TRANSFORMING THE ACADEMY: STRATEGIC THINKING AND/OR

STRATEGIC PLANNING?

JOHN PISAPIA

Florida Atlantic University

Building #47

777 Glades Road

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

jpisapia@fau.edu

Corresponding Author 561/297-3556

DEBORAH J. ROBINSON

Florida Atlantic University

Building #47

777 Glades Road

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

drobin1@fau.edu

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.