-
TRANSFORMING THE ACADEMY: STRATEGIC THINKING AND/OR
STRATEGIC PLANNING?
JOHN PISAPIA
Florida Atlantic University
Building #47
777 Glades Road
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
[email protected]
Corresponding Author 561/297-3556
DEBORAH J. ROBINSON
Florida Atlantic University
Building #47
777 Glades Road
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
[email protected]
Presented at the American Institute of Higher Education -
4th
International
Conference March 17-19, 2010, Williamsburg Virginia, USA
-
I sometimes feel like Im behind the wheel of a race car ... One
of the biggest challenges is that there are no road signs to help
navigate. And, in fact, no one has yet determined which side of the
road were supposed to be on.
Stephen M. Case , C hairm an, A O L Tim e W ar ner
Transforming the Academy: Strategic Thinking and/or Strategic
Planning?
ABSTRACT
Higher education is experiencing environmental disruptions that
challenge todays leaders and the academy itself to become more
agile. This paper shares the application of the strategic thinking
protocol (STP) which illustrates a new way of planning called
strategic thinking to deal with external pressures for change. To
organize our argument we borrow the strategic thinking protocol
developed by the lead author. The STP is grounded in a social
cognition model of change but recognizes components of the
political and cultural models. The STP framework uses core
capabilities of strategic thinking skills, strategic sensitivity,
value specification, strategic conversations, minimum
specifications, chunking change and strategic fitness to develop
the actionable plan referred to as a statement of strategic intent
in a department of educational leadership and a college of
education and compares the results to a traditional strategic
planning effort used at the university level.
Key words: change, strategic planning, strategic thinking,
agility, anticipating, articulating, statement of intent. 2 tables,
1 figure, 25 references The object of planning is change. Planning
is a process in which long term goals are
transformed into short term tasks and objectives. The planning
process seeks to answer
four familiar questions: What do we do? Where do we stand? Where
do we want to go?
How do we get there?
In traditional strategic planning, answering these questions is
heavily dependent on data,
data analysis and operations research techniques such as SWOT
analysis and scenario
planning. Its 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. After all who
doesnt want to see the future, find new possibilities and
recognize threats that
facilitate or hinder our search for success, and then establish
and seek to position the
organization in terms of its environment through a series of
cascading goals and
objectives? Unfortunately, it has been estimated that between
70-90% of all change
efforts fail (Axelrod, Axelrod, Jacobs, Beedon, 2006; Covey,
2004; Kaplan & Norton,
2004; Sirkin, Keenan, Jackson, Kotter, Beer, Nohria, & Duck,
2005). Although change is
unavoidable, planned change does not appear to be so.
Strategic planning worked well in the pre-digital world where
formal structures held
organizations together. There is also agreement that it works
less well in todays more
dynamic environments where values, culture, commitment to the
common good of the
organization are the glue that holds organizations together
(Baldridge, 1983; Birnbaum,
2000; Boon, 2001; Chussil, 2005; Mintzberg, 1994; Robbins &
Coulter, 2002; Stacey 2007;
Shipengrover, 1996).
When strategic planning techniques are implemented in a
mechanistic organization with
high levels of certainty and agreement they work well. So why
doesnt it work in times
of uncertainty and ambiguity? More specifically why doesnt work
well in higher
education?
Birnbaum (1991) and Kezar (2001) 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 - image as opposed to
bottom line performance
measures - which make them difficult to change. In addition to
organizational features,
Pisapia (2006) suggests that failure in part 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). Kezar (n.d., p.6) adds that failure as seen
from the research of Eckel
and Kezar (2003), Gioia and Thomas (1996), Schn (1983), and
Weick (1995) is also in
part due to the fact that people fundamentally do not understand
the proposed
change and need to undergo a learning process in order to
successfully enact the
change.
While organizational, leader, and learning features are
important facilitators or barriers,
essentially, the reason strategic planning works less well today
is 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.
Problem and Purpose
Higher education institutions are not mechanistic organizations.
