Summary and overview of three approaches to strategic planning for higher education.

1. STRATEGIC
PROCESSES
In Higher Education
By Jeffrey Stanton, Syracuse
University

2. OVERVIEW
External pressures have created extreme challenges for colleges
and universities across the United States. Changing demographics,
decreasing support for public universities, and increasing debt load
for students have brought these challenges into the public eye. For
these and related reasons, it is important for universities to articulate
clear and compelling institutional priorities and corresponding
strategic processes with the buy-in of many, varied stakeholders.
The following slides review some of the key concepts in strategy for
higher education described by Michael Dolence, Ellen Chaffee,
Richard Morrill, and others.

3. STRATEGY IS LEADERSHIP
Strategy lies at the core of leadership. The scope and time scale of
strategy requires that processes be driven by a vision – a vision that
is not imposed from the top down, but rather that reflects the values
and principles of many constituencies. In higher education, the
sheer number of such constituencies, including students, faculty,
parents, alumni, legislators, staff members, accreditors, members of
the local community, and others, requires university leaders to
balance a complex range of conflicting demands and priorities.
Hearing, understanding, and reconciling these conflicts is the heart
of strategy and the heart of leadership. Strategy supersedes normal
planning processes associated with budgets, enrollments, facilities,
and hiring in order to provide a higher order framework for
understanding the present and influencing the future.

4. PREPARING FOR PLANNING
Strategic planning arose from within business and the military; these
associations continue to raise suspicion among some university
constituencies. Although strategic planning for higher education has
served as a topic of discussion and a model for action over more
than 30 years, the terminology and methods used may still elicit
disfavor. Many valid criticisms of strategic planning focus on the
difficulty of predicting future conditions, the substantial immutability
of organizational culture, the power of external constraints, and
notable historical failures of strategic planning. In the academy,
treating strategy as a form of emergent organizational learning may
mitigate these concerns. From this viewpoint, Henry Mintzberg saw
strategy as a process more concerned with discovery than invention:
understanding, with the help of analysis and intuition, what is most
promising in current organizational practices.

5. PLANNING PROCESSES
Many strategic planning methods are depicted as linear processes
bearing superficial similarity to conventional research methods –
collect data, interpret data, report results, draw conclusions. In fact,
it may be more typical for strategy to involve iterations around ideas
and information that gradually become more and more refined.
Internal and external environmental scans do inform the strategic
planning process but do not dictate outcomes. Effective leaders use
the driving conditions of the internal and external environment to
energize discussions among stakeholders. When planning is
successful, these dialogs gradually align onto positive practices and
priorities that leaders amplify and support within the university’s
constituencies.

6. 3 STRATEGY MODELS
A review of the strategy literature in higher education reveals at least
three conceptual approaches to strategy, each rooted in different
assumptions. The linear strategy takes an industrial approach to
planning by scanning the competitive environment, devising ideas
for future activities, and pursuing implementation of those ideas. The
adaptive strategy follows a biological metaphor and prescribes
continuous cycles of change to match the demands of the changing
environment. The interpretive strategy casts the organization as a
network of social actors whose interests may align to the mutual
benefit of the institution and the individual. In the following slides,
details of each approach illuminate their respective concepts,
stances, and methods.

7. LINEAR STRATEGY (DOLENCE)
1. Process begins by choosing and operationalizing key markers of
effective organizational performance
2. Environmental scans focus on the external environment
(opportunities and threats) and the internal environment (strengths
and weaknesses)
3. The core of planning is brainstorming and analysis of ideas that
capitalize on strengths to exploit opportunities and that mitigate
weaknesses to avoid threats
4. Leaders synthesize these ideas into objectives and high level
methods of pursuing those objectives; analysts consider how
methods and objectives may influence key markers of performance
5. A normal operations phase includes implementation of methods
and monitoring progress towards objectives

8. ADAPTIVE STRATEGY (MILES)
1. Process is continuous and ongoing, rather than episodic and
periodic
2. A cycle of adaptation contains overlapping entrepreneurial
activities, implementation activities, and administrative activities
1. Entrepreneurship focuses on identifying and putting footholds in areas of
potential opportunity; environmental scanning is an intrinsic part of this
process; small scale experimentation and failure are expected and
appropriate
2. Implementation phase scales entrepreneurial activities into normal
operations through investments in talent and infrastructure
3. Administration rationalizes and refactors normal operations to cope with
growth and gain efficiencies; may uncover new entrepreneurial
opportunities
3. Organizational change occurs organically and is characterized
as a process of “matching” the challenges and opportunities
present in the environment

9. INTERPRETIVE STRATEGY
(CHAFFEE)
1. Focuses on organizational culture and its influence on the
motivation of individuals. Assumes that the organization is a
network of self-interested actors whose motives are based on
perceptions of the organization.
2. Overall goal is to establish mutually beneficial social contracts with
members of constituencies who contribute to the organization’s
success.
3. Environmental scanning focuses on understanding the socially
constructed reality of different functional groups.
4. Leaders construct symbols by means of actions and
communications; symbols influence interpretation of organizational
reality by members.
5. Successful symbols increase the coherency of perceived
organizational reality and motivate members to align their actions
favorably with this coherent vision.

10. THE 3 MODELS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
The 3 models represent “pure” philosophical positions; real strategic
planning activities inevitably contain some measure of each
philosophy. Each position has pitfalls: Linear strategy may be seen
as too corporate and/or top down. Adaptive strategy may be seen as
too ad hoc. Interpretive strategy may be seen as too diffuse and
indirect. Each position has benefits: Linear strategy imposes
structure, favors goal-focused action, and provides metrics for
success. Adaptive strategy copes with the high uncertainty of the
contemporary environment of higher education and distributes risk
across activities. Interpretive strategy aligns the mission of the
university with the goals of its powerful constituencies, such as
faculty, who may typically resist top-down planning methods.

11. STRATEGIC APPROACH AND
RESILIENCY
Chaffee conducted 14 case studies, half of colleges that made a
successful financial recovery following a decline, and half that did
not. All 14 undertook strategic activities that had close resemblance
to the adaptive model and that attempted to benefit from
environmental opportunities. The failing group focused exclusively
on exploiting these opportunities. The succeeding group selectively
exploited opportunities but also invested heavily in symbolic
communication that was oriented toward helping organizational
constituencies understand and orient themselves with respect to
organizational change. The resilient universities “self-tuned” their
cultures through symbolic communication in order to promote
adaptation to environmental challenges.

12. REFERENCES
Chaffee, E. E. (1984). Successful strategic management in
small private colleges. Journal of Higher Education 55, 212-239.
Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three models of strategy. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 89-98.
Driscoll, D. P. (2010). Higher Education Planning for a Strategic
Goal with a Concept Mapping Process at a Small Private College.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina,
Greensboro, NC.
Dolence, M. G., Rowley, D. J., & Lujan, H. D. (1997) Working
Toward Strategic Change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy,
structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Morrill, R. L. (2007). Strategic Leadership. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.