Transformng the Academy - Part 2: Integrating Vision

LEADING PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT TO BE LEDA WORKING PAPER 201

1

Strategic Thinking and Vision Integration in Universities1

John Pisapia2

Professor

Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology

Florida Atlantic University

Florida, USA

Tel: 561.297.3550 • Fax: 561.297.1069

Email: [email protected]

Deborah Robinson

Research Associate

Florida Atlantic University

Florida, USA

Tel: 561.297.3556 • Fax: 561.297.1069

1 Paper presented at The 31st SMS Annual International Conference, Miami, Florida November 6-9, 2011.2 Corresponding Author

Page 1 of 64

mailto:[email protected]


1

Leading people who don’t want to be led: Strategic thinking and vision integration in universities

ABSTRACTThis study explores strategic thinking efforts at a university in southeastern United States. The goal of this study was to determine if elements of strategic thinking used in university planning processes lead to plan integration into the commitments and work related activities of members. The study employed a case study approach through two distinct research perspectives: an “insider” who acted as a participant-observer and an “outsider” who conducted and codified interviews and documents.

Their findings were framed by two themes: characteristics and outcomes of strategic thinking. The characteristics are described through (a) structural components e.g., coordinating committees, data types used, and statement of intent, and (b) process components e.g., transparency, generative processes, and data analysis. The outcomes of strategic thinking are describe through changes in assumptions, beliefs, and activities of organizational members and participant perceptions of the success of strategic thinking.

The results indicate that strategic thinking through its structural and process components enabled organizational learning to occur through a process of convergence, emergence and co-creation. Plan integration was achieved into the attitudes and beliefs of most faculty and staff. Plan integration into the work activities of faculty and staff is an ongoing process with strong beginnings seen in the department case. Finally, strategic thinking can be an effective change model for higher education institutions and other organizations where members are proactive rather than passive.

Introduction

There is clear agreement that the idea of planning is good. After all who doesn’t

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.

There is also agreement that it works less well in today’s more dynamic

environments where values, culture, commitment to the common good of the

organization are the glue that holds organizations together (Baldridge, 1983; Birnbaum,

Page 2 of 64


1

2000; Bonn, 2001; Chussil, 2005; Mintzberg, 1994; 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?

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

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

events. When this thinking is applied to complex adaptive systems with dynamic

networks acting in parallel and reacting to what other entities are doing organizational

control is threatened (Holland, 1995). 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, 1994; Scharmer,

2009).

The Research Setting

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. 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

Page 3 of 64


1

“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. 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 this setting, change is inevitable, but success is not (Pisapia, 2009). This

conundrum has been explained by scholars in the field. Kezar (n.d., p.6), extracting

lessons from the research of Eckel and Kezar (2003), Gioia and Thomas (1996), Schön

(1983), and Weick (1995), attributes some of this lack of success 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.” From a strategic sense, 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 colleges and universities and their constituencies (Walsh, 1995).

Page 4 of 64


1

The Study Framework

The goal of this study was to determine if elements of strategic thinking used in

university planning processes lead to plan integration into the commitments and work

related activities of members. The primary questions guiding this investigation were:

What elements of the strategic thinking model were used and to what effect? Was plan

integration achieved? Did the process utilized create an effective model of change for the

university?

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

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

Thakur & Calingo, 1992). This study addresses these claims.

While there have been several attempts to develop description and prescriptive

models of strategic thinking found in the literature (Bonn, 2001; Leidtka, 1998; Pisapia &

Robinson, 2010), there are few empirical studies of the models, their elements and their

relationships with important outcomes. Specifically the elements and the link between

strategic thinking and vision integration have not been studied before.

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 provides the framework of a working

model that addresses the unique organizational and participant features of higher

Page 5 of 64


1

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

profit corporation and/or in more stable times.

Theoretical Framework

Three constructs framing this study: strategic planning, strategic thinking and plan

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

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

potential organizational responses to the processes used is provided to guide the

development of the study questions and methodology 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 & 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 leader’s use of the thinking skills to make sense of their environment such

Page 6 of 64


1

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

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

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

of thinking about strategy and strategic issues (Porter, 1980), more as state of mind rather

than a planning process (Hansen, 1991), an Eastern rather than Western way of thinking

(Raimond, (1996), and a process to resolve strategic issues (Ginsberg, 1994). Mintzberg

(1994) suggests that strategic thinking is a particular way of thinking with characteristics

of its own. Following his line of thought, our perspective is that strategic thinking is

concerned with identifying variation in the organization’s environment, extracting

meaning through synthesis which guides development of an organization’s aspiration,

core values and priorities. In this way, a perceived deficiency of traditional planning

models to impede creative thinking is muted.

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 shared framework that facilitates organizations adaptation to a

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

the organization. Creation of a shared strategy framework is an important outcome of

strategic thinking (Goia & Chittipeddi, 1991;Hansen, 1991; Hax & Majluf, 1991; Tregoe

& Zimmerman, 1980). As Tregoe and Zimmerman 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, 1994, p. 320).

Page 7 of 64


1

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 aligned with the

direction 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 overcoming the limitations of traditional planning models. 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. Given the

uncertainty found in current environments, there is general agreement on the critical

nature of strategic thinking rather than strategic planning to an organization’s success

(Bonn, 2001, 2005; Graetz, 2002; Heracleous, 1998).

Liedtka (1998) and Mintzberg (1994) 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 (1994), for

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

planning. Traditional planning models, he says, is an analytical process characterized by

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.

Page 8 of 64


1

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, 1998). As Jeanne Liedtka (1998), professor of

business at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business points out:

. . . the literature leaves one with a strong sense that strategic thinking is clearly

incompatible with strategic planning as we know it. Yet, we know 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).

Although seemingly interrelated, strategic thinking and strategic planning are still

seen as separate sequenced processes. Heracleous (2003) 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).

Page 9 of 64


1

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). In this vein, strategic thinking generates a picture of 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.

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

Several propositions have been put forth. However, all agree that the activity results in a

plan commonly referred to as a statement of intent. Liedtka (1998), O'Shannassy (2003),

and Bonn (2005) identified elements such as a systems perspective, focused intent,

creativity, thinking-in-time, hypothesis-driven, vision, synthesis as well as analysis, and

intelligent opportunism. These scholars would contend that strategic thinking has to be

formally managed through a deliberative process. Pisapia (2009) is one of few authors

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

Strategic Thinking Protocol© (STP) (a full description can be viewed in Pisapia &

Robinson, 2010) is grounded in a social cognition/political model of change which Eckel

and Kezar, (2003), and Kezar (2005) used to alter mental models and is the most

appropriate for higher education. It employs a generative strategy, multiple

interpretations, persuasion, informal negotiation, and coalition building to develop an

actionable strategy that frames the values and aspirations of the organization which are

Page 10 of 64


1

codified as a road map to its future. Pisapia’s protocol uses two key generative tools: (a)

strategically listening to the external and internal 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. Completion of the protocol results in a blueprint for organizational

behavior and initiatives that will move the organization towards its aspiration.

Plan Integration

Plan integration is the third construct framing this study. Following Doz and

Kososen (2009), a successful strategy is one that results in collective commitment and

bonding to the outcomes of the decision process that emerge from the strategic thinking

process. In this way collective commitment is the result of a combination of effective

intent with excellent execution. The basic premise is that organizations following the

strategic thinking model 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 couple organizations such as higher

education institutions.

In strategic thinking, generative processes are used to understand both internal

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

expected result is the creation of an integrated perspective of the organization and the

strategy it will use to move in this established direction. It is also expected that the use of

generative processes enables will be successful in changing the mental models of leaders

throughout the organization which guide the plan’s execution, and accelerate

Page 11 of 64


1

organizational and individual learning (De Gus, 1998; 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.”

This review of the theoretical literature yielded one proposition - the type of

strategic planning process used by the organization will impact faculty, staff and

administrative commitment, and the integration of strategic direction into their work

activities. It is expected that the use of a strategic thinking model of planning to formulate

strategy in higher education would create an effective model that envisions potential

futures, changes activities of the organization, creates 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.