Today, higher
education institutions are challenged by changes in fiscal
pressures, technology
explosions, internationalism, student and community
demographics, faculty roles to
meet the needs of communities and the people who live in them
and serve public
purposes. When the gap between the interests of the Academy and
the interest of
society widens their legitimacy is questioned (Boyer, 1994;
Ghosal, Bartlett, & Morgan,
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 the Academy has
tightened enrollments, raised tuition, and negotiated new
relationships with their states
to become quasi-private institutions (Mortenson, 2004; Selingo,
2003). The argument
advanced for funding declines is that colleges and universities
are not meeting the
publics needs. Scholars suggest that serving society is a
compelling obligation, yet the
gap is growing between what society needs and what higher
education currently
provides (Cherwitz, 2005; Newman, Couturier, & Scurry,
2004).
-
Universities that are more dependent on state funding must
change to reconcile this
perceived gap. Even those who wish to remain independent must
change to garner
more resources. So change is inevitable, but success is not. The
problem confronting the
Academy 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
(Walshok, 1995).
This paper provides a model of change that meets the unique
organizational features of
higher education institutions. The paper first describes the
difference between strategic
planning and strategic thinking, and then describes an
intervention - the strategic
thinking protocol - to guide higher education change. Finally it
presents the expected
findings from two case studies [Department of Educational
Leadership, College of
Education], of applications of the protocol at Florida Atlantic
University. The results of
these cases will then be compared to the results of a
traditional strategic planning
process utilized at the University level.
Theoretical Framework
Just as there is clarity on the challenges facing higher
education institutions there is also
clarity on the critical nature of strategic thinking rather than
strategic planning to an
organizations success (Bonn, 2001). Strategic thinking, which is
often intertwined with
strategic management and strategic planning in the literature,
has been offered as the
new planning organizer for dynamic organizations including
universities.
Bonn, (2001), Graetz (2002), Liedtka (1998), and Mintzberg
(1994), are among many
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 (1994) for example, noted that thinking strategically
is distinct from
conventional conceptions of planning. Analysis which is the
hallmark of planning
-
involves a need for logic, reasoning, linear and rational
thinking. It involves being able to
manipulate words and numbers. Strategic thinking, on the other
hand, places a
premium on synthesis and integration and requires the ability to
examine new
possibilities dealing with large chunks of information, and the
ability to pull pieces
together into a big picture. It involves being able to recognize
patterns and visual images.
In strategic thinking not only are the data sources different
but the analysis of the data
is different than strategic planning.
What exactly is strategic thinking? How does it differ from
strategic planning and/or
strategic management? Strategic thinking is the ability to
analyze influencing factors
inside and outside the organization, to discover strategic
direction that should guide the
organizations decision-making and resource allocation for a
period of 3-5 years.
Leidtkas (1998) taxonomy offers an overview on 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
provides an overview of these differentiations.
-
There is growing agreement that strategic thinking and strategic
planning are
interrelated and both are necessary for effective change to
occur (Heracleos, 1998;
Hussey, 2001; Liedtka, 1998). 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 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. 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. (Lawrence, 1999,
p.13)
There is little clear agreement on the core elements related to
strategic thinking.
Several proposals have been put forth. All agree that the
activity results in a plan
commonly referred to by strategic thinkers as a statement of
intent (see Hamel &
Prahalad (1994). Liedtkas elements include system 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 understanding of the competencies it
contains." O'Shannassy (2003)
proposed a model for what he called the 'Modern Strategic
Management Process' in
which strategic thinking is the starting point. He said:
"...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 said "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) Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra and Coukos-Semmel,
(2005) break the term
down into teachable concepts. They suggest that strategic
thinking involves being able
to utilize systems thinking, reflection, and reframing skills.
They conceived these skills as
interrelated and complementary thought processes that sustain
and support one
another. They theorized that when they are used in tandem,
leaders are better able to
maneuver through complex environments. In later work, Pisapia
(2009) identified
individual strategic thinking skills, strategic sensitivity,
strategic conversations, minimum
specifications, chunking change, and strategic fitness as the
core elements of the
strategic thinking protocol which he teased out of the six
habits he associates with
strategic leadership.
