is OUR College. Strategic thinking/planning is OUR way of doing

strategic planning. I have asked [the facilitator] to coordinate our trip. [He] will be

working with the steering committee and all of you to insure that our journey is

fruitful. I have appointed, with the advice of department chairs the following

members of the steering committee: [list omitted]. The steering committee has

developed our work plan. I have cleared my schedule to work through the

Steering

Committee

Intent Convene

Quality

Committee

& Action

Teams

110

Strategic Thinking Protocol and ask that you fully engage in the process. In this

way we will have produced a plan for OUR College that will guide our work over

the next 3-5 years. Let’s enjoy the journey together!

The charge given to the steering committee by the Dean was to execute a two

phase process, the STP. Phase 1 was the data collection portion of the process in which

the committee’s responsibility was to help identify what individuals the college should

hear from, attend monthly full college meetings with external and internal individuals,

take notes and send those to the facilitator for development of summary statements. Phase

2 of the process was the development of a statement of strategic intent. The committee

was asked to meet monthly throughout the planning timeframe to discuss five strategic

conversation questions. Following each of those meetings, a written statement was to be

drafted from each conversation to include the mission, core values, aspiration and

priorities for action. The goal of the process was to produce a written statement of

strategic intent that included the following outcomes listed in Table 4.2.

Findings

The results of the data analysis in this case support a primary finding that the

college followed a strategic thinking model of planning. The analysis also supports a

secondary finding that the process created a successful model of change as defined in this

study and as perceived by the participants interviewed in the study (Table 4.5). The

elements of the study’s conceptual framework are listed in (Table 4.6) and include a brief

description of what was found in the analysis of the data. At the time of the study, the

college was actively engaged in the first four steps of the STP. The steering committee

was in the process of finalizing a draft statement of strategic intent for submission to all

111

members of the college for their final approval and adoption. The purpose of this study

was to identify the elements of a strategic planning process that meets the unique

organizational planning features of a higher education organization. The timing of the

collection of data was prior to the strategic execution phase, therefore no data was

collected on implementation.

Table 4.5

Findings and Data Sources for the College

Primary Finding: College

process utilized a strategic

thinking process.

Secondary Finding: The

STP process was

perceived as successful by

the participants.

Interviews 5/ 5 participants 4/ 5 participants

Observations 5/5 observations 5/5 observations

Document Review 17/17 Documents 17/17 Documents

The college process utilized a strategic thinking process. The primary finding

of this study is derived from analysis of the archival documents, direct observations and

interviews with the participants that served on the steering committee of the college. The

study framework (Figure 1) served as the guiding matrix for the development of codes,

themes and analysis. The researcher then created a third matrix, using the study

framework, and compared the data against the framework (Table 4.6). The analysis of

the data supported the finding that the process utilized the elements of strategic thinking

to create a statement of strategic intent for the college that provides a strategic direction

that should guide the college’s decision making and resource allocation for the next 3-5

years.

112

(continued on next page)

Table 4.6

Study Framework and Findings for the College

Department

Case

Data Analysis Supports the Following

Elements of

Process

Change Model Used a social-cognitive model of change, including

political and cultural elements.

Vision of the

Future

Beliefs of participants were that only the shape of

the future can be predicted.

Strategic Thinking

Skills

Used synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and

reframing.

Strategic Listening Evidenced through formal collection of

perspectives, data analysis and synthesis.

Strategic

Conversations

Strongly evident – participants understand the

larger system and how they connect to it.

Managerial Role in

Strategy Making

Lower level managers have a voice in strategy

making.

Managerial Role in

Implementation

Implementation not measured in study, but

participants understood the larger system and the

functioning of the system.

Strategic

Formulation and

Implementation

Not measured in study.

Control Did not find a sense of strategic intent and purpose

embedded in the minds of the managers throughout

the college that guided their choices on a daily

basis in a process that is often difficult to measure

and monitor from above.

Alignment Found that process was horizontal – gained

synchronization among team.

Strategy Making Found participants viewed strategy and change as

linked. No data found to support the assumptions of

participants that finding new strategic options and

implementing them successfully is harder and more

important than evaluating them.

113

(Table 4.6 continued)

Process and Outcome Sees the planning process itself as

a critical value-adding element.

College did not focus on the

creation of the plan as the ultimate

objective.

Value Specification Did not find this to be a strong

component – creates self -

reference points in the minds of

the participants. Uses values to

control and coordinate activity.

Minimum Specifications Found the statement of strategic

intent will function as a guiding

document. Lacks measurable

components and has minimum

specifications.

Strategic Fitness Observed that process was a fit to

external and internal environment.

Did find the process adds value to

the plan.

Chunking Change Not measured in this study.

Findings

Finding #1: Type of

Planning Process

Used

14 out of 16 elements

measured and 11 of 14 used

in the planning process.

Evidenced in the analysis of

the data.

Strategic Thinking

Finding #2: Type of

Change Created and

Effectiveness of

Process

Successful

Altered the attitudes, values,

beliefs and behaviors of the

college.

It is proposed in the study framework that strategic thinking process uses a social-

cognitive model of change that includes political and social elements in the change

process. Evidence in this case of a change process that recognizes the cultural and

114

political realities of the college, support the finding that this element was present in the

college’s planning process. C1 described the political environment that the college found

itself to be part of.

We are influenced greatly by the political process here in the state especially and

a lot of things that are going to happen in this college in the near future are being

dictated to us by decisions made in the state legislature, good or bad. So we are

not independent as much as we like to think we are, but very much influenced by

the political processes that occur.

The other participants referenced and commented on the political environment

surrounding the college and the effect of that environment on their own destinies. C2

commented on the external influences and social setting of the college, recognizing the

need for awareness of outside influences as planning took place.

I definitely do….because it is a reality. I mean we’re in a world where there are

lots of pressures and a lot of things that are affecting what we do, and you know,

you have to be realistic and – and people have to know what is expected, but also

what their barriers are, or what potential opportunities are out there.

Other members of the committee were aware of the political and social issues, both

externally and internally to the college, and the effect those issues had on the actual

planning process itself. C4 expressed frustration with the control that the state places on

the college, thereby possibly limiting the college’s ability to make substantial change.

Depending what you are thinking about programmatically…very little

independence, we have to do what we are told. The education programs, the initial

certification programs…everything is driven by [the state]. DOE type of things

115

and of course our national accreditation also drives what…and that affects us

more than maybe any other program.

C5 commented on the use of the listening sessions that allowed for the presentation of

realities in the political and social arenas inside and outside the college.

Yeah, we have that session…one of the speakers was the chairman of the house

higher education committee of the [state] legislature, who talked about from a

legislator’s standpoint, how do we see higher education. Not surprisingly, they

don’t see higher education that same way that academics see it.

There was a clear recognition from participant C3 that he/she was aware and recognized

the opinions others at the university held toward the college in general.

I hate to say this, but at every university where there is a college of

ed[ucation]…the other colleges just think it is a joke. I mean it’s because it is all

process….I think it’s why some people in our college don’t even like being in the

college of ed[ucation].

The researcher also found evidence in the document analysis and observations to

support the perception of the participants of the presence of social and cultural elements

in the change process. In the initial session observation the researcher noted that the

participants were more internally focused on their own departments and interests.

Comments were framed in terms of “in my department, in my research, I think, I

believe…” This observed behavior changed over the course of the five sessions. By the

fifth session observed, participants were speaking in terms of “we, our college and us”

which was a noted change in the social element and interaction among the participants

observed. An analysis of documents at the conclusion of the five strategic conversations

116

revealed that the group’s references had evolved to “we aspire to, our main concerns are,

a group of faculty members…” and the level of “I” references had decreased

significantly, from the majority to only an occasional reference. Reflecting on this

process, participant C2 stated:

There are a lot of people who really don’t want us to lose sight of what’s

important for the college…there has been a lot of discussion at the meetings about

how we are perceived by local community people, by state, and nationally. So, if

we don’t know how we are perceived, we don’t know how we can serve the

community best… I think we have a better idea of where we stand and how we

are perceived because we have recent data from the observations, interviews,

focus group sessions and all the listening sessions. I think we all have a better

idea. I think it’s important because to hear that because you might think you know

where we stand, but when you hear it, and you are like WOW, I didn’t know

people felt that way, that – that is important.

The STP attempts to assist participants in creating a vision for the future and to

help them understand that only the shape of the future can be predicted. The participants

in this study believe that only the shape of the future can be predicted. The analysis of the

data supports the finding that this element of the study framework was present. C2 stated

that he/she thought the future could be predicted “to an extent, I think it can be

predicted…but you don’t have total control over things.” C3 simply stated “No.” C4 also

stated “no” but elaborated further his/her belief that the actual future cannot be predicted,

but you can have some idea about what the future might look like.

117

No…but I think you can still strategize and plan around possible outcomes. But

totally predicted; no. I wouldn’t say it’s predictable but yet you try to think about

the possible and alternative avenues and outcomes. Then strategize them in

multiple ways so you [don’t] get trapped in just one.

Committee member C1 also shared a similar belief.

I do not think you can predict the future, but you can certainly anticipate the

future. I think that is as best as you can do. I do not think you could predict

something. I think that as part of the planning process you are always trying to

anticipate the future and in some ways you are trying to shape the future. So, I

would say you try to anticipate the future, you can try and shape the future, but I

don’t think you can predict it.

And, C5 described an example of how unpredictable the future is and the resulting

problems in trying to do so.

I think certain elements of the future can be predicted. On the other hand, there

are always factors that we can’t predict. No one could have predicted exactly the

2008 recession and subsequent budget crunches and how bad it has affected

schools. Also how that has affected people’s thinking. Because, all of a sudden,

ideas that were untenable before the budget crunch, now become tenable as a way

to save money.

The framework for the study proposes that a strategic thinking process utilizes

strategic thinking skills. These skills include the use of synthesis of data, evidence of

systems thinking, reflection and reframing to build consensus and agreement. The

framework also proposes that the use of strategic listening and strategic conversations is

118

part of the process. The STP uses strategic listening and strategic conversations to

incorporate strategic thinking skills in the process. The participants were asked if the

process was characterized by logic, reasoning, numbers and rational thinking, C4

perceived that was indeed the case.

I think all of it, we use because we had data…some of it is data driven. Some it

would come out of discussion…which again I like. It’s a mixture. You don’t have

just one resource…. We would go around the table. Then he [the facilitator]

would have us go around again, so you had a chance again after hearing

everybody else...and you would synthesize some more and you would analyze

more.

The analysis of the archival documents, including facilitator emails requesting

comments on steering committee drafts and the resulting responses (20-40 per request)

from faculty, supports evidence of the use of strategic thinking skills in the college

planning process. The use of synthesis, reflection and reframing were directly observed

by the researcher in each of the observed sessions. The facilitator used a round table

technique, asking for comments and thoughts, one at a time, then continued that process

until everyone had voiced their opinions and ideas. There were group exercises where the

facilitator would ask for smaller breakout group activity to reflect on what the

participants had heard and reframe those thoughts and ideas in different ways. Lastly, the

description by participants of the synthesis and use of systems thinking in the process was

recognized, although not always perceived as being important to the process. For

example, C1 describes the synthesis of data, but did not believe that it was useful in the

overall process.

119

What happened was we kind of put a synthesis of what was said by these different

individuals and then we allowed people, faculty to make comments on it. For each

of these, we got pages and pages and pages of responses. There is little you can do

with so much data. It’s not meaningful. It ceases to become meaningful when you

get that much data especially when you don’t stop at each level and say

okay…what does this mean?...I think it was too much information. I do not think,

in my opinion that we needed to get comments from every single faculty member

in the college. That is what the steering committee is there for. There was just so

much information and it was just so difficult to really process it.

Alternatively, C5 described the synthesis and decision making and found value in using

the data.

I think it was pretty open. I do not think there were any sacred cows that we could

not talk about. I did not hear anyone say “this is off limits, or that is off limits.” I

think we all went into the process with the idea that we will talk about whatever

we need to address…it would be silly to limit their input because it may well be

things that are outside that limit that you really need to hear it.

C2 described the steering committees charge as ultimately recommending a final version

of whatever piece they were working on, but described the use of synthesis in the

process.

That’s something I never noticed before at [planning] things I have been involved

with at other organizations. He [the facilitator] had us listening to everyone else.

So again, it’s validating people at a different level, but at the same time…it’s still

the steering committee’s decision. We have to in the end, be charged with

120

creating the final product based on data that we have collected and synthesized

from these multiple sources.

The STP used reframing to move participants toward a shared understanding of

where the college is, where it is headed and how it will get there. The analysis of the data

supported the researcher’s observations that steering committee member’s beliefs about

the college had changed. There was a change in their perceived role at the college and

reframing helped to lower their resistance to a strategic thinking model versus the

traditional business model of strategic planning. C2 expressed that the process helped to

create a framework for the participants to create a vision of the future and expanded

his/her knowledge of how others view the college.

Well, it’s giving people an opportunity to really think through strategically who

we are, what we want to be, who we should be, and how to go about doing that. A

lot of times people think that going through this process, just kind of going

through the motions, it’s something we just need to do, it’s more for fluff. But, I

think that if you have people who are definitely engaged and really buy into the

process, then they are really dedicated to it once you develop a plan to push it

forward….And I feel like it’s going to be different here at the college because

there’s a lot at stake. I really do feel like there are people who are going to make

sure that the strategic plan that we put in place; that we are actually going to move

actively towards making real change happen.

C3 also perceived the process helped to create a view of what the college would look like

in the future and also changed his/her belief about their role in the process.

121

I mean one thing we did was really lay out, here is our college, here is where it is,

what it is, here is what it stands for, and here are our aspirations and goals. So

everybody sort of knew that already, but it can’t be a bad thing getting it

clarified…I do the best I can to represent my department. But, maybe I do feel

differently as time has passed. I feel there is an element of representing the whole

college…So, I now feel that bending over backwards to be inclusive, that I didn’t

give that a thought to that when I started, I just gave my opinion…I think we are

in that process right now. I think it’s starting to take shape and it’s becoming

tighter, the vision of what we want. So, I think we will see that in the next –

through – the fall semester.

Participant C4 did not perceive that process changed their beliefs, but did find value in

expanding their knowledge of the external and internal environments.

I won’t say it changed my beliefs because I have always had positive beliefs. I

believe we are really cool and that people are doing wonderful things…but it has

helped to add to my information base and that’s always a good thing.

C5 expressed an opinion of the process to date and how the STP process was different

than other strategic planning processes, but is waiting until the implementation phase of

the process before rendering any final opinion.

I thought the steps were certainly logical and that we need to listen to all of the

stakeholders…but when you take people’s time and you pick their brains, and you

do nothing, it’s an insult…This approach here is much more thorough, because

it’s longitudinal and we are not always just talking to each other, but were looking

122

at different constituents. Do I support the process? Yes. Have I passed final

judgment on it? No.

The one exception to a change in beliefs or a lowering of resistance to strategic planning

as a result of the process was participant C1. He/she did not perceive the process had

changed their beliefs about the college and he/she also expressed a negative opinion

about strategic planning in general.

It is too early. What I would say is I do not think any strategic plan accomplishes

anything. That has always been my thing…My experience over the years here,

and talking to my colleagues at other institutions, is that the upper level

management generally do a poor job in planning…I think strategic plans are

words and unless those words are supported by a commitment and investment by

administration that’s all they are is words…the process that we went through, in

terms of gathering all this information, I struggled to see how it really helped us to

define the problem.

The managerial role in strategy making and implementation in the study

framework proposes that lower level managers have a voice in strategy making. Also,

that those managers have an understanding of the larger system; the connection between

those roles and the functioning of the system. It is proposed that managers clearly

understand the independence between various roles that comprise the system. At the time

of this study, the college was still in the strategic thinking phase of the STP, therefore no

data was collected on the managerial role in implementation of strategy. The analysis of

the data found that participants understood the larger system of the college, the

connection of those roles and functioning of that system. Participant C2 talked about the

123

roles of the leaders and that everyone has in the process and the need for information to

be shared broadly and deeply in the organization.

Definitely, the administrative team…the leader seems very involved, very

engaged and very concerned about the direction of the college. I think everyone

needs to be included, including the janitors….They know everything that is going

on. It’s like the secretary is the hub of the school….I do think you need to include

people because you are more likely to get them engaged in buying into the

process – and being a part of it, they feel valued. If they don’t feel like they are

really valued for it, you are less likely to get buy in, you know, and it hurts your

ability to move forward with the process.

C4 also shared the opinion that everyone needs to have the same information about the

forces that are impinging on the college and what their role is.

I think everybody needs to know what everybody else does…you need to explain

the process so you know whatever we can do to involve everybody at different

levels or whatever, at least even in a peripheral way so that they have an

understanding.

In response to the question of whether or not all managers need to be aware of the forces

impinging on the college, C3 did not support the idea of everyone knowing their role and

the connection to the functioning of the college.

I wouldn’t say all managers. Some people, it’s alright if they have tunnel vision,

because if they are managing their little piece and doing a good job, I do not see

every person can do every function.

124

The one participant, that did not perceive the process to have changed how they viewed

their role or how the process would change how they worked in the college, was C1.

He/she perceived themselves to be outside the wider functioning of the college and

therefore, not impacted by the process.

Personally speaking it is not going to change what I do. Our department doesn’t

have a formal strategic plan, but we what we do and I think very successfully, is

we look at our field and how it is changing at different levels. We kind of do this

process on our own but not in such a formalized process.

C5 discussed the primary issue was going to be the implementation portion of the plan.

He/she did feel that more than just the leader would have to be involved in the

implementation, but did qualify their comments with some concerns about the

willingness of everyone to take a role.

To me, the big elephant in the room is going to be…once we get all these data on

the table, what do we do when we have the collective professional profile to deal

with, specifically with critiques. So if we have graduate students and they say we

need more rigor in certain courses then, it’s hard to address that if you don’t know

specifically what courses they are. Because I am sure their answer did not show

there was significant rigor in all classes….When it is done, the key is going to be

are we willing to take those aspects of the process which call for serious

reflection, serious introspection and significant change, and act on those? Or will

we just focus on the complimentary aspects of the report and apt ourselves on the

back and shove the rest under the rug.