Method

The goal of this study was to determine if elements of strategic thinking used in

university planning processes lead to plan integration into the commitments and work

related activities of members. The study employed a multiple case study approach

through two distinct research perspectives: an “insider” (Evered & Louis, 1981) who

acted as a participant-observer, and an “outsider” who conducted and codified interviews

and documents. The rationale for the qualitative approach to this research is that the

elements of strategic thinking have not been studied empirically before. Also it was felt

that the goal of the study could be addressed through a compare and contrast process

which multi-case design provides. “However, the most important advantage presented

Page 12 of 64


1

by using multiple sources of evidence is the development of converging lines of inquiry,

a process of triangulation and corroboration” (Yin, 2009,p. 115). The most important

advantage of the “insider” “outsider” perspectives is that they tend to reveal different

aspects of the phenomena under study. The “insider” view enabled a rich means by

which study participants constructed their argument, conversed, and came to decisions.

The “outsider” view annotates this lived experience but collects useful perspective data

unknown to the “insider.” This strategy resulted in both a narrative and theoretical

analysis which gives a balance view as well as insights to the dynamics of strategic

thinking.

Two cases studies were purposely drawn on conceptual grounds from one higher

education institution; Southeastern University (SU). Southeastern University (SU) was

a regional U.S.A. state institution designated a doctoral/research university, according

to the Carnegie Classification, serving more than 28,000 students (SU 2009-2010). A 3

year period 2008-2011 framed the study of strategic thinking/planning activities at a

department, and college level. The unit of analysis was the department of educational

leadership and research methodology (D), and a college of education (C) at SU. Strategic

thinking/planning was completed in these units in 2010 and 2011 respectfully.

Data was collected over a four month period from three sources: document

analysis, interviews, and observation. Direct observations by the “insider” in both cases

and the “outsider” in the College case were conducted during the timeline of this study to

gain insights into the process, topics, keywords and key concepts to identify elements of

strategic thinking in the planning process. Documents used and those created in the

Page 13 of 64


1

thinking and planning processes at each of the two levels were examined. Eighteen one

hour interviews with members of the coordinating committees of each of the two cases

following the same protocol were conducted by the “outsider” and digitally recorded with

each participant’s permission, transcribed and shared with the interviewees to allow them

the opportunity to make corrections, update their responses and comment on the

researcher’s results 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.

The constant comparison method which lies at the heart of a grounded theory

approach (Conrad, 1982; Strauss (1987) was used by the “insider” to create major

categories and themes. The “outsider” used a standardization of instruments and analysis

as recommended by Miles & Huberman (1994, p. 35). Standardization was achieved

through using the same interview protocol and same first-level codes across the two

cases. Data coding and analysis was a two-step process and was aided with the use of a

computer software program: HyperRESEARCH©. Only the coding, retrieval and

customized report functions of the software were used. A coding process was created

from the elements of strategic thinking framework guiding the study and tested and

refined in a pilot study of a state college which recently concluded a strategic planning

process. The open coding process resulted in 1083 pieces of data. The “outsider” data

was then processed through a second step of pattern identification and development of

thematic codes (Boyatzis, 1998).

Page 14 of 64


1

The “insider” and “outsider” then convened and compared coding systems.

Differences occurred mainly in summary labels. Agreement was reached on the themes

generated through the grounded and standardization approaches and the researchers

framed their findings through the following themes and components. The characteristics

of strategic thinking include (a) structural (coordinating committees, data types, and

statement of intent), and (b) process components (transparency, generative processes, and

synthesis). The outcomes of strategic thinking (changes in assumptions and beliefs,

activities, alignment and value added). Each with-in case finding was analyzed across the

two cases to identify any level of convergence of themes and findings. The result of this

protocol is that researcher will be able to develop strong and plausible arguments

supported by the data (Yin, 2009). Verbatim quotes are provided in the findings to help

readers determine the trustworthiness of findings and how the findings transfer to other

settings.

The Study Setting

The context surrounding universities has become windy in some places and

turbulent in others. This condition has cascaded down to some its departments and

colleges. Southeastern University’s College of Education and Department of Educational

Leadership and Research Methodology were impacted by external environmental factors

through reports and questions emanating at the political level questioning the value of the

product being produced in colleges of education in general. Many faculty in the college

of education felt these global attacks were not related to them specifically and they

believed their problems could be solved by a marketing campaign to tell the world the

Page 15 of 64


1

“truth about them.” Kotter (1996) would say there was no sense of urgency. The units

were also under pressure internally. The university in which they were housed was

responding to their own winds and hurricanes and shifting emphases and moving toward

a science, math, engineering and technology focus and a new medical college. These

directional changes by the university led to college wide reductions as every unfilled

position had to be justified to be kept in the college. So essentially they were impacted by

loss of internal funding and redistributing what new funds became available. Over the

past three years the college reacted to these losses by making horizontal budget cuts on

the philosophy everyone must feel the pain. In 2009 the department and in 2010 the

college decided to engage in a strategic thinking effort to stake out a direction that could

anchor themselves in the stormy conditions they faced. The chairman of the department

framed the move to strategic thinking this way,

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

convince them, I suggested that if he would lead the process…we would undergo

a strategic thinking and strategic intent process.

The Findings

The cross case findings are presented under two headings: (a) the characteristics

of strategic thinking, and (b) the outcomes of strategic thinking.

Page 16 of 64


1

The Characteristics Strategic Thinking

The department and the college used the strategic thinking protocol developed by

a faculty member in the department. The protocol is constructed around a social-

cognitive change theory (Bandura, 2001) and seeks to develop a shared reality and then a

shared direction codified in a one page front and back statement of intent. The protocol

contains structural (e.g., coordinating committees, specific committee charge, committee

and community work plans, and a statement of intent), and process components (e.g.,

transparency, generative processes, analytical tools, data utilization, end product) were

incorporated into the strategic thinking processes to enable participants to see how

political, social and cultural elements surrounding the department and college needed to

be considered prior to establishing a direction and becoming strategically fit.

In both the college and department, one of the first hurdles to overcome was the

mindsets of administrators and many faculty members about how a strategic planning

effort should be conducted. After all “they” They” knew what it was supposed to look

like and what was being proposed, strategic thinking did not look like that. This

phenomenon was more prevalent at the college level than the departmental level due to

the disciplinary focus on leadership which made participants more aware of the concept

of strategic thinking. But given the collaborative reputations of the two positional leaders

(Dean and Chair) involved and the good will of much of the faculty the process was

initiated. No central vision was put forth by the positional leaders; they agreed to

participate and live with the outcome of the process.

Structural Components

Page 17 of 64


1

The structural aspects of the strategic thinking model included a coordinating

committee, work plans specifying regular meetings to listen and converse, data types

used, and a statement of intent. Both planning processes were facilitated by the same

person who was trained in the strategic thinking protocol. He introduced the purpose of

the strategic thinking effort to the faculty and staff this way.

We are all professors here. We are paid to have opinions. The silos we work in

on a daily basis may benefit us when we do our individual work, but they hinder

our college’s [department’s] efforts to move together in a coordinated way. So the

trick is can we use this protocol to create a shared reality and then a shared

direction to guide our collective work over the next 3 to 5 years (minutes of the

Faculty Assembly, Spring 2011).

Participants explained the challenge this way.

Well I think first of all, there are three or four images inside the department itself.

That is with each of the four programs; each with its own image, its own

reputation and this is dynamic. It varies from as to who is here, who has left, and

what we are doing, in order to create the kind of image we want. Collectively,

there is only one image that I think all of us connect on, and that image is to

actually be seen as leaders (D5)

The coordinating committee was called the navigating team at the department and

steering committee at the college. The charge to the navigating team and the steering

committee was to execute the strategic thinking protocol and clearly define statement of

intent on one piece of paper front and back.

Page 18 of 64


1

The makeup of the coordinating committees is crucial in strategic thinking theory.

The right mix of individuals with significant credibility in the organization is necessary

for the results to be accepted. In universities, senior faculty, whose support and

participation is necessary if change is to occur, must be included (Clark, 1972). Burton

Clark’s suggestion guided the selection of committee members at the department level

but only to an extent at the college level where a democratic process was used. At the

college and department level committee formation was also guided by Pisapia’s (2009)

suggestion that such a committee needs to have people who are respected by their peers

and perhaps a critic or two to keep the process honest, and Kotter’s (1996) prescription

that the committee should include those with position power, expertise in decision

making, credibility to influence and actualize the change, and a leader with the ability to

encourage people to transcend parochial interests.