-
The intervention
In dynamic environments, leaders and managers at every key
intersection of the
organization must be able to work in a strategic way! Pisapias
point of view is that
working in a strategic way means developing and executing an
actionable strategy
(Pisapia & Pang, 2009). He suggests that what works in
dynamic times is the leaders
ability to accomplish four tasks: (a) anticipating changes,
challenges and opportunities
in internal and external environments, (b) creating and
articulating common values and
direction in a generative/minimum specifications manner, (c)
establishing the social
capital necessary to mobilize actions, and (d) building the
capacity of their organizations
by anchoring the learning in engaged, self managed
followers/teams. He offers the
strategic thinking protocol to develop an actionable strategy
and the strategic execution
protocol to create the social capital and build organizational
capacity. This paper utilizes
the portion of his model that deals with strategic thinking.
The protocol, as constructed, results from the interplay of
three strategic habits: agility
of the mind, anticipating the future, and articulating a
direction. It joins agility with
anticipating and articulating to pursue two tasks: (a)
anticipating changes, challenges
and opportunities in 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 successful
strategy is one that meets the characteristics of the
organizations environment and its
internal resources.
As seen in Figure 1 agility is the core competency that drives
the protocol features of
anticipating and articulating. Agility refers to the ability of
participants to use three
strategic thinking skills: systems thinking, reframing and
reflection in ways that
combines rational knowledge with intuition, and promotes
individual and organizational
self-discovery, and open mindedness. The result of using these
skills is a mindset that
guides thinking and is successful in interpreting environmental
forces and identifying
strategic initiatives.
-
Anticipating involves the development of strategic sensitivity
to signals from the
organizations internal and external environment by continually
reading both objective
and subjective data provided by the environments. The key tools
of anticipating are
looking, listening, and learning - analysis and intuition -
asking the right questions.
Articulating involves dialoguing, integrating, distancing to
gain perspective, seeing things
from different perspectives which allow time and information for
reframing - gaining
new perspectives and identifying new alternatives - unifying as
leadership and members
understand and trust each other. The key tools are surfacing and
sharing assumptions,
understandings and passions through strategic conversations
which break the pattern of
debate, strength of one input perspective.
The strategic thinking protocol is grounded in a social
cognition model of change that
seeks to alter mental models by using a generative strategy -
multiple interpretations -
strategic conversations - consensus shaping - navigating. This
model reflects the most
recent paradigm shift in leadership thinking which considers how
ideas, thoughts and
mental representations develop and are used by leaders to make a
mental connection
between the leader and follower (Gardner, 1995; Senge, 1990).
This cognitive approach
focuses on affecting change in an organizations beliefs, values
and direction by
engaging members in sensemaking processes. The mental
connections it seeks form the
foundation for enhanced performance and continuous
organizational learning.
-
The protocol also recognizes components of the political model
of change - persuasion,
informal negotiation, mediation, and coalition-building.
Remnants of the cultural model
of change - symbolism - tradition - rituals - are also evident
as the process moves along
(see Eckel & Kezar, 2003 & Kezar, 2001 for full
descriptions of these change models). As
the protocol proceeds through its paces a collective
understanding of the issues and
future possibilities emerge and are codified in a statement of
strategic intent. As Doz &
Kosonen (2009) suggest, what matters is that a collective
commitment and bonding to
the outcome of the decision process emerges from the
protocol.
The protocol
The strategic thinking protocol outlines a process to follow to
develop a statement of
strategic intent. The Statement of Strategic Intent establishes
the mission and aspiration
for the organization to work toward. When properly crafted, the
one page statement of
strategic intent [front and back] serves as an orienting device
that articulates the Intent
and provides a sustaining direction around which organizational
members [hereafter,
members] can cohere. It does not focus on todays problems but on
tomorrows
opportunities. The statement of intent contains an aspiration,
or hope, for what the
organization wants to become. It also contains the blueprint for
organizational behavior,
and the initiatives that will move the organization toward their
aspiration.