125

The analysis of archival documents and observations found that the process

generated a picture of what college will look like in the future. Memos, draft statements,

group generated mission, values and aspirations documents, were synthesized into a draft

statement of strategic intent. The draft statement had not been approved by the college

when data was collected for the study. The proposed framework of the study includes the

elements of control and alignment. The element of control relies on self-reference and is

measured by whether a sense of strategic intent and purpose is embedded in the minds of

the managers throughout the college. This sense of strategic intent then helps to guide

individual’s choices on a daily basis; in a process that is often difficult to measure and

monitor from above. The interview data did not support a finding that the element of

control was present in the minds any of the participants interviewed for the study.

The element of alignment was found to have been used in the college planning

process. Alignment is a vertical and horizontal action, across all members of the

organization that is measured by whether or not the process has gained synchronization

among the members of the team. In other words, are all members of the team working

together in the common pursuit of the aspirations and priorities, expressed in the draft

statement of strategic intent?

The majority of the participants perceived that the process had brought them

closer to other members of the department and had begun to align thinking, focus and

commitment in the college. Participant C4 stated “very, very and I think it [the process]

has helped.” C2 thought that more members of the college community would engage and

connect to the process as is progressed further.

126

I am still not sure some people are really going to see it until we get through to the

end, and maybe it will materialize more for some people. I think that those people

that are the most engaged have a pretty good idea….I think they have a really

good understanding….I feel pretty connected. I feel like being part of this process

has made me feel more connected because I’ve gotten to know different

faculty…and it’s helped me to get to know other people that I’ve worked with…I

feel like that has grown over the process.

C3 expressed her/his desire to represent only the department has changed as a result to

the process and their focus is more aligned with the intent of the entire college.

I do the best I can to directly represent my department. But, maybe I do feel more

differently as time has passed. I feel there is an element of representing the whole

college. I feel that [I am] bending over backwards to be inclusive, that I didn’t

give a thought to that when I started….I feel very connected.

When asked about the process, C5 described the difference between the STP process and

other planning process they had been involved with.

This approach here is much more thorough, because it is longitudinal and we’re

not just talking to each other, but were looking at different constituencies. So, I

support the process, I am not by nature a skeptic, but I will say this. Do I support

the process? Yes.

The element of alignment was important to C1, but he/she perceived that the process had

not gone far enough in that sense.

What I had hoped for, especially when you look at how things are changing in

terms of what’s being forced upon us by our government, how we are going to

127

change to respond to that? How do we model ourselves to make sure to survive? I

see right now that we are in a real battle with the legislature. Right now they are

not friendly to colleges of education. So, how do you confront that issue? I am not

sure that what we put forward really addresses that. So in my mind it has been a

bit frustrating. I think it was more of an open process. I think what we are trying

to do, at least my understanding is, to take this information and then formulate a

vision based on that.

In the making of strategy, the study framework proposes that a strategic thinking

model of planning views strategy and change as inescapably linked. The strategic

thinking model also proposes that finding new strategic options and implementing them

successfully is harder and more important than measuring them. Four of the five

participants perceive that strategy and change are linked, but C1 did not perceive that to

always be the case, “they can be, but I think they are usually not. C5 agreed but

predicated that belief on past successes.

Oh, yes, if you use a certain strategy that is historically shown to be less

successful, your chances of getting change are slim to none. And, I think one of

the successful strategies is to try and convince people, first all change is always

difficult. But, you have to convince them that they will be better served if the

change is enacted, then if the status quo remains….Because nobody likes to be

played with. Nobody likes to feel that they are not being taken seriously and

whatever comes of this, in order to address the weaknesses, some of the things

[we] will be able to do just by putting our heads together and coming up with a

different approach or better approach, but some other things cannot be.

128

When asked whether strategy and changed are linked, C2 believes that they are, but also

perceives that external influences may either force change, or prevent those strategies

from driving change in a meaningful way.

Yes…perhaps with so much change which is externally imposed, I just have to

think we have to be willing to change. I just feel like we are so surrounded by

rules and requirements that I am not sure this is going to do good at all. But, it

certainly won’t do any harm and it might clarify things.

Participant C4 stated “strategy and change yes I do. That’s kind of my thing, I am always

strategizing things.” C3 also perceived the external environment as affecting the linkage

of strategy and change. “Strategy and changed is linked. Perhaps with so much change

which is externally imposed, I just think we have to be willing to change.”

The study framework elements of process and outcomes and value specification

were evidenced in the data analysis of the participant’s interviews. Three of the

participants saw the planning process itself as a critical value-adding element.

Participants C1 and C5 both perceive the value is in the implementation of the plan, or

the end result of the process, not in the process itself. C5 stated “I think the process itself

is helpful, but the process itself has no more value than the institution’s willingness to

address the results.” C1 also linked the value of the process to the implementation, “I

think strategic plans are words and that unless those words are supported by a

commitment and an investment by administration that’s all they are is words.” C2

perceived the process as being of value.

Yes….It is giving people an opportunity to really think through strategically who

we are, what we want to be, who we should be and how to go about doing that. A

129

lot of times people think that going through this process, just kind of going

through the motions, it’s something we just need to do, it’s more for fluff. But, I

think if you have people who are definitely engaged, and really buy into the

process, then they are really dedicated once you develop a plan, to push it

forward.

C4 perceived the planning process as adding value to the organization.

Yes, I do think so and if not, even if we never got into good specifics. It’s good

for people to hear each other and listen to each other and kind of think about what

other people are thinking [about] what they are….that has been very informative

to me. That’s why I like participating.

The analysis of the interview data not did produce a finding that the specification

of values was present as a self-referencing point in the minds of the participants. The

analysis of observations and documents did support a finding that the college planning

process focused on the creation of the statement of strategic intent that would serve as a

guide for the college going forward.

The framework for the study proposes that a strategic thinking planning process

only creates minimum specifications related to goals and objectives. The strategies for

meeting the aspirations of the statement of strategic intent are created during the strategic

execution phase of the STP. Again, the researcher did not collect data on the strategic

execution phase of the process since it was outside the time frame for this study, but the

draft statement of strategic intent, presented as a final draft to the college for adoption has

minimum specifications and is evidence of such of this element being present in the

planning process.

130

The element of strategic fitness is determined by whether the planning process is

a fit to external and internal environment of the organization. As was discussed above in

the elements of process and outcome, and value specification, the planning process was

perceived to add value to the plan. The study also found evidence that participants

perceived that the process collected, synthesized, and incorporated data from both

internal and external environments. The observations of the strategic conversations and

analysis of the archival documents supported this finding with evidence of numerous

speakers, reports and readings from the college, university, local, state and national

sources. During the strategic conversations there was a continual referencing back to the

university, national, state and local issues and whether the values, vision, mission and

aspirations were a “good fit” with what the participants had heard in the strategic

listening sessions. The final proposed strategic thinking dimension of the study’s

framework, chunking change, is part of the strategic execution phase of the STP.

The first finding of this study, that the college followed a strategic thinking

planning process, was evidenced in the data, wherein the 14 measured dimensions of the

study’s framework, The first finding of this study; that the department followed a

strategic thinking planning process, was evidenced in the data, wherein the 14 measured

dimensions of the study’s framework, 11 were found to be used in the planning process

of the department. The elements included: social-cognitive model of change; vision of

the future; strategic thinking skills; strategic listening; strategic conversations;

managerial role in strategy making; alignment; process and outcome; value

specification; and strategic fitness. The remaining 3 elements measured in this study:

control, strategy making, and minimum specifications were not found to be supported in

131

the analysis of the data. The use of the STP ultimately resulted in the creation and of a

draft statement of strategic intent for the college. The purpose of the statement of

strategic intent in the future will be to provide a strategic direction for the college’s

decision making and resource allocations.

Successful Planning Process

The purpose of this study was to identify elements of strategic planning processes

that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of a higher education

institution. The researcher proposed that the use of a planning process that incorporated

the study’s framework of strategic thinking elements would result in creating an effective

process. A successful strategic planning process is defined in this study as a planning

process that alters the attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the college. The analysis

of interview data supports the finding that the use of the STP created a successful

planning process and was also perceived by the participants as a successful process. The

perception of C2, of the process was positive and upbeat. He/she was excited to get to the

draft of the statement of strategic intent to the rest of the college and begin the strategic

execution phase.

Sometimes it felt like we were trying to do too much in the allotted time that we

were given for meetings. I think that’s back to just everyone’s time is so

crunched. I think that it is pretty amazing that we got the people together that we

could get, when we had the meetings we had….I am excited about the final

product and how this gets received by the college. Then once it is out there, to

start looking at the different committees that were formed to really push the goals

forward to what we aspire to be.

132

The most critical of the process was C1. He/she did not see how the process was

successful or how the process was much different from other processes they had been

part of in the past.

I am not sure how meaningful it is. At the end of the day, when we came up

finally with the strategic vision, I do not think it reflected all this, because the

strategic vision in my opinion we have is not that new. It just sounds like a

lot…same old, same old. Not that there is anything wrong with the things that are

in there, but I do not think it really was worth the work that was done in collecting

this information. I do not see how it really was reflected in this strategic

vision….I think that if you talk about a vision…I think it should anticipate the

future. What I had hoped for, especially when you look at how things are

changing in terms of what’s being forced by our government, how we are going to

change or respond to that? How do we model ourselves to make sure we survive?

D3’s perception supported the finding that the process was successful. He/she expressed

that the process gave them a greater understanding of the entire college, but also talked

about the problems of the external environment having an impact of the activities of the

college.

One of the values that I think is it brings people together. The chairs come

together a couple of times a month, but it [the process] brings people together

who are not administrators to see the view of other people from other

departments. So I think just in creating it, it has made us all more aware of the

other departments. Inadvertently, we have gotten to know our colleagues

better….I am just not sure what we change. I mean, I talk about our department

133

being bound by rules, but the college is almost equally bound by what the state

requires. I think it went very well.

C4 also supported the finding that this was a successful process for the college to

undertake.

I love it… I fell in love with the style. I liked it because it is simple….At this

point I have been very happy, you know with the process and with the

participation and it’s turned out the way I wanted. I mean it’s a very comfortable

strategic process and it’s going to be interesting to compare how the university

does their process, both with what we did, and what has been done with the

university in the past.

The structure of the process, the timeline and how the process was conducted, C5 felt was

a good process, but did not feel that he/she could define it as completely successful at the

time of this study.

So I would say procedurally, I was very content with the basic structure, but like I

said, you know you can have the most beautiful process in the world, but the

rubber hits the road in the institution’s ability to face up to critique and not just

compliments. And we still don’t know because it’s not completed. How this

college will respond to the final product, you know, hope springs eternal. But, if

we respond in a mature professional fashion to critique, well I will be delighted.

College Case Summary

In summary, the two findings of this case study were the STP provided a strategic

thinking planning process for the college and the process was successful in altering the

attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the college. The process was also perceived to

134

be successful by the participants. The majority of the elements of the study framework

were found to be used in the process in the archival documents, observations and the

interview data of the steering committee members. The success of the process was

evidenced in the data analysis of the interviews of the participants. The use of the STP

resulted in the creation of a draft statement of strategic intent that included mission,

aspiration, guiding principles and priorities/initiatives to guide the college in program and

hiring decisions in the future. The participants were supportive of the process, felt that

there was clear value in the process, yet expressed concerns about the implementation of

the plan going forward.

Southeastern University

Southeastern University (SEU) began a strategic planning initiative in the fall of

2004. The Chairman of the Board and members of the Board of Trustees requested that

the president update the strategic plan for the university, about one year after the

president’s appointment to the university. The president appointed a senior level

administrator (vice president) to lead the process for the university. The vice president

described being assigned the task as part of the interview for this study.

There was a party on Sunday night…and I asked [my colleague] if anything had

happened while I was gone? She said, you didn’t hear? At the executive

committee meeting the President said, I am going to put [the vice president] in

charge of the strategic plan. He/she will drive us all crazy, but he/she will get it

done.

The vice president and the president of the university selected a group of senior

level administrators to form the University Strategic Planning Council (hereafter referred

135

to as the council). There were a total of twenty-four members of the council. The

membership was comprised of ten vice-presidents, four associate vice-presidents, three

members of the Board of Trustees (two were alumni), two students, two tenured faculty

members and three community representatives. Seven participants agreed to be

interviewed for the study and had a variety of backgrounds and tenure with the

university. The four vice presidents interviewed had over 20 years of experience each at

the university. The mid-level administrator had short-term experience of less than 3

years. The trustee/alumnus had spent his/her entire adulthood connected to the university

in some form either as an employee or volunteer, and the faculty member had worked

over 20 years at the university.

The council was charged by the president of the university with developing a

strategic plan for the university. The chair of the strategic planning committee described

his/her lack of experience in leading a strategic planning process, but had participated in

a previous strategic planning process at the university.

I spent time reading everything I could on strategic planning at universities, but

there wasn’t a whole lot out there….someone brought me in a notice for a

conference (on making your planning and your budgeting mesh)…so I asked if I

could go and take a team.

He/she took one other member of the planning council and two other individuals

from the budget and finance office. The strategic planning process took place over

eighteen months and resulted in the adoption of Southeastern University’s 2006 -2013

Strategic Plan in January 2006. The strategic plan contained a mission, vision, values,

and seven goals and objectives for the university.

136

Findings

The results of the data analysis supported a primary finding that the university

followed a traditional strategic planning model process. The analysis also supports a

second finding that the planning process was unsuccessful. Success of a strategic

planning process, as defined in this study, is a process that alters the attitudes, values,

beliefs and behaviors of the institution, its employees and the public. An overview of the

sources of data is outlined below in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7

Findings and Data Sources for the University

Primary Finding:

University utilized a

traditional strategic

planning process.

Second Finding: Process

failed to alters attitudes,

values, beliefs and

behaviors.

Interviews 7/ 7 participants 7/ 7 participants

Observations N/A N/A

Document Review 11/11 Documents 11/11 Documents

An outline of the elements of the study’s conceptual framework, with a brief description

of what was found in the analysis of the data, is listed in Table 4.8. Each element of the

framework is described in more detail in the findings section of this case study. At the

time of the study the university had completed the planning process and was five years

into the implementation phase of the strategic plan.

137

Table 4.8

Study Framework and Findings for the University

University

Case

Data Analysis Supports the Following

Elements of

Process

Change Model Used a structural and hierarchical model of change

and relegated external environment to a minor role.

Vision of the Future Participants view the future as specific and

predictable.

Strategic Thinking

Skills

Were not found. The process was linear, analytic

and the process was isolated from input from

internal and external input and data.

Strategic Listening Not used. Found that there was formal collection of

data.

Strategic

Conversations

Not used. The needed information was obtained

and the plan was crafted and disseminated for

implementation.

Managerial Role in

Strategy Making

Found that the senior level administrators obtained

the information from lower level and then used it to

create the plan. Then the plan was disseminated to

the lower level managers for implementation.

Managerial Role in

Implementation

Found that managers only need know his or he own

role.

Strategic

Formulation and

Implementation

Found the roles of formulation and implementation

were clearly divided.

Control Found control asserted through formal

measurement systems.

Alignment Found that alignment was vertical.

Strategy Making Found the challenge of setting the strategic

direction was primarily analytic.

Process and

Outcome

Focus was on the creation of the plan as the

ultimate objective.

Value Specification This was not a strong component. University used

measurement to control and coordinate activity.

(continued on next page)

138

(Table 4.8 continued)

Minimum Specifications Found the plan had

maximum specifications.

Strategic Fitness Found process was a fit to

the external environment.

The plan was the ultimate

objective.

Chunking Change Found the plan consisted

of large, stand-alone

initiatives.

Findings

Finding 1: Type of

Planning Process

Used

16 out of 16 elements measured

all elements identified as

traditional strategic planning

elements. Evidence in the analysis

of the data.

Traditional Strategic

Planning

Finding 2: Type of

Change Created and

Effectiveness of

Process

Process was unsuccessful

The University used a traditional strategic planning process.

The primary finding of the study is derived from analysis of the archival documents and

interviews with seven participants that served on the strategic planning council of the

university. The study framework (Figure 1) served as a guiding matrix for the

development of codes, themes and analysis. The researcher then created a third matrix,

using the study framework and compared the data against the framework (see Table 4.6).

The analysis of the data supported the finding that the process utilized the elements of a

traditional strategic planning model to create a strategic plan for the university.

It is proposed in the study framework that a traditional strategic planning model

uses a change model that is a top-down structured process and the external environment

139

is relegated to a minor role during the planning process. The participants in the study

described the assignment of the strategic plan goals as they were given to the committee

by the chair of the board of trustees. U2 spoke about the creation of the set of goals as a

hierarchical process.

[He] was “impatient with our proceedings and thought we could do the plan over

a weekend…he said, well, [chair], you already have your strategic plan. It’s the

Board of Governors’ Strategic Plan (BOG)….One day [he] presented me “our

strategic plan.” He had combined the four goals of the BOG and [the university’s]

legislative budget request, the list we put together every year for special funding,

kind of pie-in-the-sky stuff…he had taken our legislative budget request and cut it

up and scotch-taped portions of it within the BOG’s goals. He had put all of those

in a loose leaf binder and presented it as [the university’s] strategic plan. It was

really amazing. There was not a whole lot of strategizing going on. The strategy

challenge from my perspective at that point was how to move to doing some real

planning as opposed to this sort of stuff?

Not long after the strategic planning process began, the position of Board Chair

changed and the new Chair was perceived, by the council chair as having a much better

understanding of a strategic planning process.

