J ”a...“ ‘32: -n- n.|‘A ,_ I-n ”4.. \awmu .. v . {an m... «u . L‘ ?u.”n.»; "szgr .w....,.:.w mum! 3': .m. . u... 3.4:: ... a. ., .... .. :..."........‘:.‘ :1 ...p 1"- '.x 3“ 4.14., ‘5h! ,. . t :_ tag-“3,: .x ,. , ‘32: 1.‘ i:}¥ an... A "'1 mu 1 ' g4 ...... . wag-c. , . m! “Arno-n .. . mavvr w. JS‘WH~. . 4...“ 4-,. i 'a b a . I -t a v 4 h" "' ’ ’ffiu'u‘ ) . w .. ~a0l¢~n ,v’v-v-Qy. . .. m: u—wo. a rn “max. um. - ovs ~..-‘ 1 '0 {21’1” x ‘2- I.I!'v.n,~ mum ’z’g‘»"n’o : t ' u’:‘.‘ 1 E ape-1. .nv um.“ 3...”... 0.. WW... .3331}! . a v 7"; tapinx 5.9 :3, .2, « , “- N -v «nun-o - . :4 m vLs Jm --»~ r—vaviw . V. 3E J 1'; ' ‘ ‘ 5...: v a. l. 1 I ~ ' ‘§ '} Z;2;._t" " ‘;§;‘ ' ’ ’ h 11‘ $12”: "FAIRY, '. 'l J, I :3 hi‘:.,.' 5 5 ' Wéilbin ; ’ " z X pp: 1; “‘ 1.55% ‘ . .. 3 H543”'¢“ ..:.zzE::=: .I . 75:- . i:;‘3‘:‘,;‘ l .359? 2:2: ' :n‘ “9.” . ,‘ . .'.g!v{glg §:$‘ N, . ‘IJ . ' v I l I‘ ‘ . ’ W" ’x‘~' \‘ul i l' . 3‘ t v a” w; '1 : "'!§:‘Y:"::“:‘L:zg ~,vxa!3, ,2 ,o , $2 n '. 5 h’z'q‘a‘fi‘ ‘ ’s {I :> 4 '59“ A}. "‘91" ‘ ” '3?" :. Zifiv‘fi‘ki‘.‘ ‘ ft , 0- mi 0 2. .I ‘zigl‘i’F‘V .. ._ g! I 3 1} ' / E. "f flu}. .u. I: I: . . ‘ A ' i . ‘ v D ' 4 . I i > ' mags! iv a; t: -.«_ a '9 ‘ k! :2? ll. f‘_ V‘; n n. ..? THESlS Z Date MICHIGAN STA IIIIIIII III IIIIIIIII III‘II III'II‘III'III LIBRARY M ichigan State University \ l/ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled DISPOSITIONS TOWARD STRATEGIC PLANNING: PRESIDENTS, CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICERS AND BOARD CHAIRS OF SMA L, PRIVATE EGALITARIAN LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES presented by NEIL E. VEYDT has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH.D - degree in .CDLLEGE_&_IINIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION flwumfl ndr‘protessor JANUARY 25, 1995 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 - ——-—-‘_.- ——~..- ‘ ”Ir—W ‘V-—‘—~—‘,-A flF—W‘V‘_ -~ Ah i...—,_.—_‘.__.-_.__ PLACE ll RETURN BOX to romovo this chockout from your record. TO AVOID FINES mum on or bdoro duo duo. DATE DUE DATEiDUE DATE DUE MSU I. An Nflflndlvo MONEQJII Opportunity Imfltulon DISPOSITIONS TOWARD STRATEGIC PLANNING: PRESIDENTS, CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICERS, AND BOARD CHAIRS OF SMALL, PRIVATE, EGALITARIAN, LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES By Neil E. Veydt A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of College & University Administration 1995 ABSTRACT DISPOSITIONS TOWARD STRATEGIC PLANNING: PRESIDENTS, CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICERS, AND BOARD CHAIRS OF SMALL, PRIVATE, EGALITARIAN, LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES By Neil E. Veydt The researcher’s purpose in this study was to examine presidential knowledge of and attitudes toward strategic planning in small, private liberal arts colleges in the United States. The researcher also sought the perceptions of presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs about the current practice of strategic planning. Finally, the researcher sought to identify factors which are impeding the effective practice of strategic planning. A cross-sectional survey research design was used in which a questionnaire was distributed to presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs of 200 institutions. The major findings from this study, with attendant conclusions are: EindingL Presidents, chief academic ofi‘icers and board chairs of these institutions have a strong aflirmative opinion of strategic planning. OI .01'1. IOII' ‘ ‘ 0! 'mn Ninth 1.0 0 111'. 0. ' o n ‘ in' 'nc'ffr‘n ‘ r nu 'i o . l . EZHJL'ILL Presidents believe that presidential leadership in championing strategic planning is very important. OI -09'1" ogIIM',00!‘ In‘ ‘ n ”Mu- 0, O‘I‘I O‘X' M‘u.‘ I" 10111.... ._ 1.- ‘1 u- finding}, Strategic planning has already enabled college leaders to make many positive changes in their institutions. 0I . 01". 15-1 o 111' ' .I ‘ ' iv 0'11! - v' l I Eindingj, These leaders believe financial and economic concerns are the most critical issues they face as they contemplate the fitture. 0! -II- _‘ ' .m‘ I]. iI' rii I h I-rh.lh ctthesumachcfleges. . Binding; Presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs of small, private egalitarian liberal arts colleges believe their colleges are doing a good job of strategic planning. Chief academic oflicers consistently rate current practice less favorably than either presidents or board chairs. n 'u- 1"llnni'00‘ - Kn Irov- n -__I . . l 1 l Eindingj, No serious impediments to planning were identified. II _."0! ‘0‘1' IIIIII- f I.lnni - II... t... I... ."1 0f. . . 