The strategic thinking protocol is guided by a committee [each
committee adopts its
unique name: the New Directions Task Force, the steering
committee - the navigating
team - the guiding coalition]. This nucleus of senior faculty
and administrators with
credibility guide the process, sort the input, search for clues
that its time to adapt and
what that adaptation should look like. Its important to place
key opinion leaders on the
committee. As Burton Clark (1972) suggested, in higher education
these opinion leaders
are senior faculty whose support and participation is necessary
if change is to occur. He
says, A single leader . . . can initiate the change, but the
organizational idea will not be
expanded over the years and expressed in performance unless
ranking and powerful
members of the faculty become committed to it and remain
committed even after the
initiator is gone (p. 177). The charge to this committee is to
reviews data, participate
and observe conversations and interviews, develop interview
summaries, and draft
statements for the full community to review and provide input
on. The committee
-
receives the input and notes items that need adjustment (if
any), discusses the changes
and redrafts reports to the full membership. The product of the
committees work is the
statement of strategic intent. Essentially, they dialogue,
listen, learn, and craft in an
iterative process until agreement is reached.
A key understanding is that all members receive the same
information as the committee.
The purpose here is to be transparent so all members understand
the problems faced
and can participate in crafting the direction that will be
taken. The information is
processed in the following way.
Step 1 Quantitative and qualitative data are gathered from the
internal and external
environment. The quantitative data comes from the official
University Database upon
which decisions are being made. The qualitative data is gathered
through interviews of
individuals outside the College; summaries are prepared and
shared with all members.
[The following skill is needed - ability to use analytical
techniques to evaluate and
synthesize data from multiple sources].
Step 2 A series of 5 strategic conversations following a listen
dialogue learn -
sequence are held with all members participating.
Strategic Conversation #1 - What do others expect us to do?
Strategic Conversation #2 What do we expect of ourselves?
Strategic Conversation #3 What are we in business to
accomplish?
Strategic Conversation #4 - What do we aspire to become?
Strategic Conversation #5 - What do we need to do to move toward
our
aspiration?
Step 3 At the end of each conversation, the committee makes
strategic choices as to
where the investment of time and money will return the best
payoff on a college wide
basis then presents draft statements for full member review
until consensus on each
item mission aspiration core values initiatives has been
achieved. [Aspiration
should be compelling and measurable.]
-
Step 4 When the Statement of Strategic Intent is adopted by the
organization as
policy, it must then be implemented so that it is a living
document that guides the
organization toward its aspiration. At this time, the committee
is disbanded and the
protocol enters into the strategic planning phase implementing
teams are structured
around each priority it is this teams responsibility to flesh
out the priority and create a
concrete response, and then execute it.
Step 5 - The planning phase is guided by a quality committee
[composed of different
members than the strategic thinking committee]. The quality
committee is charged with
developing a report card to continuously review the
implementation of the approved
Statement of Intent. The quality committee uses this report card
as a management tool
to ensure that the Intent is implemented in a timely
fashion.
The protocol results in a shared statement of strategic intent
[an actionable plan] which
is central to developing a high performing organization. It sets
the direction. It describes
the clear concrete target. It describes the values that the
organization will gauge itself
up against. It identifies the initiatives that will move the
organization along its path to
high performance. And, it does all this on one page front and
back. It is not meant to
rest on top of a book self. It forms a psychological contract
with followers and guides
the organization's actions. It is meant to be a living guiding
statement for the
organization/team that creates a new reality for a while. In
time all strategy decays and
must be recreated. It is suggested that the initiatives found in
a statement of intent
should be viable for a 3-5 year period.
Method
The study employed a qualitative multiple case study design to
conduct this exploratory
research. Creswell (2003) said about the qualitative approach
"is one in which the
inquirer often makes knowledge claims based primarily on
constructivist perspectives,
or advocacy/participatory perspectives, or both. . . The
researcher collects open-
ended, emerging data with the primary intent of developing
themes from the data" (p.
18).
The rationale for the qualitative approach to this research is
that the elements of
strategic thinking (from an empirical perspective) have not been
studied before. We
-
have chosen a Type 3 design, that Yin (2003) calls "holistic
multiple-case." A holistic
multiple-case study refers to a research with more than one case
study but, with only
one unit of analysis. Multiple cases were examined because they
provide more
evidence than a single case and add confidence to the findings
(Hakim, 1987; Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003). These data provided for the
convergence of multiple
sources of evidence in a process of triangulation (Eisenhardt,
1989; Yin, 2003).