[The new Chair of the Board] understood much better what the process of

strategic planning was. We put together four subcommittees to look at the four

goals from the Board of Governors and how we could make them more

[university] specific….Over the 18 month period we added three more goals and

had committees for them…at the very end of the process, when I looked to see

140

who had had a hand in the work, there had been well over one hundred people

from across the university and from different levels, from students to vice

presidents….So it turned out to be more of a grassroots effort than I thought it

was going to be. However, it was really very strange, because in any strategic

planning process that I’d ever been in before that had involved real planning, you

started with a clean slate and you did a S.W.O.T. analysis. We did the S.W.O.T.

analysis after we had the first four goals set….If we wanted to add other goals, the

Trustees would consider them. So everything we did had to go through the

approval process of the Trustees.

U1 felt that the goals should have come from the council as a part of their work, but also

commented on the goals being handed down from the board.

I mean, I think that – you have got to think about what it is that you want your

outcome to be. You need to plan…a way to get there…..I think obviously, which

just from a timing perspective of the board of governors, that it had just gone

through a strategic planning process and said “these are our four goals”…and you

know we built off that. I think I would do it in reverse honestly from the

perspective that I think leadership has to come up with, or this is what we are

going to be…but I do think it’s the administration of the university that has to say,

this is what we are going to be.

In describing the goal setting process, U5’s perception was that there were some

overarching assumptions that helped to guide or restrict the process.

It was clear from the very beginning that you could not go in there and assume,

you know, a pie in the sky. It had to be realistic. Resources were going to be

141

constrained….I mean there were definitely goals as related to the big vision. Not

losing the fact that the university was…a regional institution serving…local

students. And therefore, access would have remained a very, very, large goal of

the strategic plan….So yes, I think there were some of these things that were not

going to change.

Participant U6 described the goals as having been handed down from the BOG.

I think it probably came down to the BOG to come up with a plan. I am not sure,

when the goals were formulated but…that was part of the consideration. I think

they were fairly well developed at the meetings…the BOG goals were in

consideration and initially I don’t think we were given those right off the bat.

Within the structure of the planning council structure were subcommittees created

for each goal. These subcommittees were charged with creating strategies, outcomes,

deadlines and individual committee leaders were accountable for progress and

measurements for success. The subcommittee leaders were the members of the strategic

planning council assigned to those subcommittees. U7 was chair of one of these goal

subcommittees.

[Goals] were developed by the strategic planning committee. The six goals were

not, were not externally, they were not restraints at the beginning….I think there

were times, when I felt alternatives were being suppressed early in the process.

Earlier in the process that might then, and would have been desirable. I felt that

most on the subcommittee….There’s an environment, well, an environment that

developed at [the university] over a period of time where new faculty learned

142

rapidly that it was not healthy to make waves. So there’s a culture of not

challenging.

Participant U4 also knew the goals had been handed down from the board to the council,

but described the addition of other goals that did address some of the concerns of the

council.

The first four goals were mandated by the board of governors. I am not sure every

university took it quite as literal as we did. I mean, because I saw some of the

plans come out and they tended to blend the goals. But we literally…the board of

trustees said, “Okay, these are from the BOG. We accept these goals. These are

the first four goals. We can add on.” It was always an understanding that you

could add goals. But, the first four we were going to have to address.

Although all of the other participants were aware of the structural and hierarchy of the

goals setting process, U3 did not perceive the process in the same way as the others.

We have developed the goals, everybody in the [council]. As a group, we

developed our goals, established the goals. They were not given to us. We were

part of creating and developing new goals.

The study framework proposes that the external environment is relegated to a

minor role in a traditional strategic planning process. An analysis of the archival

documents supported the finding that in the process there was little evidence of direct

inclusion of external environmental constituents or data. The council did utilize a

traditional SWOT analysis that was collected via an online survey questionnaire of a

select group of subjects. The subjects selected for the study included faculty, staff,

alumni, parents of applicants, local businesses and donors. There were also four focus

143

groups of local community leaders convened at the satellite campuses. The documents

did not reveal how many people attended those focus groups, or the demographics of the

groups. There was no evidence found of input from broader state, regional or national

sources. The majority of the data found and used in the process was internally generated

at the university.

Most of the participants viewed the university as being dependent and impacted

by outside influences on their decision making and resource development and income

streams. They believed the external environment was important as the university looked

to expand funding. This point was described by U3.

Well, I wouldn’t say it’s wholly independent from outside influences. It is

influenced from outside. But, the university, we are in a pretty good position to

make goals, objectives and things of that nature without any interference. We

came up with that we now have to have some creative ways of going outside the

university and raising funds and work more with the foundation and development

office, because within a state system…the state allocation of funds it’s just not

there.

U1 perceived that the university as a whole believed that it is independent of external

control, yet he/she did not personally perceive that to be the case.

I think the university thinks that it is very independent from external forces. But, I

don’t think it ends up being moved in certain directions based of course on

economy, on politics, on what the temperature is in the community….But, I think

it’s completely dependent on external forces. I just don’t know that administration

and leadership always revolves around that.

144

U4 perceived the external environment impacted the decision making of the university

and ultimately buy-in by the larger community of the strategic planning process.

It’s hard to do something that is ambitious, that is creative or that you actually

think might [work]. That’s why people get discouraged about the strategic plans,

like who cares…as you are going through this. Like, we spend all this time and

then nobody opens it up again. You know, we never follow-up through on

anything. And then if you talk to [folks] the reason we don’t is because you know,

it’s another twenty percent cut. We are laying people off…so it’s a really tough

environment.

U5 described the dependence of the university on the neighboring community but

personally believed that the university is independent in its decision making.

I think that certainly the university is independent, but you know, very integrated

into the community….So it’s very integrated…the people, students, faculty, staff

and the general population. When you look at the basic infrastructure of the

university they are very much dependent on the more immediate local

community, which [we] should be. But, I don’t think there is undue influence. We

are not dictating what’s happening in the community, and the community is not

dictating directly what’s happening at the university. At the state level we are all

pretty much connected.

The influence of the state was apparent in the participant’s discussions about the

influence of funding on the university and its decision making and planning activities. U7

perceived that the roles of the BOG, the legislature and the governor’s office are the

strongest external influence on the university’s planning and decision making.

145

The university is subject to, first and foremost, rules set by the legislature and

they control our funding. Through that funding, they have at times been more

intrusive and at times less intrusive. They are still there. But, changing greatly, I

think because of the size of the university and so forth. The times have changed

and education as well.

U2 described the lack of the external environment’s role in the planning process and

perceived most of the information and data came from internal channels.

I thought we should be looking at the external environment, but we didn’t so the

objectives were just really pretty straightforward, X degrees. So, when I say the

plan describes what we do, it’s like what we would get to if we just kept doing

business as usual. In other words, I don’t think we made any tough decisions to go

here, instead of there.

The study framework proposed that a traditional strategic planning process

defines a vision of the future as being predictable and specifiable in detail. The

university’s planning process and resulting strategic plan was analyzed to determine

whether the vision of the future for the university was predictable and specific. The

researcher found evidence that the participants viewed the future as predictable and

specific in the analysis of the data. The final strategic plan outlined specific goals and

objectives to be met on an annual basis. There was no apparent mechanism to reevaluate

goals and objectives. The Board of Trustees required an annual report on each goal to be

delivered at a specified meeting. Minutes of those meetings and corresponding reports to

the Board and analysis of the reporting documents supported the finding of this element

in the process. The archival data was supported by four of the participants expressing

146

their belief that the future was either somewhat predictable or predictable. Two of the

participant did not believe the future was predictable. The seventh participants did not

comment on this aspect of the process. U1 was clear in his/her belief that the future is

unpredictable.

No. I think you can map different and plan for different possibilities but I think

that you always have to be prepared to shift this in a moment’s notice….You very

often, especially in bi institutions, just say okay, well this isn’t working for

XYZX, let’s go to Plan B or take Plan A and shift all of it.

U4 was also clear about the unpredictability of the future but expressed his/her perception

that one can possibly predict the shape of the future, but not the specifics.

No. I think when you say future that depends on how you consider the future. I

am a sociologist. Do I believe that if people sit down and they really put in the

factors, they can predict certain things, certain general things? For example, under

this governor, are we going to get an infusion of capital into the university

system? No. So short term I know the next three years are going to be rough. For

the next three years, I would plan for the worst and hope for the best. So do I

think planning can be predicted beyond 5 years? Not in this political climate.

Participant U6 simple answered “yes” to the question of the predictability of the future.

U7 perceives the near term as predictable.

I think there are boundaries to that and the further out you go the more uncertainty

there is. On the other hand, some, in general terms, some elements of the future

near-term are predictable.

147

U5 agreed with U6 in the near-term future being predictable, but not very far into the

future.

Well, I think…there are certain elements that we know are going to be taking

place. In terms of, you know, crystal ball, no. But I think we can make some

general, you know assessments or what I call estimates of what’s likely to happen

in the future, definitely.

Lastly, U3 agreed with the other members of the council that believed in some

predictability of the future. “I think to some extent it can. And I think you should engage

in predicting the future to some extent.”

The framework of the study proposed that a traditional business model of strategic

planning is a linear process and planning takes place in isolation from the wider

community of the organization. Data collection and analysis took place through a formal

process of the committee requesting data from the university. Once the needed

information was obtained the plan was crafted and disseminated for implementation. The

analysis of the data found that the use of strategic thinking skills were not present in the

university process. The analysis did find evidence that the process was linear and the

planning process was predominately confined to the strategic planning council. The plan

was crafted, then announced and posted on the university web-site. Once the plan was

posted the wider university community was asked to read the plan and then implement

the objectives that related to their area. U2 described the impact of the process.

I think communications and marketing probably changed some of the things that

they did. I think that some of the reports that had to be generated were different

because [they] had to report on all the goals. In having to report on stuff, there

148

was more of a focus on it. Then to be able to come up with a positive report you

had to make some change. But I am not sure if I could say that as a result of the

strategic plan the university is headed here. I don’t think the process allowed us to

develop a vision or an ownership of something really special that the university

was going to be new.

U7 described the plan being given to everyone to implement and how the process

unfolded.

The plan was that any new budget requests would have to be linked to elements of

the strategic plan. So for the coming year budget anything new would have to be,

the idea was, directly, but it would have to be an implementation of some element

of the strategic plan. I think it’s gone.

As described above the plan was posted on the institution’s website for dissemination to

the broader organization. U6 did not perceive that this was effective and did not add to

greater understanding of individual’s role in the broader system.

This is a lot of time and money spent and that’s, I think one of the difficult things;

you know it’s hard to get that many people together and to continue to measure. It

would take a continuing dedication to that. I think the committee did [understand

the plan]. How it got passed down, you know to second level to your

management…everybody knew we were doing it and it certainly was made

available to everybody. How many took the time to read it, probably not too

many.

The data also supported the finding that the majority of the date was internally

generated. U5 perceived the data as extensive, yet all collected from the university.

149

There was a considerable amount of data concerning data. I think that’s probably

the biggest driver. So you had institutional research looking at high school

graduation estimates…looking at population changes…that was expected at the

community colleges and then how would that translate to the number of freshman

or transfer students coming into the institution…so I think that’s probably the

largest set of data that was utilized.

When U2 was asked whether the process was characterized by logic, reasoning, numbers

and rational thinking, he/she responded:

Well to some degree, yes. But in the beginning it really was about having to

figure out how to do what we wanted to do within the confines of already having

four goals. I remember feeling that the goals were not ambitious enough, and I

said that…but the provost was just using his projected enrollment growth, just

where we were almost. In other words, they were not stretch goals…but the

provost was very cautious and he didn’t want to stand in front of the Board of

Trustees. Every time he stood in front of the Board of Trustees and reported not

meeting a goal, they jumped all over him, so he wasn’t about to do that. But I

thought, why go through this process if you’re not really going to be thinking

strategically…we should have been have been looking at the community colleges.

Also, in support of the finding that the data was internally generated, U7 perceived the

majority of the data being brought to the council by other departments in the university.

There was some use of data and there were a number of instances where the

committee asked for data, things like enrollment, and funding that were important

to get…if you believe in continuity. That’s an element of that, it’s important to get

150

a sense of those things in terms of outcomes….Most of the data was brought to us

by, through institutional analysis and effectiveness.

And, U6 also supported the perception of internal data collection.

There was a lot of data and a lot of input, particularly people who had expertise in

their departments. There was a lot of input in the full meetings.

Whereas, U3 described the use of the data in the subcommittee process as being more

inclusive of outside data and an external scan of the environment.

We did all that stuff…S.W.O.T. analysis and then comparing ourselves to other

universities, benchmarking, things like that. We used that too. Yeah, but you

know, you find out that if all that is fine and dandy, but no two universities are

really alike. You know it’s just like brothers and sisters. They may have the same

parents, but they are different.

The use of data at the sub-committee level was also mentioned by participants that were

chairs of specific goal subcommittees. U4 described the review of external data that

occurred outside of the formal S.W.O.T. analysis and internal data proved by the

university.

I hate to toot our horn, but we did a very good job at looking at the lay of the land.

Seeing what are the characteristics of universities that really have noted

community outreach programs.

The managerial role in strategy making and implementation in the study

framework proposes that lower level managers have a voice in strategy making and that

those managers have an understanding of the larger system, the connection between those

roles and the functioning of the system. It is also proposed that managers clearly

151

understand the interdependence between various roles that comprise the system. As

described above, the data in the study found that the senior level administrators obtained

the information they needed from lower level managers and then used it to create the

plan, which was then disseminated to those lower level managers to implement. There

was no evidence found that lower level managers had a role in strategy making.

The study framework proposes the managerial role in implementation in a

traditional strategic planning process expects that lower level managers only know their

own role and can only be expected to defend their own turf. Participants in the study

described different aspects about how managers were expected to implement the strategic

plan. U2’s comments illustrated the process clearly. The lower level managers were not

part of the strategy making, yet were asked to implement it.

We went around and gave talks about the strategic plan to all kinds of audiences

across the university. Employee’s evaluations were supposed to be based on

whether they contributed to the goals. But I don’t know how many managers at

this point really are aware of the connection between what they are doing and the

goals. Because, as I said, in a way there were more descriptors of what happens as

opposed to thing that were going to make you change behavior.

U1 did not perceive that lower level managers had a connection to or understanding of

the larger system and what their roles were within the organization.

I think people knew where they were in their particular little world. If the person

sitting at the table was a representative from the honor college, you know [what]

the honor college was doing, how they were faring and what their immediate

152

goals were. But, they did not know what everybody else was doing and there just

wasn’t that kind of forum…at any point.

Participant U3 and U4 both perceived the need for managers to understand the forces that

were impinging on the university and suggested that knowledge might improve the

implementation of the strategic plan. U3 thought that “it helps them to be better

employees. You shouldn’t leave planning to just the upper levels.” U4 stated “I think we

are missing out a lot in universities by not being more inclusive and being so

hierarchical.” Others, including U5 recognized that the planning took place at the upper

level only.

For the most part it was done…comprehensive fashion from the beginning. I

mean that’s what the goal was to do it that way. They wanted to have a lot of

broad based participation. I don’t think that we got quite as much as I would have

liked to have had, particularly with rank and file faculty, staff and students. I think

[a] town hall type of discussion or several discussions would have been very

beneficial. I think we probably didn’t do as well in that area as we should have.

The role of the faculty in the planning process was very limited. There were only two

faculty members on the planning council and there was data found that supported a broad

or deep involvement on their part. U7’s interview data supported that faculty were not

broadly involved in the planning process.

I believe in shared governance model for universities and the faculty should play

a significant role in not just doing the job of the university but in the planning

processes and the decision making processes….I will say that I also recognize that

here and in many universities, faculty governance is smoke and mirrors. It can be

153

very successful and beneficial as long as both sides, faculty and the

administration, agree not to point that out.

Most of the participants saw the need and value in lower level managers having a role in

strategy making and implementation, and U6 articulated it best.

It’s important that department heads should have people that know what’s going

on and then that’s how you can continue to develop good management….But, you

also get good results where they feel like [they are] a part of and then the strategic

plan that we develop…most would think about because they want that….They

want everybody to be part of it and to buy into it and understand that it’s not

something that here it is, do it.

The element of strategic formulation and implementation of the study framework

proposes that in a traditional strategic planning process the roles of strategy formulation

and implementation are clearly divided. The analysis found this to be true in this case. As

discussed above, the planning and creation of the strategic plan took place at the highest

level of the university. The strategic planning council drafted a plan that was then

approved by the Board of Trustees. Once the plan was adopted, it was rolled out to the

university community and implementation began. As this evidence has been cited once, it

is not repeated here.

The analysis of archival documents and participant interviews found the elements

of control and alignment of the study framework were present in the planning process.

The element of control, that is asserted through measurement instruments and assumes

that organizations can measure and monitor important variables accurately, is an element

of a traditional business model of strategic planning. The university’s planning was

154

designed to control the process through detailed goals and objectives in the plan itself.

The analysis of the archival documents provided evidence that measureable outcomes

were part of each objective. In consideration of anonymity for the institution, two

examples are given (Figure 8) below from two different goals of the plan. Identifiers have

been removed.

Enhance Student Learning and Development

Strategy Campus Outcomes Date Resources Status

Establish a

systematic model for

delivery of a

centralized,

comprehensive

career development

services across all

campuses.

All Number of students

utilizing the center

and satisfaction

rating of the

availability and

quality of career

development

services will

increase by 10%.

2009-

2010

$5,000 to

$7,000

Progressing

Meeting Community Needs and Fulfilling Unique Institutional Responsibilities

Strategy Campus Outcomes Date Resources Status

Utilize a database

system to track the

status of all contacts

within the

community.

All Two new options for

community input will

be piloted and

evaluated for

effectiveness

2007 TBD Progressing

Figure 8. Sample goal specification.

The element of alignment was found to be vertical in this case. The analysis of

archival documents found the use of vertical management, from the top down, of the

strategic plan goals and objectives attempted to ensure implementation. This top-down

approach was already discussed above. The Board of Trustee minutes include reports on

155

goals and objectives twice a year. U2 expressed the frustration with this type of

alignment of structure.