The coordinating committees in both cases were developed by consultation of the

respective chair and dean with their close circle of advisors and the facilitator. In the

department the selection was made based on the assumption that senior leaders could, if

they desired, stymie the adoption and implementation processes. At the college level,

after proper consultations, the dean provided each department the opportunity to select a

representative.

Committee structure in the department case was comprised of six individuals; all

tenured senior faculty members. Membership included the Chair of the department, five

faculty members and a facilitator. Participants represented the various programs in the

department. The combined years of experience in the department among the participants

Page 19 of 64


1

was 46 years, with one faculty member just joining the department two years before the

strategic thinking process began, but he/she had over 25 years of teaching and research

experience at the university. Two members were male and five members were female.

Members were diverse in religious and discipline affiliation but homogeneous in

ethnicity. All members were selected by the Chair after consultation with faculty and the

facilitator. They were perceived as departmental rather than program representatives. By

design, no adjunct or part-time faculty served on the team.

At the college, membership included the Dean of the college, two other

administrators and nine faculty members. The committee totaled approximately 300 years

of experience in the college. All members were elected by their departments and were

seen as departmental rather than college representatives. Nine members were female and

three were male. The committee was religiously, opinion, and discipline diverse; one

member was ethnically diverse. Although not by design, no adjunct or part-time faculty

served on the team. The lack of ethnic diversity of the departmental committee was

noted by some respondents. “. . . in a sense there is no diversity at all on the navigating

committee except for programmatic differences. . . and it did not reflect the new make-up

of the department” (D5).

The departmental committee members had: worked closely together on

departmental projects, a strong commitment to the overarching goal of “one department,”

credibility with their peers, and more expertise in organizational decision making which

in the early going made the process move smoother. The college committee had two

members with position power and professors, with few exceptions, little organizational

Page 20 of 64


1

decision making experience, but they did have credibility with their peers. Two appointed

members withdrew after seeing the time commitment that had to be made. They were

replaced by other representatives. They came to the process with more divergent views

on their work than committee members in the department case. But as the process

continued coordinating committee members felt a responsibility to ensure that all voices

were heard and took on a broader view of the organization, resulting in a more systems

thinking based approach to the work. As one committee member said,

I do the best I can to represent my department. But, maybe I did 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 (C3).

These selection decisions impacted early committee work, as depicted in the paragraphs

that follow, but in the long term did not affect the outcome.

The strategic thinking process starts by charging the coordinating committees

with a common goal. Exhibit A displays the charge to the college’s steering committee. A

similar charge was used with the department’s navigating team.

Page 21 of 64


1

Exhibit A

The Charge to the College’s Steering Committee

The Strategic Thinking Protocol is composed of two phases - Phase 1 is data collection - Phase 2 is Development of Strategic Intent. The Protocol’s basic purpose is to guide the process and recommend a statement of intent.

Phase 1 - Data Collection

The steering committee (a) helps identify individuals that the College should hear from, (b) attends monthly full College Meetings with external and internal individuals, and (c) takes notes and sends them to the coordinator for development of the Summary Statements.

Phase 2 - Development of Statement of Intent

The Steering Committee meets monthly to discuss each of the 5 strategic conversation questions. After each meeting, a written statement is drafted for each conversation: i.e., mission, core values, aspiration, and priorities for action.

Products: The Steering Committee engages in the following process and is asked to create the following products:

1. The process should result in a statement of intent – (a) Mission, (b) Aspiration, (c) Core Values, and (d) Priorities.

The Mission statement should contain no more than three crisp, clear, and compelling themes in one sentence.

The Aspiration is our stretch statement of what we want the College to look like in 3-5-years. The aspiration statements specify a clear, concrete, measurable end but not the means.

The Core Values define what our College stands for and how it will act in the daily flow of activity. When these values are agreed upon no faculty member or support staff should be exempt from accountability to these values.

The process should result in clear Priorities for the College. Priorities focus the organization on what it needs to do to achieve its aspiration. They are not pre-identified goals. Instead they are best guesses of the areas the organization should explore to work toward its aspiration. 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.

2. The draft of the strategic intent with mission, aspiration, core values and priorities should be presented to the full College for discussion at appropriate times and eventually officially adopted. Once agreed upon, this common vision should be articulated throughout the College community and be used to make hiring decisions, develop working relationships, and allocate resources.

Page 22 of 64


1

After an organizing meeting to orient them to the process and establish committee

and community work plans, the committees met monthly for two hours to review and

process results of listening sessions and conversations in addition to a monthly meeting

concerning collecting and discussing information collected. In the initial session at the

college level, it was clear from field notes that the participants were acting as “inward

looking silos” and more focused on their own departments and interests. Comments,

found in the “outsiders” field notes, were most often 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, it was observed that the participants

were fully engaged in synthesizing the data collected, including specific ideas on mission

and core values of the college. At the conclusion of the five strategic conversations

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.

The process flowed easily in both cases and was inclusive of all the participants at

each session. At the college level, there was also an opportunity provided for all members

of the college to submit comments via email, if they could not attend in person. The

submissions were combined with the comments from the meetings and made available to

all members to review. The steering committees then made an attempt to synthesize what

they believed they heard and take that result back to the group. This back and forth

continued through all of the observed meetings and documents collected for this study. In

reflecting on this process, a participant stated:

Page 23 of 64


1

…There has been a lot of discussion at the meetings about how we are perceived

by local community people, by state, and nationally. . . 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 (C2).

Another structural feature of strategic thinking is the types of data utilized. Data

types are expanded in strategic thinking and the methods of analysis are different from

traditional strategic planning. Qualitative data, as well as, quantitative data was gathered

from interviews and listening sessions with individuals outside of the department and the

college.

In 1994 Mintzberg noted that strategic planning was an analytic process and used

a calculating style of manipulating words and numbers that was best suited for certain

environments. In uncertain environments he suggested that synthesis, intuition, and

integration and a committing style of management would produce better plans. Though in

the minority of respondents, the emphasis on perceptual data was not a value shared by

all participants. “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… We did not do anything with the data (D3).”

The move away from total reliance on analytics toward synthesis is a main

difference in strategic thinking and strategic planning. However, most managers and

organizational members are trained in the traditional planning mindset with a strong

emphasis on use of analytics. This mindset is useful if one assumes that the future can be

Page 24 of 64


1

predicted. In such instances all one would have to do is review data which represents the

past and extrapolate to the future. Strategic thinking theory suggests that this assumption

does not hold in times of ambiguity (Bonn, 2005; Liedtka 1998; Kezar & Eckel, 2004;

Mintzberg, 1994; Pisapia, 2009; Scharmer, 2009).

Strategic thinking emphasizes synthesis which uses perceptions as well as data

and also analytics. For example, in both department and college cases quantitative and

qualitative data were collected from internal and external environments. At one of the

listening sessions, all quantitative data used by administrators to make decisions about

the college or the department was presented by the dean or the department chair,

discussed with faculty and staff and archived. When asked if the process was

characterized by logic, reasoning, numbers and rational thinking, a participant said,

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 (C4).

Another participant pointed out that “We have to in the end, be charged with creating the

final product based on data that we have collected and synthesized from these multiple

sources” (C2).

The statement of intent is a third structural component of strategic thinking.

Kotter (1996) and others (Collins & Porras, 1995; Hansen, 1991; Hax & Majluf, 1991;

Page 25 of 64


1

Pisapia, 2009; Senge, 1990; Tregoe & Zimmerman, 1980) suggest that in order for

change to take place there needs to be a shared sense of a desirable future.

The statement of intent is the structural piece of strategic thinking that generates a

picture of what the organization will look like in the future by codifying the decisions

made about mission, aspirations, core values, and priorities to move toward the

aspiration. It sets the direction, describes acceptable organizational behaviors, and

identifies priorities for action. In the department and college cases, the protocol ended in

a written statement of intent that included the elements listed in Exhibit B.

Exhibit B.The specifications of a statement of intent.

Mission Statement Contains no more than three crisp, clear, and compelling themes in one sentence.