The unit of analysis was the department, college and universitys
use of strategic
thinking and/or strategic planning. Three cases studies were
drawn from one higher
education institution. The strategic thinking protocol was
applied to a university
department and college. The third case is the use of the
strategic planning process
employed at the University level. Interviews, observations,
open-ended questions,
and document review were used to collect the data. However, in
depth interviews
were the main method used. The interviews were transcribed.
Observations were
written in the form of summaries. Documents used in the thinking
and planning
processes were examined. The three in-depth cases were used to
deduce theory from
practice by exploring the use of strategic thinking elements:
strategic sensitivity, value
specification, strategic conversations, strategic fitness,
minimum specifications,
chunking change were used during the application of the protocol
and how those
elements would facilitate the development of a strategically fit
statement of intent.
Expected Results
The University case which used the traditional strategic
planning method was
completed in 2008. 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 external consultants and
followed the traditional,
political model and cultural models of change. Little attempt
was made to change
mental models or utilize multiple perspectives of those affected
by the plan. Values
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.
-
The administrative staff and board of trustees were satisfied
with the outcome of
planning.
The Department case which used the strategic thinking protocol
was completed in
December 2009. The College case which also used the strategic
thinking protocol was
begun in January 2010 so data from that analysis are not
available. Analysis is ongoing,
therefore only preliminary expected findings from the two cases
available at this time.
These findings are recorded on Table 2.
The strategic thinking protocol resulted in a two page plan that
was strong on
identifying core values to portray the expectations of the unit
which was used to set
internal behavioral standards and evaluate the expectations
external stakeholders had
of the unit. Transparency and participation was achieved by all
members getting the
same information through focus group type interviews and data
days, and conversations
focused on feedback and adjustment of ideas by the coordinating
committee. The
resulting plan produced 5 initiatives to focus unit work to
achieve its aspiration.
Planning teams convened around each of the 5 initiatives to
pursue them. A project
management score card was employed to review implementation and
record results.
The faculty and administrators were satisfied with the outcome
of planning and the
process that was used to incorporate their views into the
document.
-
Importance
The study is important for several reasons. Foremost, any
attempt to embed strategic
thinking within an organization processes is stymied by the lack
of a working model of
strategic thinking (Amitabh & Sahay, 2008, p.7; Masifern,
& Vila, 2002 p. 4). This paper
outlines a potentially 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.
From a research point of view, the strategic thinking elements
involved in creating a
strategic direction has not been addressed thoroughly in the
literature. Though there
is a multitude of literature on the necessity of strategic
thinking within the business
world and in large multi-national corporations, little if any
literature focuses on whether
or not these all-important skills are being incorporated into
our higher education
leadership practice.
-
From an organizational point of view, this protocol, when
properly applied, should help
higher education leaders create a collective mindset that makes
sense of complexities
facing the organization. It also enables the organizational unit
to identify, predict,
respond and adapt to non-linear change opportunities and
challenges stemming from its
environment.
Finally, this study is considered foundational because it
specifies the elements of a new
planning technology and describes its use in a higher education
setting. Additional
studies need to be carried out in other nonprofit and for profit
settings to determine if
strategic thinking or strategic planning has the greatest impact
on individual and
organizational performance. From these studies, it is hoped that
professional
development modules can be developed and databases created in
order to further the
effective use of the elements of the strategic thinking
protocol.
References
Amitabh, M. & Sahay, A. (2008, May). Strategic thinking: Is
leadership the missing link.
Presented at the 11th Annual Convention of the Strategic
Management Forum,
Kanpur, India.
Axelrod, R., Axelrod, E., Jacobs, J., & Beedon, J. (2006).
Beat the odds and succeed in
organizational change. Consulting to Management, 17 ( 2).
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, Calif.: McCutchan.
Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of
academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where
they come from,
what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bonn, I. (2001). Developing strategic thinking as a core
competence. Management
Decision, 39 (1), 63-70.
Bonn, I. (2005). Improving strategic thinking: A multilevel
approach. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 26 (5), 336-354.
-
Boyer, E. (1994, March 9). Creating the new American college.