I really felt the Board of Trustee (BOT) oversight was really kind of “big

brother.” It felt really constraining and it added another level of stress. There were

timing issues with the Trustees’ meeting schedule that sometimes forced us to

move things forward to get BOT approval in a timely way.

The difficulty in immediately measuring results was pointed out by U5.

So we had intended to, you know, look at a way of measuring progress. So if you

wanted to look at degrees awarded, you want to look a graduation rates and

unfortunately…before you even get the next set of data, you know its four years

before you get that.

U7 perceived that the provost controlled the workings of the university through the

approval or denial of budget allocations and programs.

Mostly on the academic side, it comes predominately from the provost’s office.

Idea’s come up, but proposals have to be cleared by the provost’s office. They

control the funding, which in effect controls positions and a lot of other things.

In the making of strategy the study framework proposes that in a traditional

strategic planning process, the challenge of setting strategic direction is primarily analytic

versus seeing strategy and change as inescapably linked. It is also proposed that finding

new strategic options and implementing them successfully is harder and more important

that evaluating them. The university focused on strategy making that was primarily

analytic. All but one of the participants believed that strategy and change are linked. U3

stated that he/she did not believe they were linked.

156

No. You can create the best strategy in the world…it will look good on paper and

it will sound good, but actually when the rubber hits the road, you have to

implement certain things; you have to have the resources. You got to work as a

team. You got to have priorities.

Three of the participants, U2, U6 and U7 all responded to the question of whether or not

they believed that strategy and change are linked, with a simple “yes.” U5 expanded a bit

more.

Yes, absolutely. To me, the more the change, the better. I think change is what

keeps us dynamic and at the forefront of creative thinking, definitely. [It is] to be

creative, to be forward thinking and to be as strategic as we could possibly be.

U1 expressed that he/she does see linkage, but would rather have strategy be more a

guiding concept than so structured.

I think that strategy can help with change. But I think that very often strategy is

seen as the steps that you have to take…versus being seen as guidelines, which is

what I like strategies to be personally. I think strategies are the guidelines.

In responding to the question of whether strategy and change is linked, U4 believed that

they are.

If this university wants to move to this next level, simply stated, what do you

have to do to get there? The five things you have to do. Now, how do we get

there? But what you have to do is, there is a bit of a zero-sum game. If you don’t

have the guts, the willingness to tick off some faults as you move forward with a

small number of – and strategy to me, is nothing but plans to get you to these

goals.

157

The elements of process and outcomes and value specification were evidenced in

the data analysis of the participant’s interviews. The traditional strategic planning model

proposes that the focus is on the plan as the ultimate objective. The researcher found that

the primary focus of the university strategic planning process was on creating the plan.

The data analysis supported the finding and was evidenced in the review of archival

documents and interview data. The researcher found that the Board of Trustees were

overseeing the process and were keenly focused on the plan being completed. U2 spoke

about this in his/her interview.

I think that it was successful and we did it in 18 months, which is a respectable

amount of time, despite the [Board Chair] thinking we could do it over a

weekend. And it involved a lot of people. But I still never felt that enough

strategic thinking and analysis went into it.

There was evidence that the process was perceived to add value. All of the

participants saw planning as a value-adding element. In addition to the process itself

having value, there was no data found to support a finding that the process created a self-

reference point in the minds of the participants. The university process used measurement

to control and coordinate activity. When asked whether the planning process itself added

value, all of the participants perceived that it did. U1 said “you should have to be

flexible, but yeah I think it certainly adds value.” Participant U3 believed that there is

value in planning in a general way.

I think planning brings people together from different units and different actions

of the university. And it can…create a good positive atmosphere, because people

158

feel like they have something at stake and they are listening to me and they can

contribute.

U4 expressed that the value is in allowing people within the organization to have input.

“Input holds value. Whether you call it planning…” U6 answered “yes” and U5

perceived the value of the planning process to be in helping to make the right decisions

for the university.

Without the planning it would be hard…it would be really hard to do the right

thing, and it’s not just a question of hiring faculty. It’s having the right faculty.

U7 also believed the planning process adds value to the organization.

Well, the process per se, I think the value in that is it exposes issues with the

university and that’s important. That has value in itself. The opportunity is for

pretty much anyone who wants to raise an issue about the future of the university,

to bring that forward, and if it’s reasonable, to get a hearing.

The explanation for the value of planning, in U2’s view was in the examination of the

institution as a whole and what that examination might ultimately reveal.

Yes. I think so. Well, I think that one of the most important things that people get

out of planning is self-knowledge, because you have to know where you are in

order to plan on where you want to go. And I don’t think that universities spend

enough time really looking at where they are, who they are, and, therefore, what

they can become. So, I think it is a huge value.

The framework for the study proposes that a traditional strategic planning process

creates maximum specifications related to goals and objectives. The strategies for meeting

the goals and objectives of the plan were included in the final strategic plan document.

159

Some of the participants perceived the plan to be broad and too many objectives to be

realistic. U7 would have created a plan that he/she perceived as being more manageable

and achievable.

I have trouble separating my concern with outcomes…because my biggest

concern, with the outcomes was that the strategic plan was far too inclusive to

function as a strategic plan. It provided five, ten times what we could possibly

do….and the committee knew that and was unwilling to make the harder decision

to narrow it down. I would have a narrower plan, and I would have the plan be a

living document. First, for it to be real it’s got to be something that doable, and

you’ve got to look at it every…year…to the changes in your environment….If the

strategic plan is going to be a real strategic plan, then those things need to be

reflected and you need to do that. You need to be revisiting it, regularly because

you achieve some things and things change; technology changes.

The meeting of goals and objectives that are specified outside of the university were

included in the plan. These included, but were not limited to the rate of retention of

students, graduation rates, degrees, etc. U4 perceived this to be a controlling factor on the

university.

We are judged by the BOG on metrics that are passed down and it doesn’t matter

where we stand, because all that matters is how they perceive where we stand. So

there’s going to be pressure to grow. We are going to have to grow smarter, which

means you are going to see an increased need for technology to provide student

support services, as well as actual delivery of courses.

160

The plan was perceived by U1 as being too big. Everything that could be added was

included in an effort to overcome any political ramifications that might have been a result

of the final plan.

If you want to do a strategic plan that is very, very, very specific; you are in

essence saying there are aspects of what you do day in and day out that are not

going to rise to this level. I think we wanted to be as inclusive as possible and I

think that ended up …broadening the goals too much. So, I don’t think anybody is

willing to take something away because I mean, there is political capital. You

have to expand like that and I do not know anybody that is willing to do it.

In a traditional strategic planning model process, the element of strategic fitness is

determined by whether the planning process is a fit to the external environment of the

organization. As discussed above in the elements of process and outcome, and value

specification, the planning process was perceived to add value to the plan. The plan was

designed to the mirror the goals of the BOG. There was no evidence found that the

planning process attempted to be a fit to anything else but the external governing

oversight of the BOG.

U3 commented on the pressure to get the plan completed and to meet external

expectations.

You had people who were busy, busy, busy to meet deadline and had to come up

with the goals and objectives. It was like a final exam or final paper when you

turned it in, there it is. Now what happened to it after that [was] nobody reported

back to us in this division? It kind of just scattered after we put things together.

161

U2 also perceived that the plan was mainly focused on the eternal environment of the

BOG.

The trustees would boast that we were the only university that adopted the goals

of the BOG in their plan….I see a lot of shortcomings in the plan, so it was

always interesting to me to hear how many people supposedly loved the plan.

There is still a part of me that thinks it was just too much based on the BOG

strategic plan.

An analysis of the goals and objectives of the strategic plan reflected a strong fit

to the external environment. Five of the seven goals of the plan focused on the external

environment and included increased access to higher education, meeting statewide

professional and workforce needs, building academic programs, meeting community

needs and fulfilling unique institutional responsibilities, and increasing the universities’

visibility. The other goals were internally focused and included enhancing the physical

plant and building technology infrastructure.

The final proposed traditional strategic element of the study’s framework,

chunking change, is evidenced by the presence of large, stand-alone initiatives. The

analysis of archival documents found supporting evidence, that this model of chunking

change was used by the university in its planning process. The researcher found no

evidence that the university created small, incremental initiatives that would/could build

on each other. Participant U5 articulated that the goals and objectives stood alone, but

he/she perceived that the university should have had numerous goals building on each

other.

162

So if you want to improve access, if we want to improve the quality of instruction,

in order to put the quality of research, you know, what do we need to make it

happen? And a lot of times, it would be finance, resource related….So, obviously

those things are important to say we are just going to build facilities or extend

facilities, really made no sense to me. It had to be tied into the strategic objectives

and the various strategies that you will follow and to get to this….Do not build up

a communications empire just to have it. How does that tie into increasing access,

improving reputation, improving the awareness of the institution? Then ultimately

how those things would translate back into getting a higher caliber student coming

in?

Success of Strategic Planning Process

The purpose of this study was to identify elements of strategic planning process

that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of higher education. The

researcher proposed that the use of a planning process that incorporated the study’s

framework of strategic thinking elements would result in creating an effective process.

Success of a strategic planning process is defined in this study as a process that alters the

attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the institution, its employees and the public.

That analysis of the interview data supports the finding that the university used a

traditional model of strategic planning and that process did not alter the attitudes, values,

beliefs or behaviors of the university, as perceived by the participants.

Participants were asked if the process had changed their beliefs about the

university, the only participant that perceived a change was U7 and he/she described that

change.

163

Certainly, that I learned about elements by activities…I learned about great

management throughout the university and I’ve always considered, I consider

myself very well informed…and there are definitely things I learned during the

process because we went delving into some depth in to a lot of areas.

U3 did not believe that the process changed his/her beliefs about the university.

No it didn’t. It didn’t change my beliefs about the organization because in my

position I had a pretty good view of the organization, how to make the

organization benefit from [my department’s work] and vice versa.

Participant U4 answered “no” and U5 elaborated on why his/her beliefs did not change

and the positive perception he/she has on the university.

So I don’t think it had a transforming change in my beliefs of the institution. It’s a

phenomenal institution. It’s had a rich history and it’s done some remarkable

things.

U2 also saw no change in his/her beliefs.

Well, not really, because I think the organization is made up of people and I had

gotten to know the people of the university earlier and what their limits were and

what their potential was.

The response from U6 was “no, probably not.” Lastly, U1 did not have a response to the

question. When asked about whether activities of the university changed as a result of

the planning process, most of the participants perceived that the process did not change

the activities of the university. U1 stated “I don’t think it became part of the culture at

164

all.” U4 responded “No I don’t think it did.” Participant U7 answered “I don’t think so.”

U3 also believed there was no change.

I don’t. By the time we were finishing the plan I retired. I have talked to people

since then…they all seem to be complaining about lack of resources and morale is

low because you cannot pay them enough. You don’t have enough people to work

with the students…so resources are affecting the output and attitudes of the

people who are trying to provide services to the students.

U2 did not perceive that changes in activities had or were occurring at the university.

I do not know how many managers at this point are really aware of the connection

between what they are doing and the goals, because as I said, in a way there were

more descriptors of what happens, as opposed to things that were going to make

you change your behavior.

The other two participants in the study perceived that there was some change in

the activities of the university. U5 thought there had been some change, but only in a few

areas, not broadly across the university. “I think than answer from my perspective would

be yes, in certain areas.” U6 also agreed with that perception. “I think so. In the long run

and I think it brought more people into the plan and goals. Was it perfect? No, but I think

it was a move in a right direction

The majority of the participants perceived the process as successful because the

process resulted in a written plan. But, as was described above, when asked about

whether their beliefs or activities had been altered or changed, the majority responded

that the process did not change their beliefs or activities of themselves or the university.

U3 felt it was a good process, but there were problems after the plan was created.

165

I think it was logical, it was creative. It did use a lot of data and input from a lot of

people. It was a good plan. It was a good process. It caused people to think

outside the box, to forge forward, to be creative….This is where we are now, now

these are the changes we want to forge ahead, nobody tied a bow around it. It just

kind of scattered.

U5 perceived the overall process as successful.

I think overall it was. You know, the best one that the university had done, and it

had been a number of years. It was definitely a better process. The one before I

don’t think ever got off the shelf…it is probably just average. I think some of it, in

many ways, was just too generic, too dry. And it wasn’t well defined in terms of

short term, medium term and longer term.

There was a desire for more specificity of goals and outcomes that could be measured,

but U1 overall, still felt that the creation of the plan was successful.

I don’t think that they were as specific as you might see in other institutions or in

other organizations where a strategic plan has some very, very specific goals and

some deliverables. And, I don’t think our strategic plan met that kind of criteria,

because I think we were really trying to encompass so much into each of us….I

was there because I needed to be there and wanted to be there, occasionally I was

able to put my two cents [in] when appropriate, but I struggle all the time with,

okay now when this is it, how does it translate to everybody else? What are the

colleges doing and how do they take this and make it part of their strategic plan

for the college?

166

U6 responded “I know it’s pretty successful overall” and U2 also perceived the process as

successful in creating a plan.

It’s a strong plan and very well documented…. And, it involved a lot of people.

But I never really felt that enough strategic thinking and analysis went into

it….There really could have been more time spent working with the colleges, but,

instead, it was just numbers.

U7 also perceived the process to be successful.

I don’t know how much credit for that should go to the plan, rather to the fact that

the plan reflected a broadly held view of direction for the university and I think it

did a good job. I think the mission statement did a good job of capturing that.

U4 did not perceive the overall process was successful because of the lack of priority

setting.

No, nor do they care. For most people in the university, whether faculty, who

have three courses to teach…yes, faculty senate and a few leaders cared. And do I

think that people got excited about it? No. I don’t think it was successful, and for

not just because of the money, okay. The money is out of our control in many

ways. I think that the university simply did not show the stomach to really go

back in and prioritize, reprioritize based on changing – changing landscape – I

think they could have. I think it could have been more successful.

All of the participants in this study spoke passionately about the university and

the strategic planning process. There were several discussions about the implementation

of the plan and suggested ideas for how that could have been improved upon. Although

the success of the actual implementation of the plan is beyond the scope of this study, it is

167

noted here that the participants were aware of the problems with implementation and

linked the implementation to their own perception of success. Participant U6 felt that

implementation needed to be tied to individual performance measures.

Tying the structure of follow-up evaluation on achievement of goals, and perhaps

on some more regular basis, would have been…more helpful. Yeah, it’s like – it’s

key to have a plan where you are going, that now you have to change it. I mean

that’s part of having a longer term plan.

There was also a level of frustration about the amount of work that was put into the plan,

with a perceived negligible level of change. U4 was quite passionate on the subject.

It’s hard to do something that’s ambitious, or that’s creative, or that you actually

think might…that’s why people get discouraged about strategic plans, like who

cares…as you are going through this. Like, we spend all this time, than nobody

opens it up again. Nobody cares. You know, we never follow through on

anything….We are laying people off. What new initiatives? We are going to be

lucky to hang on to what we have. So it’s a really tough environment.

U7 also suggested narrowing the plan.

The first one would be, to…narrow it down and decide what your real priorities

are. The second thing is to impose those constraints, with the possibility of

exceptions, because things do change. At the time, the view was that over time,

the strategic plan would be revisited….At this point I don’t think people pay

much attention to it….There was a lot of effort to get the plan out to, to make

people aware. In the first couple of years when the budget was tied to it, people

who were making requests had to be familiar with it, because they had to go in

168

there and say this is the thing I am doing. I have trouble separating my concern

with that outcome…because my biggest concern, with that outcome was that the

strategic plan was far too inclusive to function as a strategic plan. It provided five,

ten times what we could possibly do, then choices were made, so…you’ve got the

whole world….And the committee knew that and was unwilling to make the

harder decisions to narrow the plan down. So when it comes to strategy it isn’t

really , it’s only a loose guide to strategy, because you…[are] not going to do

these things, and [are] not going to do these things well, but they are all in the

strategic plans.

University Case Summary

In summary, the first finding of this study was that the university followed a

traditional strategic planning process. This finding was evidenced in the data, wherein the

16 measured dimensions of the study’s framework were found to be illustrative of a

traditional strategic planning process and were used in the planning process of the

university. The elements included: structural and hierarchical model of change;

predictable and specific vision of the future; isolated planning process; formal data

collection and analysis; plan was crafted then disseminated for implementation; upper

level of managerial role in strategy making; lower level managerial role in

implementation; strategic formulation and implementation; process and outcome; value

specification; maximum specification; strategic fitness and chunking change. The use of

a traditional strategic planning process ultimately resulted in the creation and adoption of

a strategic plan for the university. The data supporting the finding that the process did not

alter the attitudes, values, beliefs or behaviors of the university, was evidenced in the

169

interview data. The use of the traditional strategic planning process resulted in the

creation and adoption of a strategic plan that included mission, vision, goal and

objectives for the university. The participants were supportive of the process and felt that

the process was successful in creating a plan.

Chapter Summary

This study analyzed three distinct strategic planning processes at Southeastern

University. Two of the cases, the department and college, were found to have used a

strategic thinking model of strategic planning that was perceived by the participants, to be

an effective model of strategic planning for their organization. In the third case of the

university process, the analysis found a traditional business based strategic planning

process was used. The process was not effective, yet was perceived as successful by the

participants. From a cross-case analysis, findings, recommendations and conclusions

emerged and are discussed in Chapter 5.

170

Chapter 5

Discussion and Conclusions

This chapter reviews the findings, conclusions and recommendations of this

“holistic” multi-case study. The with-in case findings are presented in a summary format

and then followed by a cross-case analysis of the findings of a compare and contrast

analysis of the data. The analysis used the conceptual framework from the study (Figure

1) and presents the findings in a summarized format (Table 5.1). Following the

conceptual framework the cross-case findings are presented in a narrative form, as they

were in the with-in case analysis. The findings are presented in the order that the

predicted themes identified in Chapter 3 are: activity changes of the individual and/or

group, changes in beliefs of individuals and/or group, internal alignment, vision for the

future and perceived as adding/not adding value. Conclusions and recommendations are

included at the end of the chapter.