Aspiration Contains a stretch statement of what the organization/team should look like in 3-5 years. The aspiration specifies a clear, concrete, measurable end but not the means to that end.

Guiding Principles/Core Values

Contains a definition of what the organization/team 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 Contains priorities that focus the organization/team on what it needs to do to achieve its aspiration. Priorities 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.

Source: Pisapia (2009).

Once crafted, this intent framework is used to both control and align the activities

of organizational members toward the goals of the organization. Theoretically the

Page 26 of 64


1

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 members throughout the

organization and guide individual’s choices on a daily basis. In both cases, the strategic

thinking process resulted in a clear Statement of Intent that will guide the department and

college in programmatic and personnel decisions in the future.

Process Components

Most 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. A participant said, . . .”I mean we can hypothesize and learn from

history, . . . 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” (D2). Another said,

“Legislative changes that impact us, in many ways, are not predictable and are outside

influences…that impact our work and lives” (D3). One participant summed it up this

way. “…the world’s just going to keep moving whether or not you put a structural or

conceptual framework around it, it’s going to happen (D4).

These perceptions of uncertainty and inability of prediction led to focusing on

adaptation and strategic fit. “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” (D1). It was more of being able to respond than actually predicting what

might happen. “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” (D5).

Page 27 of 64


1

Transparency. A distinguishing element of the strategic thinking protocol relates

to transparency of the process. At the department and college level a key understanding

was that all faculty and staff would receive the same data as the coordinating committee.

The notion guiding this principle of operation is that to create shared direction one must

first create a shared reality. By allowing all members to understand the problems facing

the organization they could better craft the direction that will be taken. At the college

level transparency was accomplished by creating a website to house the data and

information gathered and the decisions made in the process of creating the statement of

intent. At the college and department level transparency was also accomplished through

email transmissions of draft statements as they were produced, requests for feedback, and

communication of drafts, and final products. Most faculty and staff saw the benefits of

transparency.

At the college level, where more data was processed, transparency had unintended

consequences for one participant who commented. “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” (C4).

In general though the transparent nature of the process was welcomed and our

data reflected an overall positive feeling about the process as one participant said, “I

think it is more of an open process. I think basically what we are trying to do is . . . to

take this information and then formulate a vision based on that”(C1).

Page 28 of 64


1

Generative processes. A second key element of the strategic thinking protocol

was the use of generative processes. The term generative captures the sense that such

processes building on prior experience and use association formation to synthesize

knowledge that supports issues of learning and agency which emerge as new forms. The

department and college used two generative processes that were built into the strategic

thinking protocol - strategic listening and strategic conversations - to create their

statement of strategic intent.

Strategic listening sessions were used to receive perception and quantitative

information from the external and internal environments. All organizational members

were invited to participate in the listening process either in person or through video

casting to their home campus. At the department level, one hundred percent participation

was achieved. At the college, estimates were that seventy percent of the faculty visibly

participated regularly.

At a typical session, representatives from the college or department’s major

stakeholders were invited to share their perceptions of the opportunities and threats facing

the organization in an interview process. Some respondents participated via

teleconferencing, or videoconferencing; others appeared in person.

At the college level, six listening sessions were held to hear perspectives from

representatives from students, the college (the Dean), the university (the President) and

the national (Deans, government and associations), state (legislative, government,

associations), and local (key receivers of services) levels. A total of 28 interviews were

held.

Page 29 of 64


1

At the department level, five listening sessions were held to hear perspectives

from representatives from the college (the Dean), the university (provost, assistant vice

president of research, assistant vice president for student affairs), the state (government

professionals and associations), the nation (faculty members from similar programs in

other universities), and local receivers of services (president of state colleges,

superintendents of schools). A total of 10 interviews were held.

Each listening session followed the same protocol. After brief pleasantries, the

facilitator began the questioning using a standard interview protocol so that comparisons

were readily made across the stakeholders. Then the questioning was opened up to

members of the organization who had been listening. Each listening session lasted 25 to

30 minutes. At the end of each strategic listening session, a summary was created and

shared with all members of the organization and feedback was solicited. Listeners were

asked to share their notes from which summaries were constructed, shared, finalized after

feedback and transmitted through email and website repositories. After the strategic

listening sessions were completed, strategic conversations were conducted to process the

information collected. One participant at the department level described it this way.

At our fall retreat we considered faculty perspectives on the summaries of the 10

interviews we held with key individuals in the University, State, or Professional

environment during the spring semester. The summaries of these interviews were

reviewed by Departmental faculty who identified the one BIG Thing each

environment was signaling prior to the meeting. At the retreat each faculty

Page 30 of 64


1

member put their one BIG THING on newsprint which was mined by the group

through conversation for common themes and/or signals (D4).

Exhibit C displays the results of a strategic listening session at the department

level. The question (as with all listening sessions) posed to external respondents at the

university, state and professional levels were “what are the opportunities and threats for

the department.” The process at the college level followed the same protocol.

Exhibit C

The synthesis of strategic listening perspectives: “What do others expect of our department.”

THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED BY OUR ENVIRONMENTS

UNIVERSITY STATE PROFESSIONALLimited, declining, and inequitable distributions of resources, yet expectations continue to rise.

Increased need for ongoing,meaningful professional developmentfor leaders and teachers.

Much focus is on translating policy intopractice; business / management skills; teaching and learning.

Help people to Learn how to learn

Prepare people for world that is changing; digital, virtual communities, ambiguity, and a global workforce. Encourage transforming and personal learning.

What knowledge or capacity do we have that people will spend their money on outside of our courses?

Measurable outcomes Clear measurable outcomes are what count. A Department is recognized on faculty research and scholarship and alumni who are recognized for performance in their profession.

Accountability will get sharper It’s all about results. Standards & Prescriptive Procedures

Accountability/credibility Accountability is growing presence in higher education. Professor role is changing

Unclear mission and vision leads to competing expectations and a broken, fragile infrastructure. University in transition.

Differentiation How are we different? How do we wish to be different?

Distinctive signature What identity and expertise make EDL unique to the College, University, the field, and the profession? Do people see value in your program? What is the impact of our alums and their contributions?

Top down hierarchical structure strengthens bureaucracy. Centralized is thought to be better than decentralized.

Climate of Competition Role changes via community colleges and universities. Many providers Private for profit colleges /universities -Online degrees -Certification programs.

Leadership is an applied field. Programs must address this through coursework research about practice. Focus on actual problems not just case studies of others.

Reactive and not proactive Research Initiatives Need solid relevant research that is distributed in a timely fashion to practitioners.

Page 31 of 64


1

To scholars, image and vision are seen as future states that bring the organization

into strategic fit with their environment (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Dooley, 1997; Hamel &

Prahalad, 1994; Kotter, 1996; Pisapia, 2009; Prahalad & Hamel, 1989). At the beginning

of the strategic thinking process many participants at the college level felt the image

being projected by external stakeholders was due to a lack of understanding of what a

college does rather than a vision for the future. “The whole thing about image. . . it’s

quite the thing in national discourse to beat up on the college…I just feel like we are so

surrounded by rules and requirements that I am not sure this is going to do any good at

all. But it certainly won’t do any harm and it might clarify things (C2).

Strategic Conversations. In both the department and college processes, a

sequenced set of five monthly open faculty meetings were conducted to address one of

the following questions: 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 process

followed during the conversations varied by the level the protocol was applied. At the

department level, the process was more informal without archival documents being

constructed. At the college level a more structured archival system was put in place due

to the number of participants and the expanded need for transparency. At the college

level meetings, prior to the conversation being, held the facilitator asked faculty and staff

to offer their perspectives concerning the conversation question through an email. These

perspectives are collated, synthesized, presented to the coordinating committee, and

shared with all faculty and staff via email and then face to face feedback by convening a

conversation.

Page 32 of 64


1

In the conversations in both cases, the facilitator used a dialogue rather than

discussion approach with all members able to voice their perspectives and opinions. A

participant described the process this way: “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”(C2).

By dialoguing all voices were heard and honored; not just those from individuals

with dominant personalities (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Judge, Bono, Illies, & Gerhardt,

2002). At the end of each of the conversations the committees assessed all feedback and

drafted a synthesizing statement regarding the conversation and transmitted it to the full

faculty and staff for comment. One participant described the strategic conversations this

way.