The Chronicle of Higher
Education, A48.
Cherwitz, R., (2005). A new social compact demands real change:
Connecting the university to the community. Change, 5(24),
48-49.
Chussil, M. (2005). With all this Intelligence, why dont we have
better strategies?
Journal of Business Strategy, 26(1), 26-33.
Clark, B. (1972) . The organizational saga in higher education.
Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17(2), 178-184.
Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to
greatness. New York: Free Press
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Doz, Y. & Kosonen, M. (2009). Embedding strategic agility.
Long Range Planning.
Eckel, P. & Kezar, A. (2003). Key strategies for making new
institutional sense:
Ingredients to higher education transformation. Higher Education
Policy, 16(1),
39-53.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study
research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Ghoshal, S., Bartlett, C. & Moran, P. (Spring 1999). A new
manifesto for management.
Sloan Management Review, 920.
Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New
York: Harper Collins.
Gioia, D. & Thomas, J. (1996). Identity, image and issue
interpretation: Sensemaking
during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 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.
Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. (1994 May-June). Strategy intent.
Harvard Business Review, 63-
76.
Heracleous, L. (1998). Strategic thinking or strategic planning.
Long Range Planning, 31,
(3), 481-487.
-
Hurwitz, R. (2005). A new social compact demands real change:
Connecting the
university to the community. Change, 5(24), 48-49.
Hussey, D. (2001). Creative strategic thinking, and the
analytical process: Critical factors
for strategic success. Strategic Change, 10(4), 201-213.
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting
intangible assets into tangible
outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kezar, A. (n.d.). Synthesis of scholarship on changes in higher
education. Retrieved from
http://mobilizingstem.wceruw.org/documents/Synthesis%20of%20Scholarship
%20on%20Change%20in%20HE.pdf.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating change in
higher education in the 21st
century. Washington D.C.: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Reports.
Lawrence, E. (1999). Strategic thinking: A discussion paper.
Canada: Public
Service Commission of Canada.
Liedtka, J.M. (1998). Linking strategic thinking with strategic
planning. Strategy and
Leadership, 26(4), 30-35.
Magrath, C. P. (1996, January 30). Statement on the Kellogg
Commission on 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.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mintzberg, Henry (1994). The rise and fall of strategic
planning: Reconceiving the roles
for planning, plans, planners. New York: Free Press.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy
safari: A guided tour through the
wilds of strategic management. New York: Free Press.
Mortenson, T. (2004, January). Postsecondary Education
OPPORTUNITY. (No. 139).
Oskaloosa, IA: Mortenson Research Seminar on Public Policy
Analysis of
Opportunity for Postsecondary Education.
Neustadt, R. & May, E. (1986). Thinking in time: The uses of
history of decision makers.
New York: Free Press.
-
Newman, F. Couturier, L., & Scurry, J., (2004, October).
Higher Education Isnt meeting
the publics needs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(8),
B6.
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.
Pisapia, J. (2006). New direction for leadership. (Education
Policy Studies Series No.
61). Hong Kong: The Faculty of Education and the Hong Kong
Institute of
Educational Research. (Monograph).
Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader. New tactics in a
globalizing world.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Pisapia, J., & Pang, N. (2009 September 6). Rethinking
leadership: New tactics for a
globalizing world, Presented at the Global Forum on Leadership,
Istanbul Turkey.
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
Robbins, S.P. & Coulter, M. (2002). Management (7th ed.).
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Selingo, J. (2003, February 28). The disappearing state in
public higher education. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. A25.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline New York: Doubleday.
Shipengrover, J.A. (1996). Expecting excellence creating order
out of chaos in a school
district. New York: Corwin Press.
Sirkin, H., Keenan, P., Jackson, A., Kotter, J., Beer, M.,
Nohria, N. & Duck , J.
(2005). Lead change - successfully (3rd ed.). Cambridge: HBR
Article
Collection.
Stacey, R. (2007). Strategic management and organizational
dynamics (5th ed.).
New York: Prentice-Hall.
Walshok, M. (1995). Knowledge without boundaries: What Americas
research
universities can do for the economy, the workplace, and the
community. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.