171

Table 5.1

Study Framework and Cross-Case Findings

Cross Case Analysis

Department College University

Elements of

Process

Change Model Used a social-

cognitive model of

change.

Used a social-

cognitive model of

change, including

political and cultural

elements.

Used a structural and

hierarchical model of

change and relegated

external environment to

a minor role.

Vision of

Future

Beliefs of

participants were that

only the shape of the

future can be

predicted.

Beliefs of

participants were

that only the shape

of the future can be

predicted.

Participants view the

future as specific and

predictable.

Strategic

Thinking

Skills

Used synthesis,

systems thinking,

reflection and

reframing.

Used synthesis,

systems thinking,

reflection and

reframing

Were not found. The

process was linear,

analytic and the process

was isolated from input

from internal and

external input and data.

Strategic

Listening

Evidenced through

formal collection of

perspectives, data

analysis and

synthesis.

Evidenced through

formal collection of

perspectives, data

analysis and

synthesis.

Not used. Found that

there was formal

collection of data.

Strategic

Conversations

Strongly evident –

participants

understand the larger

system and how they

connect to it.

Strongly evident –

participants

understand the larger

system and how they

connect to it.

Not used. The needed

information was

obtained and the plan

was crafted and

disseminated for

implementation.

(continued on next page)

172

(Table 5.1 continued)

Managerial

Role in

Strategy

Making

Lower level

managers have a

voice in strategy

making.

Lower level

managers have a

voice in strategy

making.

Found that the senior

level administrators

obtained the

information from lower

level and then used it to

create the plan. Then

the plan was

disseminated to the

lower level managers

for implementation.

Managerial

Role in

Implementation

Department chair

and program

managers

understand the

larger system, the

connection between

those roles and the

functioning of that

system, as well as

the independence

between the various

roles that comprise

the system.

Implementation not

measured in study,

participants

understood the

larger system and

the functioning of

the system.

Found that managers

only need know his or

he own role.

Strategic

Formulation

and

Implementation

Not measured in

study.

Not measured in

study.

Found the roles of

formulation and

implementation were

clearly divided.

Control Relies on self-

reference – a sense

of strategic intent

and purpose

embedded

throughout the

department that

guides their choices

on a daily basis in a

process that is often

difficult to measure

and monitor from

above.

Did not find a sense

of strategic intent

and purpose

imbedded in the

minds of the

managers throughout

the college that

guided their choices

on a daily basis in a

process that is often

difficult to measure

and monitor from

above.

Found control asserted

through formal

measurement systems.

(continued on next page)

173

(Table 5.1 continued)

Alignment Found to be

horizontal – gained

synchronization

among team.

Found to be

horizontal – gained

synchronization

among team.

Found that alignment

was vertical.

Strategy

Making

Did not find that

participants viewed

strategy as

inescapably linked,

nor assumptions that

finding new strategic

options and

implementing them

successfully is

harder and more

important than

evaluating them.

Found participants

viewed strategy and

change as linked. No

evidence that to

support assumptions

of participants that

finding new strategic

options and

implementing them

successfully is

harder and more

important than

evaluating them

Found the challenge of

setting the strategic

direction was primarily

analytic.

Process and

Outcome

See the planning

process itself as

critical value-adding

element.

See the planning

process itself as

critical value-adding

element.

Focus was on the

creation of the plan as

the ultimate objective.

Value

Specification

Strong component –

creates self-

reference points in

the minds of the

participants. Uses

value to control and

coordinate activity.

Not find this to be a

strong component –

that process creates

self-reference points

in the minds of the

participants and uses

values to control and

coordinate activity

This was not a strong

component. University

used measurement to

control and coordinate

activity.

Minimum

Specifications

Statement of

strategic intent

functions as guiding

document. Lack

measurable

components and has

minimum

specifications.

Found statement of

strategic intent

perceived as guiding

document. Lacks

measurable

components and has

minimum

specifications.

Found the plan had

maximum

specifications.

(continued on next page)

174

(Table 5.1 continued)

Strategic

Fitness

Not conclusive that

process was fit to

external and internal

environment. Did

find the process adds

value to the plan.

Observed the

process was a fit to

external and internal

environment. Did

find that process

adds value to the

plan.

Found process was a fit

to the external

environment. The plan

was the ultimate

objective.

Chunking

Change

Not measured in this

study.

Not measured in this

study.

Found the plan

consisted of large,

stand-alone initiatives.

Finding 1:

Type of

Planning

Process Used

Strategic Thinking

Model

Strategic Thinking

Model

Traditional Strategic

Planning Model

Finding 2:

Type of

Change

Created and

Effectiveness of

Process

Successful

Altered the

attitudes, values,

beliefs and

behaviors of the

department.

Successful

Altered the

attitudes, values,

beliefs and

behaviors of the

college.

Unsuccessful

Did not alter attitudes,

values, beliefs and

behaviors of the

university.

The primary findings in the department and college cases were the same. Both

cases used a strategic thinking planning process that resulted in the altering of attitudes,

values, beliefs and behaviors of the department and college. The secondary finding that

the use of a strategic thinking planning process resulted a successful process; was also

found in the college case, but to a lesser degree. The university used a traditional strategic

planning process that did not result in altering the attitudes, values, beliefs and activities

of the university. The department and college used the STP process that resulted in a

statement of strategic intent that included the values, mission and aspirations that in the

175

case of the department was already acting as a guide in their work. The college had

drafted a statement of strategic intent at the time of this study and was awaiting approval.

The statement of strategic intent was not yet acting as a guide for the work of the college,

but the process was perceived to be successful by the participants. The university used a

traditional strategic planning process that focused on the creation of the plan, as the

primary goal. The use of the traditional strategic planning process did not alter the

attitudes, values, beliefs or behaviors of the university, yet the participants viewed the

process as being successful.

In all three cases the planning process was guided by a small subset of the

population of the organization. In the department, the navigating committee members

were all tenured faculty members. The college’s planning committee participants

included one administrator and the remaining members were tenured faculty members.

The university council was predominately senior administrators, with one tenured faculty

member and one alumnus/trustee. The role of leadership was similar in the department

and college cases. The department chair and the dean of the college participated in the

planning process in each case as full members and were interviewed for this study. The

role of the president at the university was different than the other cases, in that the

president did not actively participate in the process and was not interviewed for the study.

It was found that the Board of Trustees directed a top-down, structured process that

focused on the creation of the plan as the ultimate goal.

The effect of how the process was developed on the implementation of each plan

was not part of this study, but where there were data from participants that gave some

insight to implementation, it was included in the single case narratives, but was not part

176

of the data analysis. In the department case they had begun the strategic execution phase

of the STP process and in the university case, the process was well into the

implementation stage. Some participants commented on those aspects of the process. In

the case of the department, it was found that the implementation was on track and

progressing through the use of action committees. This was described in the case study as

a commitment of the participants to the implementation of the plan. The college was just

adopting a statement of strategic intent and participants described it as being too early in

the process to judge the implementation as successful or not. In the university case, the

lack of depth and breadth of involvement of others beyond the Board of Trustees and the

strategic planning council was found to have affected the effectiveness of the planning

process and outcomes. It was too early in the planning process in the department and

college cases to gather data on the effectiveness of the implementation. The university

case provided data on the unsuccessful implementation of the plan, but the researcher was

unable to compare and contrast the data in the study. Therefore, there were no findings

related to implementation.

Cross-Case Analysis

This section provides a more in depth analysis of the similarities and differences

between the three cases. The analysis is framed by the study’s proposed strategic thinking

elements that created a framework for analysis in all three cases and the themes that

emerged from the data analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify the elements of

a strategic planning process that meet the unique organizational planning features of a

higher education organization. The study’s research questions guided the analysis: What

were the elements of the strategic planning process used? Did the strategic planning

177

process follow a strategic thinking or strategic planning model? Did the process used

create an effective model of change for the organization? The following themes emerged

from the data analysis (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2

Themes Found in Cross-Case Analysis

Activity Changes Changes in activity were found in the department and

college cases. There were no changes in activity found in

the university case.

Belief Changes Changes of beliefs were found in the department and

college cases. There were no changes in beliefs found in

the university case.

Internal Horizontal

Alignment

Alignment and synchronization of team found in

department and college case. Vertical alignment found in

university case.

Value of Process Found to be a strong component in department case. Not

found to be a strong component, but still present in

college and university case.

Perception of Process Found perception of successful process in the department,

college and university cases

Activity changes. Social cognition theory suggests the people within

organizations influence process and how learning occurs within those organizations

(Argyris, 1994). Culture also plays a role in the leading and managing of change and it is

important to understand that role. The department and college employed a social

cognitive model of change that resulted in a change in the activities in the organizations.

Both organizations conducted extensive strategic listening and strategic conversation

sessions that provided opportunities for the broader communities in each organization to

participate in the process, listen to external input, provide feedback and weigh in on draft

mission, aspiration, and core values statements. The STP process provided a structure

that recognized the importance of culture in the organization, and the role that individuals

178

play in that process, by providing multiple opportunities for synthesis, systems thinking,

reflection and reframing which was evidenced in both cases.

The planning process in the university used a structural and hierarchical change

model that did not gather extensive information from the external environment; rather

most of the data used was internally generated. The traditional strategic planning process

did not incorporate broad based inclusion of other members of the university or external

constituents in the planning process. The convening of focus groups and posting the plan

to the website, after it was complete, did not support the use of strategic thinking skills

such as synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing. There was no evidence that

the university used systems thinking skills that in the other two cases was found to create

a change in the activities of the participants and in the case of the department, the broader

organization. There was an attempt to manage the strategic goals of the plan from the top-

down, through an annual reporting process, but the participants interviewed for the study

did not perceive this to be continuing nor effective.

The finding that the department activities of the participants and others in the

department had been changed was significant in comparison to the lack of change in the

university. Both the department and university were in the implementation phases of their

respective processes, allowing for a more direct comparison of activity changes. At the

time of the study, the college was still in the strategic thinking phase of the STP process

and the researcher did not find a significant change in activities.

Belief changes. In this study the department and college created aspiration

statements and the university had a vision statement, as part of their strategic planning

processes. The need for a compelling vision is essential to strategic change in

179

organizations (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). The STP process uses the creation of a

statement of strategic intent to create the vision and incorporates a shared understanding

of where the organization wishes to go. Vision cannot be pushed down from above, but

rather must be generated within the organization and communicated by the leadership

(Mintzberg & Rose, 2003). Recent research studies in higher education have shown that

successful strategic planning processes are a result of a shared understanding, the

integration of individuals from different levels, and an appreciation of underlying goals

(Ocascio & Joseph, 2008; Vilà & Canales, 2008). “What is internalized in the heads of

people is more important than what ends up on paper. Strategy conceived as a shared

framework in the mind of strategists is robust (Vilà & Canales, 2008, p. 286).

In both the department and college case the researcher found that the beliefs of the

participants had changed. Also, in the case of the department the beliefs were described

by the participants as being deeper and broader in the department beyond just the

planning committee. Examples were cited about the discussion in faculty meetings and

the overall focus of incorporating the values of the plan into what faculty and staff does

every day. D4 described the changing of beliefs in the department and the integration of

values into their work.

We have been taking our values, that we all collectively approved and we devote

about a half hour at each meeting just to talk about what this does mean. And we

say we value this. What does this mean? What does this mean to you? We have a

discussion about it. So we are not letting those values leave the room.

There was no finding in the college case that the beliefs had changed beyond the

participants in the process, yet there was noted change in the participant’s beliefs.

180

Alternately, the finding in the university case was that there had been little to no change

in the beliefs of the participants about the university. There was one participant in the

department case and one in the college case who expressed strong negative beliefs

towards strategic planning in general. Their comments have been noted in the single case

findings. It is not clear in the data, why other’s beliefs changed and theirs did not,

especially in the department case, where the finding was significant with the other four

participants.

There was one participant from the college (C1) that expressed negative opinions

about strategic planning in general and openly shared those with the researcher.

Scharmer’s (2009) first principle of presencing is the action of “letting go of the old and

surrendering to the unknown” (p. 184). This is an important first step in letting go of old

opinions in order to move towards an open mind, allowing for a possible future to be

envisioned and a change in beliefs. Other participants moved from their past experiences

with strategic planning, whether successful or not, and were more open to the process of

creating a new mission, values and aspirations for the college. As C4 expressed, “we all

are very aware that this may be absolutely useless, but we are also aware that it might

have some value.” Although C1 had been a full participant in the planning process,

his/her long held ideas about the ineffectiveness of strategic planning in general, were

found in the analysis to have been an influencing factor in the perception of the process.

The university also had one participant, U3 that held strong beliefs about strategic

planning, but he/she expressed frustration more with the process of building consensus

and group meetings, than a belief that planning was ineffective. “I detested the large

group meetings…it drives me batty. I would sit there for two or three hours and think I

181

was in purgatory.” There was a finding across all three cases that the external

environment was perceived to have had an impact on efforts to plan. This case study was

conducted at a public institution that is dependent on state resources. The timing of

planning in the department and college was during a deep economic recession. The

university planning occurred before the recession began, but was being implemented

during the recession years of 2007-2010. The perception of all the participants, in all

three cases, was that the reduction in state funding was impacting decision making in all

three organizations. This created a pessimistic attitude in the university case, and to some

extent in the department and college case, about planning in general. There was no

finding that the timing had a significant impact on the department or college planning.

Internal horizontal alignment. Open systems theory proposes that systems are

affected by external forces that force the system to adjust in order to maintain

equilibrium. Strategic thinking incorporates systems thinking, creativity and vision

(Bonn, 2005; Liedtka, 1998a; Pisapia, 2009; Senge, 1990; Heracleous, 2003; Scharmer,

2009), as well as an emphasis on synthesis, and a committed style of management to

develop the plan (Mintzberg, 1994b). The literature proposes that in order to implement

effective change, horizontal alignment and control are needed. Control that relies on self-

reference - a sense of strategic intent and purpose that is embedded throughout the

organization, will guide the organization’s choices going forward on a daily basis and is a

process that is often difficult to measure and monitor from above. Alignment that is

horizontal creates synchronization within a team.

In the department and college case, the STP process created a framework that

supported a strategic thinking process that resulted in a sense of strategic intent and

182

purpose in the participants. The researcher observed the process as it was being

implemented in the college case. When the strategic conversations were taking place, it

was observed that all of the participants were working toward a common understanding

of whom the college was and where they wanted to go. The end result was a draft of a

statement of strategic intent. Although, the actual planning process was not observed in

the department case, the end result, as evidenced in the data, was an aligned team

working towards a common purpose. As described in the single case narrative, the

department case participants were working together in a common pursuit of the

aspirations and priorities expressed in the statement of strategic intent.

There was no finding in the university case of alignment across the team, or a

sense of strategic intent or purpose that was embedded across the planning participants or

the university. The analysis of the data found that control was asserted through formal

measurement systems and the alignment was vertical. The formal measurement system

was specific and easily measured. Each goal of the strategic plan had an assigned

individual that was charged with the oversight of that goal. Annual briefings were given

to the Board of Trustees on progress and annual budget requests were to be connected to

the goals of the plan. There was no evidence of horizontal alignment of the team. The

data analysis did reveal that the alignment of participants was vertical and was controlled

from the top. Additionally, there was evidence that the initiatives in the university plan

were large and stand-alone goals. As explained in the narrative of the university case, this

traditional model of planning did not support alignment of individuals, the team or the

university.

183

In this study, a higher education setting was defined as a complex system. The

nature of change in a complex system is that there is no consistent pattern of change

(Dooley, 1997). Therefore, to implement an effective change strategy, a shared vision

must be developed and an individual’s perspective on the current state of the organization

must be altered. The process also must cultivate inquiry, learning, experimentation,

divergent thinking, and the creation of a mechanism to generate rapid feedback loops.

In the study’s conceptual framework the elements of the managerial role in

strategy making and implementation proposes that lower level managers have a voice in

strategy making. Also, upper and lower level managers understand the larger system, the

connection between those roles and the functioning of the larger system. It also proposes

that managers understand the independence between the various roles that comprise the

system. This understanding allows for the adaptation to rapidly changing environments

such as higher education. In the department and college case it was found that lower level

managers had a voice in strategy making. Lower level managers sent information to the

upper level managers in the university case and then the plan was disseminated to the

lower levels to implement. The department chair and managers in the department had an

understanding of the larger system, the connection between roles, functioning of the

system, and the independence between those roles. The managerial role in

implementation was not measured in the college case. In the university case, participants

believed that managers only need know their own roles in implementation of strategy.

Once the plan was complete, it was sent out to the lower level manager to implement.

184

Value of the process. The framework of the study proposed that in an effective

planning process, participants see strategy and change as inescapably linked and assumes

that finding new strategic options and implementing them successfully is harder and more

important than evaluating them. In the traditional strategic planning model, the challenge

of setting strategic direction is primarily analytic. In the college and university cases, the

researcher found that the participants viewed strategy and changed as linked. In the

university case it was found that the setting of strategic direction was more analytic.

Interestingly, the participants in the department did not view strategy and change as

linked. The researcher was unable to determine from the data, why there was a difference

in perception between the department and the college, when both used the same planning

process. The traditional strategic planning model followed by the university, that

followed the “planning view” of strategy as a rational, linear, top-down structured

process, accounted for the focus on analysis to set direction.

Fairholm and Card (2009) propose the critical importance that purpose, meaning

and values are as foundational elements of strategic thinking are to managing change.

The participants in the department and college cases viewed the planning process as a

value adding element. In the department case, the participants also indicated that those

values were present as a self-referencing point in their minds. In the college case, the

participants perceived that the planning process added value to the organization, but the

use of those values as a self-referencing point was not found. The researcher believes that

data to determine a finding related to value in the college case could be collected only at

a later stage in their process. In the college, the statement of strategic intent had not yet

been adopted and agreed to at the time of the study. Agreement on those values and their

185

guiding purpose occurs in the STP during the adoption process of the statement of

strategic intent.