1" '1' '1h-. '1'. Copyright by NEIL E. VEYDT 1995 Dedicated to my family, whose constant encouragement kept me going. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the members of my guidance committee, Dr. Marylee Davis, Chair, Dr. Sam Moore, Dr. James Rainey and Dr. Fred Whims, for their patience, support and encouragement. Each of them has contributed Significantly to my growth as a person and scholar. Dr. Davis has been a friend, mentor and advocate, always in a warm and professional manner. Dr. Moore has known me since the late 1960S, when I first entered graduate school as a young teacher. During all these years he has remained a true friend and adviser. Dr.Whims attended my alma mater and Shares a common love of sports, especially golf, so we have known one another in several venues. He built upon that friendship to motivate me to persist toward this goal at a time when my enthusiasm waned, and he has been a fair and helpful critic throughout the dissertation process. Dr. Rainey, while neither a long-time friend or close acquaintance, has always been available and helpful in all stages of my work on this degree. To all of these friends and mentors I owe a real debt of gratitude. Finally, I want express my Sincere appreciation to Mark Cole, Kay Edwards, Garnet Hauger, Sherry Keeler, and Shannon Scholten for their assistance. These friends helped in a variety of ways to make this project manageable. My sincere thanks to each and every one. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY Introduction The Emergence of Strategic Planning Reports on the Practice of Planning The Challenges Facing Small, Private, Egalitarian Liberal Arts Colleges The Issue of Presidential Leadership The Problem Purpose of the Study Significance Research Questions Methodology Knowledge/Theory Attitudes/Perceptions Current Practice Other Factors Assumptions Limitations Definition of Terms Organization of the Study Summary Page )1 r—sI—sI—Hr-st—st—I—I—t E UtUILdNF-‘i-‘CCCOWOOQQMUI hUJU-‘G REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Page The Context and Development of Strategic Planning 17 Premises of the Design School 22 Premises of the Planning School 23 Five Strategic Planning Models 24 Kotler and Murphy’s Model 24 Cape’s Model 27 The Strategic Management Model 28 Mintzberg’s "Design School” Model 29 Jaggers’ Model for Small, Private Colleges and Universities 30 Reports of Selected Strategic Planning Studies 35 Summary 46 DESIGN OF THE STUDY Research Design and Methodology 47 Population 48 Sample Size and Selection 49 Confidentiality 50 Design of the Survey Instrument 51 The Field Test 52 Data Collection & Response Enhancement Techniques 54 Summary 55 . PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Review of the Survey Research Method 56 Survey Results 57 Descriptive Data 57 Addressing the Research Questions 71 Summary 88 MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overview of the Study 89 Findings and Conclusions 90 Recommendations for Further Research 95 Other Suggestions 98 Summary 99 Concluding Remarks 100 viii APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX w 'TID'IUO LIST OF APPENDICES FIELD TEST COVER LETTER INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FIELD TEST QUESTIONNAIRE FIELD TEST QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY QUESIONNAIRE COVER LETTER PRESIDENT’S VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER’S VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE BOARD CHAIR’S VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE POST CARD SURVEY RETRIEVAL REMINDER BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 103 104 106 112 113 119 123 127 128 LIST OF TABLES Page Table I AREAS OF INSTITUTION FAVORABLY AFFECTED BY STRATEGIC PLANNING 59 Table II PRESIDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARD STRATEGIC PLANNING 60 Table III PRESIDENTS’ OPINIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES 61 Table IV ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PRACTICE OF ‘ ELEMENTS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING 63 Table V LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT PRACTICE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING 64 Table VI ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTION’S CURRENT PRACTICE OF ANALYZING EXTERNAL FACTORS 65 Table VII ASSESSMENT OF INSTTTUTION’S CURRENT PRACTICE OF ANALYZING INTERNAL FACTORS 66 Table VIII COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES IN RELATIONSHIP OF ITEMS 14 & 21 73 Tablle 1X COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS’ MEAN SCORES FOR ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PRACTICE 80 Table X RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RESPONDENTS’ ASSESSMENTS OF ELEMENTS OF S.P. 82-83 Table IX RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RESPONSES 87 TOITEMSZANDITEM7 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 LIST OF FIGURES Page KOTLER & MURPHY’S STRATEGIC PLANNING MODEL 26 COPE’S STRATEGIC PLANNING MODEL 27 MAZUR’S RFNDTTION OF THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT MODEL 28 MINTZBERG’S ”DESIGN SCHOOL” MODEL 29 CHAPTER 1 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY Introduction "There have always been problems for higher education and for American society. Crisis and change have been the rule, not the exception. Even during the ’Golden Age’ of the late 1950s and 19603, the period of the greatest expansion higher education has ever seen, administrators were under constant strain and pressure to meet the challenges that growth brought. " (Kerr & Gade 1981, 129) Kerr and Gade’s statement serves to remind those who are concerned about the problems and issues facing higher education that problems have always existed. In the article cited above, they also enumerated many of the challenges which American higher education has faced and met since post-Civil War times. "It [higher education] has responded to events in the political and social world, such as wars and depressions, as well as crises of confidence and internal dissension, as during the Vietnam War and the concurrent student movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s.” (p. 129). In light of this strong affirmation of higher education’s ability to meet whatever challenges it has faced over a long period of time, it is quite remarkable that in this same article, these authors went on to state, "It is less certain that American higher education can meet the challenges posed by current and emerging issues facing it, although past successes augur well." (p. 129). 2 In this article entitled, “Current and Emerging Issues Facing American Higher Education, " Clark Kerr and Marian Gade identified twelve issues which challenged higher education as it looked ahead into the 1980s and 1990s. While these issues were identified by these authors in 1981, many of them continue to exist into the present. Those issues are listed below in order to provide a detailed picture of the context in which higher education is operating: . changing composition and changing numbers of students; quality in college and in high school; serving all of youth; meeting new competition; continued support for science; planning and marketing issues; preserving the private sector; financial pressures; faculty morale after the golden age; dealing with uncertainty, and renovation of the role of leadership. (Kerr & Gade, 1981). Kerr and Gade were not alone in their observations about the CPPPSQHPPP“ pay—a problems facing higher education following the "Golden Age” of the 1950s and 1960s. According to George Keller, a congruent eruption of forces affected colleges and universities, including the following: changing student clientele, calls for curriculum reform, increasing competition, the need for technology to be incorporated into academic programs and interference from state and federal governments. (Keller 1983, 1.2-26). 3 Robert Shirley identifies other forces which are also exerting pressures upon universities including demands for accountability, heavily tenured faculty, and changing public attitudes on the value of a college degree. (Shirley 1983, 92). Kerr and Gade, Keller and Shirley are just four of the many authors (Bok, Kauffman, Mayhew, et.al.) who have enumerated the problems facing higher education since the 1960s. The Emergence of Strategic Planning It was in this context of change and challenge that strategic planning appeared on the higher education scene. As McKenna noted, long-range planning [the fore-runner of strategic planning] did not account for changing realities in the external environment. It made the mistake of merely projecting current trends into the future as if all the factors at work in the contemporary environment would continue indefinitely (McKenna 1988). Philip Kotler and Patrick Murphy were among the first to address the shortcomings of long-range planning by placing an emphasis on the external environment and consideration of market forces which might affect the future. They were also among the first to define strategic planning, labeling it, ”the process of developing and maintaining a strategic fit between the organization and