It’s a very linear, step-by-step process that really works to allow people to have

input…a question would be posted and facilitated. [The facilitator] would go

around the table…oftentimes people would pass…they would come back later

after they heard a few more comments, so 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 (D5).

Another participant described how the committees conducted their work.

Page 33 of 64


1

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 (C5).

The expected results of the conversations are displayed in Exhibit D. The result of

the first conversation was gaining a shared sense of reality of what the environment

expects of the organization. The output of the second conversation was a mission

statement. The third conversation produced the core values statements; the fourth

conversation produces the aspiration statement. The fifth conversation produced the

priorities projected to move the organization closer to the aspiration.

Exhibit D

The outcomes of strategic conversations

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

Source: (Pisapia, 2009).

Page 34 of 64


1

Data Analysis. Synthesis of data, through systems thinking, reflection and

reframing, was a key part of the college and department processes to come to resolution

and craft the statement of intent. It occurred in different ways.

Following strategic listening sessions and conversations, the coordinating

committees sifted through data, observations and comments from the entire organization

and synthesized these data in statements that were distributed to all department members

for comments and final presentations on the data. It was a continual process of sifting

and sorting prior to making decisions.

At the college level, data analysis was aided by using the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats (SWOT) analytic technique in a generative way to analyze the

data and information generated through the strategic listening and conversations. When

the mission, aspiration, and values statements had been drafted, the full faculty and staff

and then the steering committee analyzed the listening and conversation data by

answering this question: “In relationship to our aspiration, what are our strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.” A copy of the SWOT produced at the college

level is found in Exhibit E

[Exhibit E about here]

The analysis of data through these generative methods resulted in a strong

synthesis process to evaluate data collected. Participants described it this way. “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 “(D1).

“Trying to make sense of what people said, synthesize it and then put it together to go to

Page 35 of 64


1

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 (D5).

Page 36 of 64


1

Exhibit EWhat are our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats relative to achieving our aspiration of being a leading resource for research, professional preparation, policy, and public engagement in local, state, national, and international communities?

Our Strengths are: Solid reputation locally, statewide, and nationally. Graduates are recruited and achieve leadership

roles in their professions. Strong pockets of faculty research activity. Culture of collaboration. Leader in professional development, innovation of

instruction and public service. Diverse education and research environment. Strategic geographical location. Diverse student population

Our Weaknesses are: Limited policy oriented research Research reputation Research infrastructure in college. Limited interdisciplinary research being conducted Colleges of Education generally under threat. Lack of investment in areas of excellence. Faculty spread too thin Resources spread too thin Growth of bureaucratic constraints Limited interdisciplinary collaboration internally and

externally Increasing numbers of adjunct and visiting faculty

Our Opportunities are: Multiple naming opportunities for donors. Create a focus around STEM programs operating

in other Colleges. Transfer research conducted in the college into

application oriented processes, products, trainings. Streamline and combine some programs and

departments. Develop E-Learning beyond traditional service

area. Find ways to celebrate collegial efforts and

accomplishments. Use strategic location for national and

international institutes. Promote public seminars on cutting edge topics

and issues of interest. Hold public image building engagements on research conducted in the college on issues relevant to various audiences.

Promote courses that appeal to students, faculty, and department’s university wide.

Increase cross department - cross university – cross community projects - interdisciplinary work on big topics of the day.

Promote E-Learning virtual conferences, webinars Create comprehensive marketing plan to promote

dissemination and expand PR (Branding) to academic and professional communities. Market in other languages. Name unique programs, give them an identity, promote them and build a culture around them.

Expand housing of national and international journals

Expand image building with improvements of College of Education grounds and facility.

Renaming the College of Education to be more reflective of its mission.

Build by affiliation with top researchers, institutions.

Our Threats are: Graduate programs are under threat due to lack of state

incentives for acquisition of advanced degrees Undergrad programs are under threat as teacher prep

programs are allocated to state colleges. Continuing funding cuts Increased competition from on-line service providers,

community colleges, and private institutions. Reallocation of funds within the University. Dropping enrollment particularly in off Boca campus

in teacher education Being defined by outside political forces who brand us

as teachers not researchers. Excessive state regulation of academic programs Loss of crucial mass and stability in faculty. Lack of competitive salaries leading to competition for

faculty. University and role of academics being defined by

political forces (e.g. imposition of business models.)

Page 37 of 64


1

The generative processes also enabled the emergence and co-creation of mission,

value, and aspiration statements which comprised of the entire statement of intent. The

process was described like this:

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 (D4).

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 at both the department and college levels. The statements

included elements of control and alignment. Control is achieved through the embedding

of the statement in the minds of the organizational members thus guiding choices on a

daily basis. This embedding occurred in many participants but not all as the interview

portray.

Page 38 of 64


1

The Outcomes of Strategic Thinking

The outcomes of strategic thinking are presented through two themes: changes in

assumptions and beliefs, and changes in work activities,

Changes in Assumptions and Beliefs

The strategic thinking process resulted in cognitive reframing in the two

organizations studied. It changed beliefs and the way many participants connected with

each other. At the department level, participants commented that “I could walk away

from the faculty meeting and say . . .if that’s the new reality, that’s the new world of

higher ed[ucation], then we can still make this work” (D5). “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” (D1). Another participant recalled:

. . . it gave me – because the process was so participatory – the ability to see the

thinking of individual people….I would not have experience[d] in the traditional

hierarchical model where the department chair speaks to full professors and we

move on to the next item on the agenda. 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 (D5).

The story was similar at the college level. “. . . it was nice getting to know the

people from the other departments and seeing their points of view” (C3). “. . . it has made

us all aware of the other departments. Inadvertently, we have gotten to know our

Page 39 of 64


1

colleagues better” (C5). “. . . it has helped to add to my information base, and that is

always a good thing” (C4 ). One participant commented. “Yes…I feel like it’s going to

be different here . . .because there is a lot at stake. I really do feel like there are people

here who . . . [are] going to move actively towards making real change happen….(C2)”

In both department and college cases, participants created a shared direction from

a shared reality. This reframing resulted in a change in many member’s assumptions and

beliefs about the department and college, and about the planning process itself, and in

some cases, reframing lowered resistance to a strategic thinking process versus the

traditional business model of strategic planning. Participants noted “my beliefs about the

department have really changed” (D1). “I am probably learning more about other people,

so in some sense, yes” (D2). “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” (D3). Other participants

noted the protocol led to greater degrees of engagement. “A lot of times . . . [strategic

planning [is] 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” (C2).

Synthesis, systems thinking, reflection and reframing were perceived as necessary

skills used when analyzing the data, and then creating documents to present back to

organizational members, until consensus was reached. One participant described this this

way.

Page 40 of 64


1

Actually it was a good year, each month . . . 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? (D4)

A major change of opinion was expressed by a participant at the department level.

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).

A change of roles occurred at the department level where implementation is

underway. There was a perception that faculty, not just the chair of the department, have

a real voice in strategy making as well as execution. “I would say the voices of the

faculty were definitely heard, definitely considered” (D5).

Faculty described being more self-referenced in their capacity to implement the

priorities. For instance, one priority adopted in the department’s statement of intent

related to imbedding the core values into faculty work and syllabi. One year later, a

faculty member recalled the effort. “. . . 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

Page 41 of 64


1

ask the question. Which . . . I think is the real value of the strategic plan” we adopted

(D5).

These perceptions of faculty input into strategy making were not supported by all

faculty. A more traditional view was expressed by one faculty member at the department

level. “The reality is that we are not as independent as we 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” (D3). A similar perception was expressed at the college

level. “What I had hoped for, especially when you look at how things are changing in

terms of what is being forced on us by our government, is how are we going to change or

respond to that?” (C1)

Nevertheless, when the totality of the responses and observations were reviewed

the strategic thinking process appears to have been successful in improving a shared

understanding, and creating supportive integrated individuals at all levels in the

department and the college who had appreciation for the underlying goals of the process.

As one participant said, “the process is meant to come up with convergence [of]

commonalities. That is what it did” (D5).