In the university case, it was found that participants also perceived value in the

planning process, however as in the college case, there was no finding that the value

created a self-referencing point for the participants in decision making. The university

process used measurement and control to coordinate activity. Both the college and the

university were not using value specification or the integration of those values to guide

their activities, whereas the department was.

The framework for the study proposes that a strategic thinking process uses

minimum specifications to guide the work of the organization. In both the department and

college case, this was found to be true. In the department case, the statement of strategic

intent was functioning as a guiding document, but as was mentioned by one participant

(D3) he/she was frustrated by the lack of concrete goals and measurements.

An outcome was a mission, values, aspiration and priorities statement. No

goals….Assigning subcommittees to come up with work plans for all the

priorities, have created a nightmare of a process. About the worst thing that

administrators can do is create new committees to implement a committee’s

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

university’s plan.

The college was not yet at this point in their process so there was no data collected on

that part of the process, but as mentioned above, the university was well into the

implementation phase of its planning process. The focus of their plan on the creation of a

186

written plan, that used maximum specifications, was the primary goal of the process. An

example of the goals and measurements was discussed in the single case write up.

The strategic thinking model of planning proposes that the end result of the

process is the concept of strategic fitness; or rather, is the plan a fit to the external and

internal environment? In the case of the department the researcher’s finding was

inconclusive. There was the finding that the process added value to the organization. In

the college case, the researcher was able to observe the planning process, and from the

data collected from the observations and supporting evidence in the interview data, it was

concluded that the process was a good fit to the external and internal environment. In the

university case, the process was found to be a fit to the external environment based on the

evidence in the interview data. The analysis of data found that the creation of the plan

was the ultimate objective.

The final element in the study framework was chunking change. Pisapia (2009)

proposes that the process of chunking, starting small then building a complex system, is

the way to make things work in a complex system, such as higher education. The

university created a plan that consisted of large, stand-alone projects. In the complex

system of the university the participants perceived this to be a problem with the plan and

those comments are noted in the single case study. In the cases of the department and

college, it was too early in the process to measure implementation, which is where this

element fits in the framework.

187

Perception of the process. The perceptions of the participants were that the

strategic planning process in all three was cases were successful. But, the definition of a

successful strategic planning process was defined in this study as a process that alters the

attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the participants and the organization. The

researcher found in the department and college cases that the strategic thinking process

was an effective method of planning. The planning process in the university was not

found to be effective. In the university case, the difference between the participant’s

perception of success and the definition of success proposed in the study made sense to

the researcher. The ultimate goal and focus of the traditional strategic planning process at

the university was in the creation of a plan. The data supported the finding that the

process resulted in a written plan and therefore, in the views of the participants, it was a

success.

Summary of Cross-Case Findings

The previous analysis identified the cross-case findings of the study, which when

assess in its entirety answer the research questions posed in the study: What were the

elements of the strategic planning process used? Did the strategic planning process follow

a strategic thinking or strategic planning model? Did the process used create an effective

model of change for the organization? The findings were summarized in Table 5.1.

The majority of the findings of the study’s proposed framework were shared by

the department and college cases. Both cases were found to have used a strategic thinking

planning process. Also, both in both cases the use of the STP provide an effective model

of planning that altered the attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the department and

college. In the third case, the university was found to have uses a traditional business

188

model of strategic planning. That model was found to not be effective in altering the

attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the university. The inconsistency in the

participant’s perceptions of whether the planning process in each case was successful was

inconsistent in the case of the college and the university. In the college case, the planning

process was found to be effective, but the participants did not strongly support that

conclusion, although some did. In the university case, the participants felt strongly that

the process was successful, in spite of the ineffectiveness of the process.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Strategic planning has long been a practice of each new president, dean,

department chair and Boards of Trustees in higher education since the introduction of

strategic planning as a critical tool for businesses in the 1960’s. It was then adopted as a

tool for higher education in the early 1980’s. The adaptation of the business model of

strategic planning to the complex adaptive system (CAS) of a higher education

organization has not proven to be an effective model of change.

The theoretical notion that one first plans strategy, then designs structures, and

finally implements “stands almost totally alone at odds with what really happens

in a university”, leading to the conclusion that “either the universities ‘have it all

wrong’ or the strategy theoreticians do” (Hardy, et al., 1983, p. 407).

An argument can be made that neither higher education nor strategy theoreticians “have it

all wrong”, but neither has been able to identify a model that supports effective change in

higher education. Planning is necessary, change in inevitable, yet as has been illustrated

in this study, there is an emerging field of thought and empirical evidence that

189

incorporating strategic thinking elements in the strategic planning process, can create an

effective model for higher education organizations.

Birnbaum (1999) and Kezar (2005) outline unique organizational features found

in higher education organizations. These features of goals that are difficult to quantify,

relative independence from environmental influences, anarchical decision making,

voluntary collaboration, multiple power and authority structures and image as opposed to

bottom line performance measures makes universities hard to change. The elements of

strategic thinking proposed in the conceptual framework of the study, and incorporated

into the STP process, created an effective model for change that meets the unique needs

of higher education.

As two of the three cases illustrate, the use of the STP to introduce strategic

thinking elements into the planning process, acted as building blocks to “serve as

generators that can be combined in many ways to yield viable reactions to the world”

(Holland, 1998, p. 236). The use of a traditional business model of strategic planning in

the university case was not found to meet the needs of the university in facilitating

change in the attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviors of the participants or the

organization in general. The STP presents a model that is suitable for higher education

organizations to create a learning environment, to implement creative and emergent

strategies, that result in the organization’s positioning and responses to a rapidly

changing environment. This section outlines the major findings of this study, the

relationship of those findings to the literature in the field and recommendations for higher

education leaders in the use of strategic thinking based planning in their organizations.

190

The significance of the study and its implications for future research concludes the

chapter.

Conclusions

This study proposed a planning process that included elements of strategic

thinking would create an effective model of strategic planning for higher education. The

principle findings in this case answer the research questions: What were the elements of

the strategic planning process used? Did the strategic planning process follow a strategic

thinking or strategic planning model? Did the process used create an effective model of

change for the organization? The findings are:

1. The incorporation of strategic thinking elements in the strategic planning process

of higher education organizations; provides an effective strategic planning process

to alter the attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviors of the organizations.

2. The creation and adoption of a statement of strategic intent rather than a formal

plan with maximum specifications is a more effective guide for decision making

for higher education organizations.

3. Higher education organizations are complex adaptive systems (CAS). Therefore,

a strategic thinking planning process is a better fit to the functioning of the system

and managing change, than a traditional business model of strategic planning.

4. The use of the STP that was used by the department and the college provided an

effective model of change in each case.

Strategic thinking. Peter Senge (1990) in his introduction in the Fifth Discipline

asked; “it had been said that the United States was the first country in our modern era

founded on a vision. Is it possible that in some very real sense this vision was born out of

191

a capacity for dialogue?” (p. xiii). The key elements of strategic thinking: systems

thinking, creativity and vision all depend on the effective use of dialogue. According to

Pisapia (2009) systems thinking is rooted in the leader’s ability to see systems

holistically, understand properties, forces, patterns and inter-relationships that shape

behaviors of an organization. Only through this understanding can leaders and managers

then make decisions about which options provide opportunity or demand action. But,

unless there is effective dialogue to analyze, synthesize and create a shared vision,

organizations cannot respond to rapid changes in the external or internal environment.

The result is an organization where tasks are unconnected, stagnant, lack creativity and is

ineffective in addressing the changing needs of its constituents.

The use of dialogue is significant in the implementation of the strategic thinking

elements of systems thinking, which include synthesis, reflection and reframing. Liedtka

(1998a) proposes the result of dialogue “around strategic issues is both better strategy for

an organization and creates better developed strategic thinking capabilities in its

members” (p. 124). The department and the college used strategic listening sessions and

strategic conversations to conduct extensive dialogue to synthesize large amounts of

data, generated both internally and externally. This is not to imply that the university did

not use dialogue, rather the use of strategic listening sessions and strategic conversations

were a more effective process to drive dialogue and systems thinking more broadly and

deeper in the organization. The evidence of which is supported in the change of attitudes,

values, beliefs and behaviors in the department and college cases.

Creativity is identified in the literature as a key element of strategic thinking

(Bonn, 2001; Liedtka, 1998b; Pisapia 2009; Senge, 1990). At the intersection of systems

192

thinking, creativity and vision, is strategic thinking (see Figure 3). Creativity is defined as

the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain. Strategy is about ideas and the

development of creative solutions, therefore creativity is a prerequisite to strategy

formulation. The use of the systems thinking elements of reflection and reframing, in the

cases of the department and the college, created the opportunity for participants to be

creative in the crafting of the statement of strategic intent. Reflection was defined in this

study as the ability to use perceptions, experience and information to make judgments as

to what has happened in the past and is happening in the present to help guide future

actions (Pisapia, 2009). The use of synthesis of internal and external data in the

department and college cases provided the opportunity for the use of reflection.

Reframing was defined as the examining of the same situation from multiple

vantage points using different frames to gain insight and new options for action, Also, it

is the ability to switch attention across multiple perspectives, frames, mental models and

paradigms in order to generate new insights and options for actions (Bolman & Deal,

2008; Pisapia, et al., 2005). Again, the use of the strategic conversation sessions in the

department and college cases provided ample opportunity for reframing to occur and

creative dialogue as part of department and college planning processes.

The strategic thinking elements of vision and vision integration are supported in

the literature as critical to the success of strategic change (Bolman &Deal, 2008; Kotter,

1996; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). The strategic thinking process used in the department

and college cases placed substantially more emphasis on the analysis of data from

external sources. The strategic conversation focused the participants on dialogue around

“who they want to be” versus looking at “who we are.” The planning process in the

193

university focused on “who we are.” There was no evidence that the university explored

the line of inquiry; “who we want to be.” This lack of inquiry was a result of the top-

down management style of setting goals. The researcher found this linear, top-down

approach to have impeded creativity and the integration of vision or values in the

university case. The strategic listening sessions in the department and college, focused

the participants on what was happening and the expectations of the external environment

about the department and the college. This caused the participants to look outward, rather

than just inward. Gioia and Thomas (1996) found where information processing

processes were more participatory and interactive; the results were stronger identities and

images in the organizations.

If the emphasis is on “who we are,” information processing structure provides the

means for justifying and reinforcing the status quo; if the emphasis is on “who we

want to be,” information processing structure become a driver for legitimizing an

altered image, whereas strategy might be the driver for altering or retaining the

image. (p. 397)

Statement of strategic intent. Strategic intent envisions a desired leadership

position and establishes the criterion the organization will use to chart its progress. It is

also an active management process that includes: focusing the organization’s attention on

the essence of winning; motivating people by communicating the value of the target;

leaving room for individual and team contributions; sustaining enthusiasm by providing

new operational definitions as circumstances change and using intent consistently to

guide resource allocation (Prahalad & Hamel, 1989). The statement of strategic intent

creates the vision and incorporates a shared understanding of the where the organization

194

wishes to go (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Pisapia, 2009). The end product of the STP in the

department and college case was the creation of a statement of strategic intent. The

statement included minimum specifications that were designed to function as a guide in

the future decision making of the department and college. It was found that the

department was using the statement of strategic intent as a guide, by focusing on the

values, aspirations and priorities outlined in the document. In comparing the

department’s decision making in the implementation phase, to the university’s decision

making process in the implementation stage, the researcher found that the department’s

statement of strategic intent was guiding the individuals in the department in their

ongoing work. In the case of the university, there was no finding that the strategic plan

was guiding the decision making or work of the university.

In creating strategic intent, it is as much about the creation of meaning for

employees as it is about the establishment of direction (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). That is

not to say that creating strategic intent was an easy process, rather it was a process that

took a great deal of time, about 18 months in each of the college and department cases.

The university took the same amount of time to create the plan, even though they had the

goals handed to them at the beginning of the process. How the participants spent the

planning time was different in the department and college cases compared to the

university. The department and college spent their working efforts on the synthesis of

data, and the creation of the statement of strategic intent. The creation of the statement of

strategic intent relates to the creation and integration of vision and values. Pisapia (2009)

describes that statement of strategic intent “as a one page tablet that engages followers at

195

an emotional level and provides a framework guiding how people direct their energy,

judge organizational performance and foster self-management” (p. 119).

The university spent most of the time in creating the objectives and measurements

for each goal. In the department and college, the STP provided a framework for creating

the statement of strategic intent. As described earlier, each of the five strategic

conversations asked a specific question. At the conclusion of the five conversations, the

participants in the department had a one page document that outlined the mission, core

values, aspirations and priorities.

Complex adaptive systems and complexity theory. Robert Birnbaum (1988)

described the university as a bureaucracy. Southeastern University has a linear

organizational structure, with clear lines of authority, beginning with the Board of

Trustees at the top, to the president and then following in a cascade downward to the

faculty and support staff at the bottom of the chart, fitting Birnbaum’s (1988) definition.

But, there are additional aspects of the university organizational structure. It is a loose-

coupled (Weick, 1976), and a complex adaptive system (Holland, 1995). Loosely

coupled is where decisions are made in isolation and decisions often have no direct

impact or direct effect on other parts of the university. A CAS is non-linear and made up

of a large number of active elements that are diverse in form and capability, and is both

self-organizing and learning. All three are viable descriptions of Southeastern University.

Complexity theory has been shown to have an effect on leadership efforts in

complex adaptive systems (CAS). Dooley (1997) described CAS as behaving/evolving

according to two key principles: order is emergent as opposed to predetermined and the

state of the system is irreversible and often unpredictable. He concludes that the nature of

196

change in a CAS “that there is not necessarily a consistent pattern of change” (p. 89). In

suggesting a change strategy for CAS, he recommends creating a shared vision for the

organization; cultivating inquiry; learning; experimentation and divergent thinking;

enhancing external and internal communications; instilling rapid feedback loops;

cultivating specialization; differentiation and integration; creating shared values and

principles of action, and making explicit a few essential structural and behavioral

boundaries. Morgan’s (2006) metaphor of organization as an organism; and its strength in

recognizing the organization as such is that the emphasis is placed on understanding

relationships between organizations and their environments. Finding a strategic planning

process that recognizes the complexity of a higher education organization and addresses

the unique needs is the central purpose of this study. The researcher found that the

characteristics of strategic thinking planning process are a better fit for the needs and

characteristics of a higher education organization.

The STP provided a working framework in building shared values and principles

of action as was evidenced significantly in the department case, and less significantly in

the college case. There was no evidence in the university case that shared values were

created as result of the traditional strategic planning model. The STP structure and

process provided immediate feedback loops through the use of strategic conversations.

Direct observations found that there was a clear structure and behavioral boundaries that

the facilitator maintained throughout the college planning process. The researcher

observed that this practice facilitated a clear process for the synthesis of data, feedback

from individuals and resulting agreement on the drafts of mission, core values,

aspirations and priorities of the college. The perceptions of the participants in the

197

department case were that this same process also occurred during the department

planning, but the researcher was unable to observe that portion of the process, as it was

completed before this study.

Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP). Shoup and Studer (2010) found that

complex systems do not lend themselves to precise management formulas yet systems

need to be managed, but rarely are they controlled. The leadership in complex systems of

higher education organization needs to recognize that “the more complex the system, the

greater interdependence the individual parts of the system has in their contribution to the

whole and maintaining equilibrium” (p. 102). The Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP)

proposes a new way of planning (Pisapia & Robinson, 2010). The STP framework uses

core capabilities of strategic thinking skills, strategic sensitivity, value specification,

strategic listening and strategic conversations, minimum specifications, chunking change

and strategic fitness to develop an actionable plan; the statement of strategic intent.

Pisapia’s (2009) protocol includes three strategic habits; agility of the mind, anticipating

the future, and articulating a direction, which then joins agility with anticipating and

articulating to pursue the two tasks: a) anticipating changes, challenges and opportunities

in the internal and external environments, and b) creating and articulating common values

and direction in a generative/minimum specifications manner to foster perspective

transformation and organizational fitness. The details of the two phases (strategic

thinking and strategic execution) and how they work are discussed in the introduction of

the department and college cases. The desired outcome of the protocol is to achieve

successful strategy that meets the characteristics of the organization’s environment and

its internal resources through the creation of a statement of strategic intent.

198

The function and use of the statement of strategic intent has been discussed in

detail in previous sections of this study. Rather, the actual use of the protocol in the

planning process at the department and the college was found to be an effective tool in

each case. An effective model of change for higher education organizations was defined

in this study, as a process that alters the attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the

organization. In the case of the department and the college, this study found that the use

of the STP to generate a strategic thinking planning model was effective as perceived by

the participants and supported in the data analysis.

Limitations

The conclusions of this study and following recommendations were based on the

findings that emerged from the three individual case studies and the cross case analysis.

The findings could be enhanced with further study of the department and college

processes as they move further in the implementation stage of the process. The

conclusion that the STP proved to be an effective planning model for the department and

college would have more veracity, if the STP was used in other higher education settings.

Based on these limitations and those outlined in the first chapter the findings are not

generalizable across higher education institutions in general. However, the cross-case

analysis does compare and contrast a traditional strategic planning model to the STP. The

findings that the traditional model was not effective, adds to the empirical base of

knowledge that higher education is in dire need of a different way to plan and the STP

presents a possible new option.

199

Recommendations

Strategic planning will never be effective in higher education, as long as higher

education uses a traditional business model of strategic planning. The loosely coupled,

complex organizational structure of higher education is not conducive to a top-down,

linear planning process. Based on the insights gained in this study, the following

recommendations are made for higher education organizations contemplating initiation of

strategic planning process, for accrediting agencies to design better measurements of

what constitutes a successful planning process and for leaders who are managing change,

no matter where they are in the organizational hierarchy.