its changing market opportunities.” (Kotler and Murphy 1981, 471). Their strategic planning model is presented in detail in Chapter Two. Robert Cope added another dimension to the strategic planning model of Kotler and Murphy by including consideration of the ”context” 4 of an organization. Cope pointed out that there is also an internal environment of values, culture and politics in every institution which is equally important in terms of providing criteria for planning decisions. In Cope’s model, ”context" includes the whole situation of an organization, both internal and external. He, therefore, labeled his planning theory "a contextual model to encompass the strategic planning concept.” (Cope 1985, 13-14). Reports on the Practice of Planning In 1979 Louis Mayhew reported that planning efforts at large universities were limited to next year’s budget and possible physical plant developments. (Mayhew 197 9, 112). A survey conducted by Schmidtlein and Milton, the results of which were published in 1989 in W in an article entitled, ”College and University Planning: Perspectives from a N ation- Wide Study,” reported that most colleges and universities have difficulty sustaining a particular planning, approach for more than two or three years. Nwagbaraocha reported an increase in planning activity in some institutions, but also indicated that these efforts were, for the most part, characterized as being several stages short of effective systems of planning. (Nwagbaraocha 1979, 30). Kim Cameron observed that many planning models have focused on efficiency rather than effectiveness. (Cameron 1983, 376). 5 The Challenges Facing Small, Private, Egalitarian, Liberal Arts Colleges The difficult circumstances which prompted the development of strategic planning have continued into the 19908. Small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges, which often have small endowments, a relatively small prospective student population base, and limited fund- raising capacities, are among those institutions most at risk. In 1979, preceding some of the toughest times of the 1980s and early 1990s, Louis Mayhew identified four types of institutions most threatened by then current conditions and future projections. Heading his list were small, little known liberal arts colleges (Mayhew 1979, 4). For these institutions to survive and thrive into the next century, it is reasonable to suggest that they will need to excel in strategic planning as well as in managing limited resources. If these institutions are to succeed in addressing the changing environment and the needs of their particular students, it would seem that strategic planning would be important. The Issue of Presidential Leadership According to Warren Bennis, author of WW, there is a crisis of leadership in our country. Bennis points out numerous reasons why contemporary leaders are being hindered in their ability to give true leadership to their organizations. (Bennis, 1990). Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University, also addresses this issue in his book, Him, published in 1990. While agreeing with many critics who believe that much of the power which exists in the academy has shifted from presidents into the hands of 6 faculty, Bok maintains that presidents do retain several powers, including the power to allocate resources (Bok, 192-193). In a 1984 Carnegie Report, Clark Kerr stated, ”The most urgent concern on the agenda of higher education in the United States is to strengthen presidential leadership. " (Kerr 1984). James Fisher, former president of The Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, has also done extensive research on the college presidency. He reports in his book, W, ”The current state of the college presidency is low, precariously so. " (Fisher 1991 , 1). Fisher, like Kerr, believes that, "the restoration of presidential legitimacy is the major issue in higher education today. " (p. 4). Corson has said, "The president’s responsibility is as comprehensive as the institution’s concerns, but the authority he is permitted to exercise over academic governance is far more limited than is popularly supposed. " (Corson 1960, 70). In spite of these dire warnings about the state of the college presidency in the US. , no one is arguing that the president is not responsible for the institution’s total program. As Corson’s comments imply, presidents may have lost some of their power and authority, but they have not been absolved of any of their responsibility. In fact, Corson, Kerr, Bok, and Bennis have called attention to the problem of presidents having total