Changes in Activities of Individuals and groups

A major goal of strategic thinking is to develop a shared direction which fosters

alignment of organizational members and structures and produces horizontal as well as

vertical sync. Horizontal alignment occurs when members of the organization have

aligned their activities in common pursuit of the priorities expressed in the statement of

Page 42 of 64


1

intent. The data point to the beginnings of strong internal horizontal and vertical

alignment. It’s easy to notice that at the department and college a broader understanding

of the larger system, the connection between faculty roles, the interdependencies of roles

within the organization, and the functioning of the system occurred.

At the department and college level, the strategic thinking process resulted in a

more integrated perspective of the organization. All coordinating committee members

came away from the process with a better understanding of the issues facing the college

and department, both internally and externally. They felt more connected to their

colleagues, their knowledge about each other increased and they were generally

supportive of the overall process with exceptions of course.

Initially many professors and staff questioned their ability to change activities in

the college. Some participants felt “the college is “reactive…we have often sat around

and waited for the latest pronouncement from [the state capital]” (C1). “We are

constantly reactive in my department, and lots of times we would like to be proactive. We

get good ideas and we would like to add this, or we would like to add that, but we can’t.

We have almost no wiggle room at all because we are bound by 120 credits” (C3).

This horizontal sync has provided some benefits which are more readily seen at

the department level since it was further along with the implementation of the statement

of intent. For instance, every other month one of the core values is discussed for 15

minutes during a faculty meeting. Furthermore, the department posted the statement of

strategic intent in the entrance to the department suite that was signed by everyone

(faculty and staff) in the department. In the opinion of some participants these activities

Page 43 of 64


1

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.

One participant used powerful language to describe the effect of the placement of a

signed statement of intent at the entrance to the departmental suite.

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. . . 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 (D4).

The department chair has also been heard reminding some faculty who were pushing a

individualistic perspective that, “you signed off on our intent.”

There are other indications of horizontal syncing at the departmental level as work

is shifting toward the intent statement. For instance, a definite attempt to link the values

to their work is occurring through action teams charged with reviewing syllabi to insure

that the values adopted in the statement of intent are embedded in all department

curricula. Another committee was formed to insure that those values are embedded in the

qualifying examinations that doctoral students complete. A third action team, formed

around the department’s priority to “. . . Produce interdisciplinary research and research

based models that can be used to improve socially responsible leadership and research

Page 44 of 64


1

practice” (Department statement of intent 2010). As true academicians, the team

collected data regarding the faculty’s involvement in interdisciplinary research and

research-based models for improving socially responsible leadership .Their plan which

was approved by the department in October, 2011, called for creation of the Center for

Socially Responsible Leadership focused on interdisciplinary research partnerships across

the university and in partnership with governmental partners is being put into place and is

being put into place. A fourth action team was formed around the priority of partnering

with important constituencies. A member of the team acting from a self-managed

perspective developed a grant to improve the preparation of school principals with a local

school district which was funded at the level of 3.5 million dollars. The largest grant ever

received by the department.

The level of horizontal syncing was described this way by participants: “Yes,

there are committees that have been developed around the priorities. People themselves

selected the committees that they wanted to be tied in to … Systems have been set up for

new protocols of how we deal with admissions to other processes. . .Oh, it hugely

changed . . . how we spent our time in faculty meetings and the time allocated for

meetings…we spent more time talking in faculty meetings about values … (D1).

Another participant’s comments signaled the benefits for faculty self-management. “. . .

plans are 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….. (D4).

Page 45 of 64


1

Strategic thinking was able to create vertical sync at the department level through

the values that were agreed to. One participant summed it up this way. “we are not

letting those values leave the room” (D2). “We are looking at the program area specific

courses to see where those values are reflected. . . . 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? (D4)

At the department level these changes in activities continue. For example, the

integration of values into current syllabi was achieved at the end of the first year and

focus moved to other integration steps. For instance, the assumption was that if the values

were to become the department’s signature statement then graduates as well as faculty

should exhibit those values. So a committee was established to review the nature of the

qualifying exams to determine if students are exhibiting the values in the way they

answer the questions and hopefully their life and work activities.

It was also evident that the integration of departmental values into syllabi and

then qualifying exams are helping to control and coordinate the activities of the

department as well as enable self-management. At the college level, alignment could not

be judged because of the recently adopted statement of intent – it is still a work in

progress. One participant summed it up this way. “It takes time to change paradigms

after you have done what you are doing for scores of years” (D2). Yet, it appears to be

happening at the department level.

Conclusion/Discussion

Page 46 of 64


1

The primary goal of this study was to determine if elements of strategic thinking

used in university planning processes lead to plan integration into the commitments and

work related activities of members. The study was framed by three guiding questions:

What elements of the strategic thinking model were used and to what effect? Was plan

integration achieved? Did the process utilized create an effective model of change for the

university? It was expected that the use of a strategic thinking model of planning to

formulate strategy in higher education would create an effective model that envisions

potential futures, changes activities of the organization, creates 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.

The findings and our conclusions are limited by the two cases and the fact that it

relies on the perceptions of participants of coordinating committees who participated in

the strategic thinking activity at their level. Not including other faculty and staff present

at the time the strategic thinking/planning activities were being conducted further limited

our findings. The study is further limited to changes in attitudes and activities less than

one year from the development of the statement of intent. The long term effectiveness of

the resulting statement of intent (plan) was not studied. The study is delimited to the

perceptions of steering committee members and archival documents created during the

time of the study. The researchers entered the study with the assumption that strategic

planning was being rethought. They had an understanding of the elements of strategic

thinking discussed in the literature but had no assumptions about how the elements of

Page 47 of 64


1

strategic thinking might be used within a university setting. Given these caveats, the

findings led us to the following three major conclusions which are discussed in the

following paragraphs.

1. Strategic thinking through structural components (strategic listening, strategic

conversations, and the statement of intent), and its process components

(transparency, strategic listening, strategic conversations, and synthesis of

data) enabled organizational learning to occur through a process of

convergence, emergence and co-creation.

2. Plan integration was achieved into the attitudes and beliefs of most faculty and

staff. Plan integration into the work activities of faculty and staff is an

ongoing process with strong beginnings seen in the department case.

3. Strategic thinking can be an effective change model for higher education

institutions and other organizations where members are proactive rather than

passive, and leaders engage in a committing style of leadership.

Strategic thinking occurs through the application of structural components

(strategic listening, strategic conversations, and the statement of intent), and process

components (transparency, strategic listening, strategic conversations, and synthesis of

data) pictured in Table 1.

Table 1

The Structural and Process Components of Strategic Thinking.

Structural Components Process Components

Coordinating Committee Committee and Community Work plans Data Collection

Transparency Strategic Listening Strategic Conversations

Page 48 of 64


1

Statement of Intent Data Analysis

By applying these components in the two cases studied, organizational learning

was enabled through a process of convergence, emergence and co-creation. As Simon

(1991:125) reminds us “all learning takes place inside individual human heads; an

organization learns in only two ways: (a) by the learning of its members, or (b) by

ingesting new members who have knowledge the organization didn't previously have.”

He goes on to say that the important component of organizational learning is the

transmission from one member or group of members to another through a social process.

What is stored in those heads, if it is shared, has a great bearing on the direction the way

organizations operate. In the two cases examined, learning was transferred in a social

cognitive process and was codified in the statement of intent.

Learning was enhanced by sharing information throughout the organization and

processing it through strategic listening and strategic conversations. The strategic

thinking protocol facilitated an organizational dialogue on a small scale, as in the

department, and on a large scale, as in the college which led to a high level of cohesion.

The strategic conversations were used to advance both individual and collective views in

developing a shared direction. In the department there was less formality and more

hearing and engaging. Perceptions were collected verbally. In the college there was more

formality; seeking perceptions through email, storing and keeping the audit trail visible

on the internet; although face to face processing through dialogue was retained.

The strategic conversations also promoted information sharing which served as

common reference point for group members in their discussions. All faculty and staff

Page 49 of 64


1

received the same information. This sharing was an important process in arriving at

decisions of ends, means and tactics as Stasser, Taylor, and Hanna (1989), and Gigone

and Hastie (1993) proposed. For example, Stasser and his colleagues suggest information

that is shared it more likely to be discussed whereas information that is withheld can bias

the outcome of group judgment. Although the amount of information shared was large for

the college group only one participant needed to remember a piece of information in

order to have it discussed by the group in their strategic conversations. Gigone & Hastie’s

(1993:959) inquiry concluded that influence of information is directly related to the

number of group members with knowledge of it prior to group discussion. Information,

they said, has more influence when a larger numbers of individuals have it and

understand it. Our findings support their claims. They also indicate that strategic thinking

can overcome the hurdle presented by Eckel and Kezar (2003), Gioia and Thomas

(1996), Schön (1983), and Weick (1995) that people fundamentally do not understand the

proposed change.