Higher education organizations. Higher education organizations must continue

to plan to ensure that they survive and thrive in the future. No one knows what higher

education organizations will look like in the future due to a rapidly changing environment

in which they operate. The first recommendation for organizations looking at strategic

planning is to understand that the future is not predictable, demographic and economic

fluctuations and changes will continue, and what happens in the world outside the

academy, will have far reaching impacts on what happens inside the academy. Strategic

thinking brings to the process of planning a set of elements that can assist the

organization in building a statement of strategic intent to act as a guide in future decision

making. The creation of large, stand-alone initiatives as strategy have proven to be

ineffective in higher education. In order to implement generative change, encourage

creative solutions to problems and empower the members of the organization to act in a

strategic way; they must be given the latitude to change direction, respond to

opportunities and yet remain true to the values and vision of the organization. To

200

accomplish this, higher education organizations need to change the way they plan.

Incorporating the key strategic thinking elements of synthesis, systems thinking,

reflection and reframing will build a shared sense of purpose, shared values and vision

for the organization.

The second recommendation is that higher education planning processes need to

be inclusive of every level in the organization. Managers at all levels need to clearly

understand their role in the larger system, how the larger system works and how they fit

in the functioning of that system. The use of strategic listening and strategic

conversations can serve to build that understanding. Strategic thinking and incremental

change happens from the bottom up, not the top down. The planning process at Penn

State (Dooris, 2003) was the closest study to this one where the researcher found a

process that has begun to incorporate some elements of strategic thinking. Through the

use of technology the university is connected at all levels in their planning process and it

has proven to be productive.

Accrediting agencies. Accrediting agencies and professional organizations need

to lead the way to more effective planning in higher education. The changes that need to

occur to support effective planning and management of change in higher education, needs

to be lead from the very agencies that mandated strategic planning in higher education to

begin with. That is not to imply that strategic planning should not have been incorporated

into higher education, but the attempt to implement a traditional business model had

proven to be ineffective. It is the old “round peg in the square hole” attempt.

To lead the way, these organizations can incorporate element descriptions and

working protocols that incorporate strategic thinking in the planning process in their

201

guidelines and publications. Stating that having a plan is not enough, but the depth and

breadth of the impact of the plan is the important measure of success. Creating shared

values cannot be accomplished with the planning process now used in higher education

and the research tells us that creating shared values and the integration of vision, is what

connects the planning to successful implementation.

Higher education leaders. This recommendation speaks to leadership at all

levels of the organization. The first recommendation is to use the STP to guide the

planning process in the organization. The use of dialogue is critical to bringing people in

the organization to a common understanding of the role of university, the functioning of

the university and their own role in making the university work. When individuals

understand what is expected of them and how they contribute to the greater whole, they

are supportive and engaged in ensuring the success of the organization.

The second recommendation is to ensure that everyone, including the leader

understand the forces that are impinging on their department, college and the university

as a whole. The use of strategic listening and strategic conversations should not be

limited to just the faculty, or just the staff, but be inclusive and open to all members of

the community. Leading by example is a critical part of this process. Asking others to

attend a strategic listening session and then not attending sends a clear message about the

commitment of the leader to the process.

The final recommendation is that leaders need to be committed to a strategic

thinking planning process. The strategic thinking planning process has been found to be

effective in creating a shared sense of purpose, alters attitudes, values, beliefs, and

202

behaviors of the individuals and the organization. The creation of the statement of

strategic intent, serves as the guiding framework for future decision making.

Significance of the Study

This study is significant for several reasons. First and foremost, any attempt to

instill strategic thinking in higher education has been thwarted by an effective working

model of strategic thinking (Amitabh & Sahay, 2008; Masifern & Vila, 2002). This study

is important because it investigates three distinct planning processes in higher education,

two that used a strategic thinking model, the STP for planning and then compares and

contrasts those two cases, to another case that used a traditional business model of

strategic planning. The findings of this study suggest that a strategic thinking model of

planning is effective in successfully altering the beliefs, value, attitudes and behaviors of

individuals in higher education organizations.

Secondly, the research is significant because it adds to and advances the body of

literature in several key areas. It builds on a growing, albeit small body of research

dedicated to the inclusion of strategic thinking in the planning processes of organizations

to effect lasting and meaningful change. The research also contributes to the literature of

social-cognitive change and the role that culture plays in organizational change. And

lastly, the findings in this study builds on the work of Bonn, 2005; Liedtka, 1998a;

Mintzberg, 1994b; Morrissey, 1996; O’Shannassy, 2003; Pisapia, 2009; Thakur &

Calingo, 1992, in clarifying the differences between strategic planning and strategic

thinking found in the literature.

203

Future Research

The limitation of this study’s findings and conclusions creates an opportunity for

further research on the STP and the use of strategic thinking elements in higher education

planning processes. First, the STP needs to be tested in more higher education

organizations. These would include, but not be limited to other department level and

college level settings. Second, a follow-up study should be conducted at Southeastern

University in the department and in the college to measure the longer term impact and

effectiveness of the statement of strategic intent. Determining if there is a link between

strategic thinking and the successful implementation of change is an important limitation

of this study.

The participants in each of the studies were homogenous in the demographic

make-up of the strategic planning committees. There is a need to understand whether

mixing participants from different levels across the organization affects the

successfulness of the planning process. And, if it is found to affect the process, why is

that and what strategies can be developed to ensure a deep and broad commitment to the

plan in the organization? A second part of this analysis of demographic make-up is the

role the leader plays in the strategic thinking process. In each case in this study, the

leaders played a different role that did not allow for a direct analysis of the impact of the

leaders in the process. Does the type of role, either passive or active influence the success

of the process?

Lastly, the current research is void of studies that measure how a strategic

thinking process may improve the strategic thinking skills of the leader. If in fact, the use

of the STP is found to improve the strategic skills of the leaders in the department and

204

college studies, understanding exactly what skills and how the process impacted the

growth of those skills would be an important addition to the field of leadership.

205

APPENDIX A

Interview Protocol

Interview Guide

Name of Interviewer: ____________________________________________________

Name of Interviewee: ____________________________________________________

Location of Interview:____________________________________________________

Date: _________________ Start Time:_____________ End

Time:__________________

Introduction/Opening Statement: Thank you very much for agreeing to spend time

with me today. The purpose of my interview is to ask you questions regarding my

dissertation research study. The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of and

identify the elements of an effective planning process that meet the unique organizational

features and complexities of higher education. As promised when we set up the interview

all of your responses are confidential and will be used only for the purpose of this study.

A pseudonym will be used and you will not be identified in the study. I would like to

accurately capture our conversation today. In order to do this may I audiotape your

responses? The tape will be destroyed after the end of the study.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

Part 1 Roles Participants Played in the Strategic Planning Process

Question No. Question

1.1 Please describe your position at Sun Coast State College. How long

have you been with the college/Department/University?

1.2 Describe your organization:

Probe: Are goals difficult to quantify?

Probe: How independent is it from outside influences, from the

external environment?

Probe: Is the decision making hierarchical?

Probe: Are there multiple power sources?

Probe: Is the focus on image or the bottom line performance?

206

1.3 Please describe your role in the Strategic Planning Process at the

college between (dates of process)?

Probe: How did you come to be in this role? Volunteer,

assignment…if so, by whom?

1.4 What did the other members of the committee do at the

department/college/university?

Please describe their positions.

1.5 Did you role change over the course of this planning process?

Probe: If yes, in what way?

1.6 Do you feel differently about your role being able to look back and

reflect?

1.7 Were there any changes in the roles of others on the committee?

Probe: Did any members change during the planning process?

Probe: Did your role change? If so, how?

1.8 Did the Chair/Dean/President of the department/college/university

have a role in this process? Please describe that role and any

observations you might have had at the time.

1.9 Did other leaders of the college/department/university have a role in

this process? Please describe that role and any observations you might

have had at the time.

Part 2 The Assumptions Participants Hold Toward Planning

Question No. Question

2.1 Do you believe the future can be predicted?

2.2 Do you believe that strategy and change is linked?

2.3 Does the plan or the planning process add value to the organization?

Part 3 The Process Used

Question No. Question

3.1 Can you please describe the strategic planning process at the College

from its beginning?

Probe: If not, what is the earliest point of your involvement in the

process?

Probe: Would you say the process was characterized by logic,

reasoning, numbers and rationale thinking?

Probe: Would you say the process was influenced synthesis,

recognition of patterns in data, and integration of data?

3.2 What was the charge given to the committee?

Probe: Who gave that charge?

Probe: How well was it followed?

Probe: What problems occurred?

3.3 Were there any assumptions that you based the planning process on?

Probe: Was there a prescribed plan?

Probe: Were there formulated goals and directive given in the

207

beginning?

3.4 Do you believe that lower level managers need only know their role

and leave planning to the upper levels?

3.5 Do you believe that all managers need to understand the forces

impinging on the department/college/university?

3.6 Does your plan include a statement of intent?

3.7 How were the goals of the College formulated?

Probe: Were they assigned by someone else, or did the committee

develop them?

3.8 Was the process dependent on data?

Probe: If yes, how much so?

3.9 What techniques were used (SWOT, Scenarios, Environmental

Assessments, etc.

3.10 How close did you process inventory, sort, analyze and assess

substantial amounts of data?

3.11 If you could alter anything about the strategic planning process, what

would it have been?

Part 4 The Effectiveness of the Process

Question No. Question

4.1 Please describe the earliest meeting that you can recall and any others

that are of particular interest to you. Probe: What about those meetings

are memorable and why?

4.2 In your opinion, how successful was the strategic planning process?

Probe: If unsuccessful, please describe why you think the planning

process was unsuccessful.

4.3 In your opinion, did the strategic planning process change the activities

of the (university, college, or department)?

4.4 In your opinion, has the strategic planning process changed your

beliefs about the organization?

How well did the process answer the following questions:

4.5 What do we do?

4.6 Where do we stand?

4.7 Where do we want to go?

4.8 How do we get there?

Part 5 The Effectiveness of the Implementation and Degree of

Connectedness

Question No. Question

5.1 What were the plans for implementing the goals of strategic plan?

Probe: Were there written or some other formal directive about

208

implementation?

5.2 How are the goals being implemented today?

5.3 Please describe the implementation process.

Probe: Are there changes or improvements that might facilitate the

implementation better?

5.4 Do people here fundamentally understand the direction and goals set in

the plan?

Probe: Do they understand the process needed to enact the plan?

5.5 How successful do you believe the implementation of that plan has

been to date?

Probe: From 1-10, with 10 being completely successful.

5.6 Think about your feelings toward your organization (university,

college or department) and to what degree do you feel connected to the

organization?

Probe: From 1-5, with 5 being completely connected.

5.7 Think about your feelings toward the other members of the strategic

planning team. To what degree do you feel connected to the other

members of the work group?

Probe: From 1-5, with 5 being completely connected.

5.8 If you could alter anything about the strategic implementation process,

what would it be?

5.9 Is there anything that I have not asked, that you would like to add?

Probe: Other comments or thoughts?

Closing: Thank you for taking time out today to contribute to this study. Again I want to

reiterate that this information will remain confidential and be used only for the purpose of

this study. I am happy to send you a transcript of the interview for your review to ensure

that I have accurately captured our conversation today. If I have any further questions of

clarification may I call you for follow up? You are free to contact me if you have

anything additional you would like to add.

209

APPENDIX B

Interview Request

FROM: Deborah Robinson

Doctoral Candidate, Florida Atlantic University

Educational Leadership – Higher Education

RE: Request for Interview

Dear Name:

I am in the process of conducting a dissertation research project at Florida

Atlantic University, where I am a doctoral candidate. The study is a multi-case qualitative

study that has structured interviews as the primary data collection method.

The purpose of my study is to gain an understanding of, and identify the elements

of, an effective strategic planning process that meet the unique organizational features

and complexities of higher education. The (university, college, department) completed

their strategic planning process in the recent past, and I am very interested in hearing

your perceptions about how the process was conducted.

You have been selected to participate because of your role on a committee as part

of the Strategic Planning Process that took place between XXX and XXX (dependent on

university, college or department). If you decide to participate in this research study, you

will be asked to answer questions that relate to your experience in that process.

If you agree to participate, all of your responses will be confidential, the

institution will be given a pseudonym, and your identity will also remain confidential.

After the interview you will be sent a copy of the transcript for your review to check for

accuracy. You also have the right to withdraw your participation at any time.

Please let me know if you would be willing to participate in this assignment by

responding to this email, or by calling me at 561-252-4314 so that we can arrange a

mutually convenient time and location to meet.

Thank you for your consideration.

210

APPENDIX C

Sample Adult Consent Form

ADULT CONSENT FORM

1) Title of Research Study: A Comparative, Holistic, Multi-Case Study of the

Implementation of the Strategic Thinking Protocol©

and Traditional Strategic Planning

Process at a Southeastern University.

2) Investigator: Dr. John Pisapia (Dissertation Committee Chair), Deborah J. Robinson

(Doctoral Candidate)

3) Purpose: The purpose of this multi-case study is to identify the elements of strategic

planning processes that meet the unique organizational features and complexities of a

higher education institution.

4) Procedures: Participation in this study will involve each subject sitting for a 60 – 90

minute structured interview. The researcher may request access to institutional

documentation directly related to the purpose of the study under the subject’s charge.

Subjects may deny access to this documentation and may withdraw from the study at any

time.

5) Risks:

The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than one would experience

in regular daily activities.

6) Benefits:

Potential benefits that subjects may attain from participation in this research study

include a greater knowledge of the elements of strategic thinking in university planning

processes that could serve as a useful management tool that integrates the internal and

external aspects as organizations search for strategy that impacts outcomes.

7) Data Collection & Storage:

With your authorization, this interview will be recorded and transcribed. All of the

results will be kept confidential and secure and only the people working with the study

will see your data, unless required by law. The data will be kept for 2 years in a locked

cabinet [or password protected computer] in the investigator’s office and then

destroyed.

8) Contact Information:

*For related problems or questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact

the Florida Atlantic University Division of Research at (561) 297-0777. For other

questions about the study, you should call the principal investigators, Dr. John Pisapia

211

(responsible principal investigator) at (561) 297-3550, 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:

212

APPENDIX D

List of Documents

Table 1: University Documents

Document

#

Title of

Document

Type of

Document

Date of

Document

Date of

Retrieval

Comments

U1 Strategic Plan Webpage n.d 06/1/2011 Strategic Plan

2006-2013

Website

U2 Strategic Plan Webpage n.d. 06/1/2011 Statement of

Vision and

Mission

U3 Strategic Plan Webpage n.d. 06/1/2011 Values

Statement

U4 Strategic Plan Webpage n.d. 06/1/2011 Goals and

Objectives

U5 Start Your

Planning

With a

SWOT!

Report n.d. 06/1/2011 Report from

Institutional

Effectiveness

& Analysis

Results of

SWOT in the

Spring of

2005.

U6 Strategic

Planning –

Audit and

Finance

Committee,

Joint

Committee

Meeting

Minutes 06/13/2007 09/9/2010 Portion of

meeting was

on strategic

planning

initiatives

U7 Strategic

Planning

Committee

Minutes 10/24/2007 09/9/2010 Reports on

Strategic

Goals

U8 Strategic

Planning

Committee

Minutes 10/17/2006 09/9/2010 Reports on

Strategic

Goals

U9 Strategic

Planning

Committee

Goal 4

Task Force

Report and

Update

10/24/2007 09/9/2010 Reports on

Strategic

Goals

213

U10 Strategic

Planning

Team List

Power

Point Slide

n.d. 09/9/2010 Simple List of

members

U11 President

Delivers

State of the

University

Address

Press

Article

September

2005

07/5/2010 State of the

University

Address

U12 Strategic Plan

– Goal 4

Task Force

Report

Report October 2007 06/1/2011 Report of the

strategic

planning

process of

Goal 4.

U13 Strategic

Plan:

Division of

Student

Affairs

Report 05/4/2010 07/2010 Report of

Progress on

Goals

U14 Strategic

Planning

Committee

Meeting -

BOT

Minutes 06/14/2006 07/20/2011 Minutes of

Board of

Trustees

Meeting

U15 Strategic

Planning

Committee

Meeting-

BOT

Minutes 12/13/2006 07/20/2011 Minutes Board

of Trustees

U16 Strategic

Planning

Committee –

BOT

Minutes 04/25/2007 07/20/2011 Minutes board

of Trustees

U17 Strategic

Planning

Committee –

BOT

Minutes 06/13/2007 07/20/2011 Minutes Board

of Trustees

U18 Strategic

Planning

Committee –

BOT

Minutes 12/12/2007 07/20/2011 Minutes Board

of Trustees

214

Table 2: College of Education Planning Documents

Documen

t #

Title of

Document

Type of

Document

Date of

Document

Date of

Retrieval

Comments

C1 College of

Education

Strategic

Thinking/Plannin

g

Committee

work plan

n.d. 07/10/10 Meeting schedule

for steering

committee

C2 COE Strategic

Thinking

Protocol: Charge

to the Steering

Committee

Charge and

timeline

for

completing

the work

n.d. 07/10/10 Work Plan

C3 COE Strategic

Thinking

Protocol: The

Strategic

Thinking

Protocol

Description n.d. 07/10/10 Description of

the strategic

thinking process

C4 Signals from our

Environment:

Student

Feedback

Summary

Report n.d. 07/10/10 Report of student

panel that

responded to two

specific

questions.

C5 Signals from our

National

Environment:

Summary

National

Perspective

Report 2010 07/10/10 Report of remark

by Arne Duncan

to Harvard

(2010) and

Columbia

(2009).

C6 Signals from our

State

Environment

Report 2010 07/18/11 Report of

listening session

with State

representatives.

C7 Signals from our

University

Environment

Report n.d. 07/18/11 Report of

comments from

University

representatives.

C8 Signals from our

Local

Environment

Report n.d. 07/18/11 Report of

comments from

local community

representatives.

C9 Summary of

College of

Report n.d. 07/18/11 Overview and

report of data

215

Education

Perspectives

related to the

College of

Education.

C10 Results of

Strategic

Conversation #1

Report Jan 2010

– January

2011

07/18/11 Synthesis of

faculty, staff and

administrator

perceptions of

Strategic

Listening

Sessions.

C11 Conversation #2

Input

Report February

11, 2011

07/18/201

1

Report of

Strategic

Conversation

2/11/11.

C12 Dean’s Welcome Webpage n.d. 07/10/201

1

Welcome and

invitation to

participate.

C13 College of

Education

Faculty

Assembly

Meeting

Minutes 04/16/201

1

07/09/201

1

Meeting minutes

that contain

Strategic

Thinking/Plannin

g updates.

C14 Strategic

Thinking

Meeting

Power

Point

Presentatio

n

08/18/201

0

07/09/201

1

Presentation of

University Data.

C15 Strategic

Conversation #3

– What we are in

Business to

Accomplish?

Report 03/14/201

1

07/09/201

1

Summary of

Conversation

C16 Our Values –

2011

Report 03/14/201

1

07/09/201

1

Values Statement

C17 Strategic

Conversation #4

– Our Aspiration

Report 04/15/201

1

07/09/201

1

Report on

Conversation #4

216

Table 3: Department of Educational Leadership Planning Documents

Title of

Document

Type of

Document

Date of

Document

Date of

Retrieval

Comments

D1 An

Application of

the Strategic

Thinking

Protocol:

Department of

Educational

Leadership

Report 2009 07/2010 Description of

the Protocol

D2 Change to the

Navigating

Team

Report 2009 07/2010 Charge to the

Navigating

Team

D3 The

Navigating

Team Work

Plan

Report August 2009 07/2010 Schedule of

meetings for

the Navigating

Team.

D4 Sample

Statement of

Strategic Intent

Report 2009 07/2010 Outline and

overview of a

Statement of

Strategic

Intent.

D5 Strategic Intent

Statement

Report 2/24/2010 07/2010 Adopted

Statement of

the Department

D6 Agenda for

Department’s

2009 Fall

Retreat

Report n.d. 07/2010 Agenda of

Retreat for

Strategic

Conversations

D7 Strategic

Conversation

#1

Report n.d. 07/2010 Results of 10

interviews.

D8 Department

Chair’s

Welcome

Webpage 12/13/2010 07/09/2011

D9 Department

Website

Webpage 12/13/2010 07/09/2011 Mission,

Values and

Aspirations

217

All Cases

Document Summary Form

Document # Document Name Date Collected

Significance:

Brief Summary of Contents:

Question This Document Addresses:

218

APPENDIX E

Observation Guide

# Event Date/Location Occurrences Guide

1 Physical Surroundings: location, description.

Participants: Who, how many, their roles?

Purpose: What is happening, sequence of

activities, interaction amongst participants?

Dialogue: amongst participants, describe

setting.

Other observations: body language, seating

arrangements, hierarchical behavior, silences?

Researcher: roles, perception by participants,

reflections and other field notes.

2 Physical Surroundings: location, description.

Participants: Who, how many, their roles?

Purpose: What is happening, sequence of

activities, interaction amongst participants?

Dialogue: amongst participants, describe

setting.

Other observations: body language, seating

arrangements, hierarchical behavior, silences?

Researcher: roles, perception by participants,

reflections and other field notes.

219

APPENDIX F

First Level Coding Table

1st Round

Code

Description Department

Case

College

Case

University

Case

AC Activity Change 18 9 10

AS Actionable Strategy 5 6 6

BC Beliefs Change 14 14 12

BO Bonding to Outcomes 4 6 10

BR Breadth 5 10 24

CB Coalition Building 6 7 3

CC Collective Commitment 12 7 9

CCA Combination: Creativity and

Analysis

1 0 0

CH Change Desired 4 1 13

CR Creativity 0 0 0

CT Connectedness 12 13 13

DA Use of Data 14 16 12

DC Destruction of Commitment 0 0 1

DePo Decrease in Politics 1 0 0

DP Depth 8 12 28

EE External Environment 30 30 40

FA Facilitator 6 5 2

FI Focused Intent 1 3 0

GS Generative Strategy 1 0 0

HD Hypothesis Driven 0 0 0

HH Hierarchical 1 2 15

HI Horizontal Integration 17 0 0

IE Internal Environment 0 31 39

IF Inward Focus 2 3 0

IMG Image 6 3 9

IMP Implementation 0 4 33

INFN Informal Negotiation 5 0 0

ING Integration 6 1 0

INT Intuition 1 0 0

IO Intelligent Opportunism 2 0 0

IP Increased Politics 1 0 1

LA Liner Assumptions 1 0 0

LG Logic Based 1 0 0

LI Linkage of Strategy and

Change

6 8 8

MI Multiple Interpretations 1 1 0

NAR Narrative 1 0 0

220

NV Narrow Vision 0 0 0

OL Outward Looking 6 0 0

OUT Outcomes 3 5 26

PF Predict the Future 4 7 8

PR Process 13 13 55

PS Persuasion 0 0 1

RL Role 11 6 24

RP Rigidity of Process 6 0 3

RT Rational Thinking 4 1 0

SA Surfacing Assumptions 6 7 0

SC Success of Process 27 13 20

SHA Sharing Assumptions 2 3 0

SI Strategic Intent 1 0 0

SL Strategic Listening 1 1 0

SP Systems Perspective 14 13 3

ST Systems Thinking 6 1 3

SY Synthesis 6 12 0

TT Thinking in Time 3 1 0

VA Values 13 11 9

VELN Vertical Integration 2 0 0

VI Vision 4 6 10

Total 325 292 466

221

APPENDIX G

Sample Statement of Strategic Intent

(Result of 1999 Strategic Review Process)

MISSION:

The mission of the Department of Educational Leadership is to prepare and support

leaders working in educational environments.

GUIDING PRINCPLES [aka Core Values]:

(Principles not in a priority order)

The following principles will guide the work of and relationships of the Department of

Educational Leadership.

We will:

Work together in an environment of trust, civility, mutual respect and support;

Embrace our diversity and see it as a strength;

Base our academic culture on rigor and relevance for every student;

Etc;

ASPIRATION:

We aspire to become the preeminent preparer of leaders in [state] with a growing

national and international reputation.

PRIORITIES:

(Priorities are not listed in any ranked order)

The following priorities will assist the Department of Educational Leadership achieve its

aspiration:

Increase full time student enrollment in our programs;

Seek national and international partnerships;

Internationalize our curriculum;

Provide opportunities for students to attend national and international research

conferences.

222

REFERENCES

Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work

environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-

1184.

Amitabh, M., & Sahay, A. (2008). [Strategic thinking: Is leadership the missing link and

exploratory study] Unpublished raw data.

Ansoff, H. I. (1980). Strategic issue management. Strategic Management Journal, 1, 131-

148.

Ansoff, H. I. (1991). Critique of Henry Mintzberg's 'The Design School: Reconsidering

the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 12,

449-461.

Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review,

55(September - October), 115-125.

Argyris, C. (1994). On organizational learning (2nd

ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Axelrod, R., Axelrod, E., Jacobs, J., & Beedon, J. (2006). Beat the odds and succeed in

organizational change. Consulting to Management, 17(2), 6-9.

223

Baldridge, V. J. (1983). Strategic planning in higher education: Does the emperor have

any clothes? In V. J. Baldridge (Ed.), Dynamics of organizational change in

education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Barker, T. S., & Smith, H. W. (1997) Strategic planning: Evolution of a model.

Innovative Higher Education, 21(4), 287-306.

Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavior and Brain Sciences,

17(1), 1-10.

Barrow, C. (1996). The new economy and restructuring higher education. The NEA

Higher Education Journal, 65-81.

Bates, D.L., & Dillard, J.E. (1993). Generating strategic thinking through multi-level

teams. Long Range Planning, 26(5), 103-110.

Birnbaum, R. (1986). Leadership and learning: The college president as intuitive

scientist. The Review of Higher Education (9)4, 381-395.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Birnbaum, R. (1999, May-June). Academic leadership at the millennium: Politics or

porcelain? Academe, 85(3), 14-19.

Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from,

what they do, why they fail. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s

report. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30 (1), 77-96.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

224

Bonn, I. (2001). Developing strategic thinking as a core competence. Management

Decision, 39(1), 63-70. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005408

Bonn, I. (2005). Improving strategic thinking: A multilevel approach. Leadership

and Organization Development Journal, 26 (5), 336-354.

doi:10.1108/01437730510607844

Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code

development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Boyer, E. L. (1994). The academic profession: An international perspective. A special

report. Ewing, CA: California/Princeton Fulfillment Services.

Cherwitz, R. A. (2005, November/December). A new social compact demands real

change: Connecting the university to the community. Change, 46 – 49.

Chen, M. (1994, March-April). Sun tzu’s strategic thinking and contemporary business.

Business Horizons, 42-48.

Chussil, M. (2005). With all this intelligence, why don’t we have better strategies?

Journal of Business Strategy, 26(1), 26-33.

Cohen, M., Thompson, B., Adelman, L, Bresnick, T., Shastri, L., & Riedel, S. (2000).

Training critical thinking for the battlefield: Basis in cognitive theory and

research. Ft. Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York, NY: Free

Press.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

225

Daghir, A. & Al Zaydi, K. (2005). The measurement of strategic thinking type for top

managers in Iraqi public organizations – cognitive approach. International

Journal of Commerce and Management, 15(1), 34-47.

De Gus, A. P. (1988). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 6(2), 70-74.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the

educative process. Boston, MA: Heath.

Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change.

Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, (1)1, 69-97.

Dooris, M. (2003). Two decades of strategic planning: Is strategic planning a useful tool

or a counterproductive management fad? Planning for Higher Education, 31(2),

26-32.

Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2009). Embedding strategic agility. Long Range

Planning, 43(2-3), 370-382.

Eckel, P., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher

education. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Fairholm, M.R. & Card, M. (2009). Perspectives of strategic thinking: From controlling

chaos to embracing it. Journal of Management & Organization 15, 17-30.

Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. (2000). Leadership amid the constraints of trust.

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(2), 102 – 109.

Fish, S. (2004, April). Plus ça change. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved

from http://chronicle.com/article/Plus-Ccedil-a-Change/44555/

French, J. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies

in social power, (150-167). Oxford, England: University of Michigan.

226

Ghoshal, S., Bartlett, C., & Moran, P. (1999, Spring). A new manifesto for management.

Sloan Management Review, 9–20.

Ginsberg, A. (1994). Minding the competition: From mapping to mastery. Strategic

Management Journal 15,153-174.

Gioia, D.A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change

initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448.

Gioia, D. A. & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity and issue interpretation: Sensemaking

during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3),

370-403.

Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: Towards understanding

the complementarities. Management Decision, 40(5/6), 456-462.

Hakim, C. (1987). Research design: Strategies and choices in the design of social

research. Contemporary Social Research Series (13). London: Allen and Unwin.

Halpren, D. (1996). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Hansen, S. W. (1991). Visions of strategic thinking. In J. Nase (Ed.), Arenas of strategic

thinking. Helsinki: Foundation for Economic Education.

Hardy, C., Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., & Rose, R. (1983). Strategy formation in the

university setting. The Review of Higher Education 6(4), 407-433.

Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1991) Strategic management: An integrative perspective.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

227

Heracleous, L. (1998). Strategic thinking or strategic planning. Long Range Planning

31(3), 481-487.

Heracleous, L. (2003). Strategy and organization: Realizing strategic management. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Heese-Biber, S. & Dupuis, P. (2000) Testing hypothesis on qualitative data: The use of

HyperRESEARCH computer-assisted software. Social Science Computer Review,

18(3), 320-328.

Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York, NY:

Helix Books.

Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence from chaos to order. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Hussey, D. (2001). Creative strategic thinking and the analytical process: Critical factors

for strategic success. Strategic Change, 10(4), 201-213.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Balogun, J. (2009). The practice and process of delivering

integration through strategic planning. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8),

1255-1288.

Johnson, G. (1992). Managing strategic change - strategy, culture and action. Long Range

Planning, 25(1), 28-36.

Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review

(July – August), 65-75.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into

tangible outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-

organization and complexity. New York, NY: Oxford Press.

228

Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating change in higher education in the 21st

Century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher

Education Report 28(4), 1-177. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the

learning organization. New Directions for Higher Education, 131(Fall), 7–22.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2004, July/August). Meeting today’s governance

challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future

agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education,75(4), 371-399.

Kiechel, W. (2010). The lords of strategy: The secret intellectual history of the

new corporate world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create

uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Kotler, P., & Murphy, P. (1981). Strategic planning for higher education. The

Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 470-489.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B (1993). The credibility factor. The Healthcare Forum,

36(4), 16-21.

Kutschera, I., & Ryan, M. (2009, Summer). Implications of intuition for strategic

thinking: Practical recommendations for gut thinkers. SAM Management

Journal, 12-20.

229

Liedtka, J. (1998a). Strategic thinking: Can it be taught? Long Range Planning,

31(1),120-129.

Liedtka, J. M. (1998b). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategy and

Leadership, 26(4), 30-35.

Magrath, C.P. (1996, January, 30). Statement on Kellogg Commission of the future of

state and land-grant universities. Washington, DC: National Association of State

Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

Masifern, E. & Vila, J. (2002). Strategic thinking: Strategy as shared framework in the

mind of managers. IESE Research Papers No 461. Barcelona, Spain: University

of Navarra.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mintzberg, H. (1994a). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business

Review. 107-114.

Mintzberg, H. (1994b). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York, NY: The Free

Press.

Mintzberg, H. (1994c). Rethinking strategic planning part1: Pitfalls and fallacies. Long

Range Planning, 27(3), 12-21.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour

through the wilds of strategic management. New York, NY: The Free Press.

230

Mintzberg, H., & Rose, J. (2003). Strategic management upside down: Tracking strategies

at McGill University from 1829 to 1980. Canadian Journal of Administrative

Sciences 20(4), 270-290.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.

Morrill, R. (2007). Strategic leadership: Integrating strategy and leadership in colleges

and universities. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.

Morrissey, G. L. (1996). A guide to strategic thinking: Building your planning foundation.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Mortenson, T. G. (2004, January). Postsecondary education opportunity. (No.139).

Oskaloosa, IA: Mortenson Research Seminar on Public Policy Analysis of

Opportunity for Postsecondary Education.

Newman, F. Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004, October). Higher education isn’t meeting

the public’s needs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(8), B6.

Ocascio, W., & Joseph, J. (2008). Rise and fall – or transformation? The evolution of

strategic planning at the General Electric Company, 1940 – 2006. Long Range

Planning, 41(3), 248-272.

O'Shannassy, T. (2003). Modern Strategic management: Balancing strategic thinking and

strategic planning for internal and external stakeholders. Singapore Management

Review, 25(1), 53-67.

Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s

best-run companies. New York, NY: Warner Books.

231

Pang, N.S. & Pisapia, J. (in press). The strategic thinking skills of Hong Kong school

leaders: Usage and effectiveness. Educational Management, Administration, and

Leadership.

Pisapia, J. (2006). Mastering change in a globalizing world: New directions in leadership

(Education Policy Studies Series No. 61). The Hong Kong Institute of

Educational Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader. Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishers.

Pisapia, J., Reyes-Guerra, D., & Coukos-Semmel, E. (2005). Developing a strategic

mindset: Constructing the measures. Leadership Review, 5(1),41-68. Retrieved

from http://www.leadershipreview.org/2005spring/article2_spring_2005.asp

Pisapia, J., & Robinson, D. J. (2010, March). Transforming the academy: Strategic

Thinking and/or strategic planning. Paper presented at the American Institute of

Higher Education Conference, Williamsburg, VA.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and

competitors. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Porter, M. (2008, January). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard

Business Review, 79 – 93.

Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1989, May/June). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review.

63 – 76.

Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new

paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5-16.

232

Raimond, P. (1996). Two styles of foresight: Are we predicting the future or inventing it?

Long Range Planning 29(2), 208-214.

Robbins, S.P. & Coulter, M. (2002). Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Roberts, E. B. (1987). Generating Technological Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around

emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 137-150.

Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory u: Leading from the edge as it emerges. The social

technology of presencing. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Schein, E. H. (1993). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass, Inc.

Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems:

Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 351-365. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New

York, NY: Basic Books.

Shoup, J., & Studer, S. (2010). Leveraging chaos: The mysteries of leadership and policy

revealed. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Education.

Selingo, J. (2003). The disappearing state in public higher education. The Chronicle of

Higher Education. A25.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.

233

Shipengrover, . A. (1996). If it doesn’t embrace chaos, can it be called a strategic plan?

CUPA Journal, 47(2), 1-6.

Sirkin, H., Keenan, P., Jackson, A., Kotter, J., Beer, M., Nohria, N., & Duck, J.

(2005). Lead change - successfully, (3rd

ed.). Cambridge, MA: HBR

Article Collection.

Snyder, K. J., Acker-Hocevar, M., & Snyder, K. M. (2008). Living on the edge of

chaos: Leading schools into the global age. (2nd

ed.). Quality Press.

Stacey, R. (2007). Strategic management and organizational dynamics (5th

ed.).

Prentice-Hall.

Thakur, M., & Calingo, L. M. (1992). Strategic thinking is hip, but does it make a

difference? Business Horizons 35(5), 47-54.

Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the

essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.

Tosey, P. (2002, May). Teaching on the edge of chaos: Complexity theory, learning

systems and the idea of enhancement. Paper presented at University of Surrey,

Guildford, Surrey, UK.

Tregoe, B.B., & Zimmerman, J. W. (1980). Top management strategy: What it is and

how to make it work. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. (2007). Degree-

Granting institutions, by control and type of institution: Selected years, 1949–50

through 2006-07. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/

tables/dt07_255.asp

234

Vil , J., & Canales, J. I. (2008). Can strategic planning make strategy more relevant and

build commitment over time? The case of RACC. Long Range Planning, 41, 273-

290.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. The

Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407-426.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1974). Decision making as a social process. Decision

Sciences, (5), 743-755.

Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down

memory lane. Organizational Science, 6(3), 260-321.

Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.