The amount of information shared requires further investigation. Simon (1991)

noted that rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive

limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make decisions.

This claim is supported by the perceptions of a minority of respondents at the college

level that there was too much data to process.

Perhaps some tweaking of the strategic thinking protocol for larger organizations

needs to occur. While the philosophy undergirding the protocol requires that all members

receive the same information could similar results have been achieved by either limiting

Page 50 of 64


1

the participation or limiting the distribution of information? Until such inquiries are

conducted it’s probably best to err on the side of full disclosure and let those who cannot

process all the information to press the delete button.

The strategic thinking protocol moreover has a way of putting individual attitudes,

sentiments and opinions into perspective and reduces but does not negate the impact of

forceful members. Anderson & Kilduff’s (2009, p. 501) research suggests that “. . .

assertive individuals gain influence beyond what their competence warrants, and skilled

members who are low in trait dominance might be unjustifiably ignored.” The literature

is also relatively clear on the fact that individuals high in the personality trait dominance

consistently attain high levels of influence in groups sometimes disproportionally to other

members lower on the trait that have good ideas because they appear to be competent,

place themselves at the center of attention, are motivated to lead, speak more often, and

seek to gain control over group processes (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Ashton, Lee, &

Paunonen, 2002; Judge, Bono, Illies & Gerhardt, 2002; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger,

1986). However, Anderson & Kilduff (2009), Grant, Gino, & Hofmann (2011), and Van

Vugt, (2006) add that this influence imbalance comes only when high trait dominant

individuals have superior social, task and leadership skills, and when organizational

members are passive but not when they are proactive.

The academy is rife with individuals with high dominance and proactive traits.

People who wish to bend the world to their view and really do not wish to be led. To

develop a shared reality and then a shared direction, their views must be heard but in a

setting of other more muted views by honoring all, listening to all, and conversing with

Page 51 of 64


1

all. For example, in strategic conversations, the facilitator used the following procedure:

(a) go around the room and each person was able to give their perspective, (b) then an

open discussion occurred for a short time, and the conversation concluded by (c) going

around the room again to gather final comments from the participants. In one of the

conversations, before the facilitator could begin the process, a participant began to offer a

framework to categorize information. Rather than be confrontational, the facilitator asked

for other frameworks then placed all frameworks on the whiteboard so all could see the

various ways of framing the information. As dominant proactive participants saw that all

views would be honored equally they either adjusted their approach and participated, or

they quit participating and waited for opportunities to interject at crucial times in the

discussion, or until after the statement of intent was produced at which time they offered

a critique of the outcome.

The strategic thinking protocol reinforced convergence. “We were giving voice to

the voices of the department and 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 was an effective method that does tend to reinforce a

convergence. It doesn’t have the ability to resurrect divergence (D5).

Strategic thinking, from a literature perspective, incorporates systems thinking,

creativity and vision (Bonn, 2005: Liedtka, 1998: Pisapia, 2009; Senge, 1990;

Heracleous, 2003; Scharmer, 2009), as well as an emphasis on synthesis, and a

Page 52 of 64


1

committed style of management to develop the plan (Mintzberg, 1994). The findings of

this study support many of these concepts. The elements of the strategic thinking that

were used in the department and the college processes required that participants use

systems thinking and reframing skills through a formal collection and dialogue of

perspectives, and reflection skills to analyze and synthesize the data.

Our second conclusion is that plan integration was achieved into the attitudes and

beliefs of most, but not all, participants. At the end of the strategic thinking, the

participants understood the larger system of the college, university, external environment

and how they connect to that system. They indicated that strategic thinking that took

place through the application of the protocol added value to the plan (i.e., statement of

intent) itself. They seemed to see value in the process beyond the outcomes of strategic

thinking.

Plan integration into the work activities of faculty and staff is an ongoing process

with strong beginnings seen in the department case. The protocol resulted in a framework

that is facilitating the department’s adaptation to a rapidly changing environment and is

helping to guide the choices that leaders are making to determine the direction of the

department. Kohles, (2000), suggests that the organization’s vision should guide

organizational activity and be used as the guiding framework in their particular jobs.

When this occurs, followers can become self-managed and description, authority and

responsibility can be pushed down the organization (Meindle, 1998:21). The evidence

supports that this self-management is occurring at the department level.

Page 53 of 64


1

Kohles (2000) and Senge (1990) suggest that when vision is shared and

behaviorally integrated into work roles there is less need for strict hierarchical control

and organizational learning is facilitated. While this was not observed in the college case

due to the freshness of its enactment of the statement of intent, it was observed in the

department case. There, faculty members joined action teams charged with addressing the

five priorities that would move the department closer to its aspiration over the next 3-5

years. Action team members engaged voluntarily in activities to integrate the values of

their statement of intent into course syllabi and qualifying exams, and in producing action

plans to guide implementation of their priorities for research, alliances/partnerships, and

celebration.

In both cases, the application of the structural components of strategic thinking

resulted in the creation of an integrated perspective of mission, values and the strategy to

move to the priorities and initiatives through the processes of convergence, co-creation

and emergence. Convergence was seen in shifts from individual committee members

processing information independently – to the committee, where shared and similar

understandings guided collective information processing (Dionne, Sayama, Hao, & Bush,

2010). In the two cases studied, convergence occurred. Thus, our findings lend support to

significant empirical claims that converged mental models result in positive team

functioning and performance (Webber, Chen, Payne, Marsh & Zaccaro, 2000; Edwards,

Day, Arthur, & Bell, 2006; Kang, & Rowley, 2006).

Finally, the evidence indicates that strategic thinking can be an effective change

model for higher education institutions and other organizations where members are

Page 54 of 64


1

proactive rather than passive. Of course it’s too early to claim victory and the process is

fraught with complexities arising from the nature of higher education organizations and

their inhabitants.

Schein (2004) advises that any change effort that attempts to alter the attitudes,

values, and beliefs of an organization requires leaders who are sensitive to culture. The

culture in higher education has its peculiarities. On the administrative side of the house it

tends to be mechanistic. On the academic side of the house, it’s organic. Its goals are

difficult to quantify. There is perceived independence from the environment. Decision

making can be democratic at times and anarchical at other times. There is no center of

power; there are multiple fiefdoms headed by gate keeping senior faculty members.

Attention of many faculty members is easily diverted to discipline issues. Eckel & Kezar

(2003) suggest that leaders in these circumstances should become cultural analysts in

order to understand how the institution’s culture might affect transformational change. In

essence, leaders must tailor the change effort to accommodate the existing organizational

realities. Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Walsh, 1995 suggested that “new thinking” is required do

the tailoring. Strategic thinking, as expressed in this study by the strategic thinking

protocol, is new thinking in higher education as well as other organizations.

Our analysis of the two cases indicates that strategic thinking can overcome some

of the hurdles presented by higher education organizations. The protocol took faculty and

staff through a journey of understanding the need for change, and the changes being

suggested and drew them out of their disciplinary silos. It is too early in the journey to

determine if this is a moment in time and faculty and staff move back into the cave or if

Page 55 of 64


1

collaborative outward looking departments and faculty will become the way business is

conducted.

In particular, strategic thinking was able to overcome perceived gap between the

department and college and their environments which were questioning their legitimacy

(Boyer, 1994; Ghosal, Bartlett, & Morgan, 1999; Magrath, 1996) through strategic

listening and strategic conversations. Strategic listening sessions were held in each case

to put information that was relatively unknown to the majority of faculty and staff into

the system. This information, along with the perceptions of faculty, was gathered through

strategic listening and processed through the strategic conversations. These processing

elements of strategic thinking led faculty and staff to recognize the interdependencies of

the college and department, and their environments and resulted in a statement of intent

that serves as a platform to allocate resources and judge organizational activity.

One of the key elements of a strategic thinking process that differentiates the

process from a traditional model of strategic planning is that participants see the planning

process itself as having value versus the focus being solely on the creation of the plan. In

addition to the process itself having value, the process creates a self-reference point in the

minds of the participants, where the strategic planning model uses measurement to

control and coordinate activity.

A clear majority of the participants in strategic thinking agreed that the way

strategic thinking was pursued in the department and the college added value. It creates a

sense of cohesion to a group; an identity with that group. So it creates something bigger

Page 56 of 64


1

than just a goal; more than just a value. It develops cohesion. D1 described the creation of

value and resulting alignment of the group.

I think it’s true that the 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.

The analysis indicates that the strategic thinking process created a successful

model of change as perceived by the participants in the process. A participant described it

this way. “I think what faculty is doing is whatever they were doing before this planning

process, but they are finding a way to link it what they have been doing with this process”

(D3). Another participant put it this way. “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” (D5). The bottom line is that if you asked members of

the college or department if the process was successful you would get an 80% response –

“extremely” or as the department chair said, “powerful!” Others would say it was a

healthy process but withhold judgment as to its ability to impact the activities of faculty.

Page 57 of 64


1

For example, one faculty member said, “this has been kind of fun, kind of interesting and

certainly educational for me in the sense of the process. …I would go in the direction of

still already worthwhile. Even if it doesn’t accomplish anything organizationally” (D2).

Another faculty member illustrated with the story of the wall.

. . . if you look at the wall, when you walk into the department . . . you see the end

products of the strategic plan with signatures like the declaration of independence.

You actually see people walk by it, the signers as well as the staff and students in

the department. The smile on their faces across the board point to the success of

that aspect of the process that is it created a document. It created a living

document. It created a tangible living document. That’s a success (D5).

While a clear majority of participants attributed a value adding element, others

perceived the real value should be in the implementation of the plan not the process. As

one participant said, “I think the process itself is helpful, but the process itself has no

more value than the institution’s willingness to address the results” (C5). Others, like C5,

would give it a more qualified vote of confidence. Not all minds were changed.

Participants put it this way: “We have to see what happens. How it evolves. I mean it’s in

people’s minds (D4). “I think . . . it depends on how you measure success … (D3).

Considering all the evidence, our conclusion, is that strategic thinking changes the

content and process in which strategy is thought about, developed, and implemented.

Through our “insider-outsider” approach we attempted to give a balanced voice about the

ability of strategic thinking to alter attitudes and beliefs as well activities of faculty, staff

and administrators. What we found that is easier to develop a shared reality than it is a

Page 58 of 64


1

share direction but a working consensus was achieved in both cases. Developing a shared

reality means that faculty and staff have to accept their interdependency with the

environment. While at times this acceptance of interdependency is threatening, strategic

thinking through its strategic listening and strategic conversation components fit the

academic culture better than traditional models of strategic planning. These generative

processes created a moment in time when faculty and staff moved their thinking up a

notch from their unique disciplinary perspectives. Strategic thinking takes longer,

involves more people and at times is messy because faculty and staff are asked to think

together about their future. When faculty thinking about their organization and their

common future is coupled by consistent committing actions of administrators’ higher

education institutions have a chance to continually align with their environment as well

as modify their processes and activities to the new alignment.

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.

Anderson, C. & Kilduff, G. (2009). Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence in Face-to-Face Groups? The Competence-Signaling Effects of Trait Dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491–503

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. 2002. What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 245–251.

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.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Page 59 of 64


1

Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 17 (1), 1-10.

Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30 (1), 77-96.

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.

Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Boyer, E. (1994, March 9). Creating the new American college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A48.

Chussil, M. (2005). With all this Intelligence, why don’t 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.

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.

Collins, J. & Porras, H. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. First Paperback Edition. New York: Harper-Collins, 1997. 219-239.p perback, Hardcover, CD)

Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free Press

Daghir, A. & Al Zayd, 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.

Dionne, S., Sayama, H., Hao, C., & Bush, B.(2010). The role of leadership in shared mental model convergence and team performance improvement: An agent-based computational model. The Leadership Quarterly.21, 1035-1049.

Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, (1)1, 69-97.

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.

Page 60 of 64


1

Edwards, B. D., Day, E. A., Arthur, W., Jr., & Bell, S. T. (2006). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 727−736.

Ghoshal, S., Bartlett, C. & Moran, P. (Spring 1999). A new manifesto for management. Sloan Management Review, 9–20.

Gigone, D.,& Hastie, R.( 1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959-974

Ginsberg, A. (1994). Minding the competition: From mapping to mastery. Strategic Management Journal 15, 153-174.

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.

Grant, A., Gino, F. & Hofmann, D. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage The Role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal 54(3), 528–550.

Halpren, D. (1996). Thought & knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. (1994 May-June). Strategy intent. Harvard Business Review, 63-76.

Hansen, S. W. (1991). Visions of strategic thinking. In J. Nase (Ed.), Arenas of strategic thinking. Helsinki: Foundation for Economic Education.

Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1991) Strategic Management: An Integrative Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Heracleous, L. (1998). Strategic thinking or strategic planning. Long Range Planning, 31, (3), 481-487.

Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. New York, Helix Books.

Hussey, D. (2001). Creative strategic thinking, and the analytical process: Critical factors for strategic success. Strategic Change, 10(4), 201-213.

Johnson, G. (1992). Managing strategic change - strategy, culture and action. Long Range Planning, 25(1), 28-36.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.

Kang, H., Yang, H., & Rowley, C. (2006). Factors in team effectiveness: Cognitive and demographic similarities of software development team members. Human Relations, 59(12), 1681−1710

Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating change in higher education in the 21st century. Washington D.C.: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports.

Page 61 of 64


1

Kezar, A. (2005). Understanding the learning organization in higher education. In A. Kezar (Ed), Higher education as a learning organization: Promising concepts and approaches. New Directions for Higher Education, 131(Fall), 1-13. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc

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., & 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.

Kohles, J. (2000). The vision integration process: leadership, communication, and a reconceptualization of vision. Paper presented at 2000 Academy of Management Meetings, Toronto, Canada (Organizational Behavior Division)

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lawrence, E. (1999). Strategic thinking: A discussion paper. Canada: Public Service Commission of Canada.

Liedtka, J. (1998). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategy and Leadership, 26(4), 30-35.

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410.

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..

Meindl, J. R. (1998, Spring). Enabling visionary leadership. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21-24.

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: Sage Publications.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving the roles for planning, plans, planners. New York: Free Press.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oakes: Sage Publication, Inc.

Morrisey, G.L. (1996). A guide to strategic thinking: Building your planning foundation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

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.

Pang, N.S. & Pisapia, J. (in press). The strategic thinking skills of Hong Kong school leaders: Usage and effectiveness. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership.

Page 62 of 64

http://books.google.com/books?id=TugplxDii8MC&dq

http://books.google.com/books?id=TugplxDii8MC&dq

http://mobilizingstem.wceruw.org/documents/Synthesis%20of%20Scholarship%20on%20Change%20in%20HE.pdf

http://mobilizingstem.wceruw.org/documents/Synthesis%20of%20Scholarship%20on%20Change%20in%20HE.pdf


1

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.,

Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader. New tactics in a globalizing world. 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

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Prahalad, C. & Hamel, G. (1989, May-June). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review. 63-76

Raimond, P. (1996, April). 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 (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Roberts, E. B. (1987). Generating Technological Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

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. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership, (3rd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

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.

Simon, Herbert (1991). "Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning". Organization Science 2 (1): 125–134. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.125.

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.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53, 81-93.

Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67-78.

Page 63 of 64

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287%2Forsc.2.1.125

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

http://www.leadershipreview.org/2005spring/article2_spring_2005.asp


1

Thakur, M. & Calingo, L.M. (1992). Strategic thinking is hip, but does it make a difference? Business Horizons 35(5), 47-54.

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.

Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 354–371.

Walsh, M. (1995). Knowledge without boundaries: What America’s research universities can do for the economy, the workplace, and the community. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Webber, S. S., Chen, G., Payne, S. C., Marsh, S. M., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2000). Enhancing team mental model measurement with performance appraisal practices. Organizational Research Methods, 3(4), 307−322.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Page 64 of 64