responsibility for their institutions, but inadequate power to fulfill these responsibilities. While a fuller discussion of that issue is outside the bounds of this research, it does inform it. Will The problem which the researcher examined arises from the paradox of professed strong belief and the record of limited practice. The literature emphasizes the need for effective strategic planning, but as the studies of Mayhew, Schmidtlein and Milton, and Nwagbaraocha report, planning is not consistently practiced. Why are institutions apparently not planning on a consistent basis? Are presidents focusing enough attention on this issue? What factors impede effective planning? These are the questions which come to mind when confronted with the aforementioned paradox. The researcher chose to examine the practice of strategic planning at small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges because these institutions are among those most at risk in the present and foreseeable future, as noted on page five. It may be possible to postulate any number of causes for the discrepancy between the stated importance of strategic planning and the apparent lack of attention to its practice, as noted above. This research was focused on the issue as it pertains to presidents because of the particular importance of their role. In addition, the researcher sought to learn if other factors are perceived to be impeding strategic planning. W The researcher’s purpose was to examine presidential knowledge and understanding of strategic planning processes, the president’s attitudes toward strategic planning, and the perceptions of presidents, board chairs, and chief academic officers concerning the practice of strategic planning at small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges. A second purpose was to ascertain what factors, if any, are impeding the effective practice of strategic planning. 5' . E This study is important because it investigated the discrepancy between the literature’s emphasis on planning and studies which show that the practice of planning does not reflect the expressed level of importance. In this study the researcher focused on strategic planning and its relationship to presidential leadership. The research was designed to investigate presidents’ knowledge of and attitudes toward strategic planning and their impact on its practice. This approach was taken because it allowed the researcher to investigate the connections between planning practice and presidential leadership in the context of the current discussion of diminished leadership capability. Wm Six questions were addressed in this research: 1. What is the relationship between the president’s knowledge of strategic planning theory and the president’s attitude toward strategic planning? 2. What is the relationship between the president’s knowledge of strategic planning theory and current practice as perceived by three important leaders, the president, chief academic officer, and board chair? 3. How do presidents assess the current practice of strategic planning processes at their institutions? 9 4. How do chief academic officers assess the current practice of strategic planning processes at their institutions? 5. How do board chairs assess the current practice of strategic planning processes at their institutions? 6. To what extent do a series of other factors impede strategic planning practice in the perceptions of the presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs? Mm Data for this research were gathered by using a survey instrument which was distributed to presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs of small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges in the United States. A random sample of such institutions was selected for inclusion in this study. The survey was designed to determine the presidents’ knowledge of strategic planning processes, their attitudes toward strategic planning and their perceptions of the current practice of strategic planning in their institutions. In addition, two other key constituents of each institution (the chairperson of the board of trustees and the chief academic officer) were surveyed to determine their perceptions of the current practice of strategic planning at their institutions. Care was taken to avoid any suggestion of asking these other persons to rate the president’s knowledge or abilities as that could have led to political conflict which would have been detrimental to the successful accessing of the more critical information necessary to complete the study. 10 This research focused primarily on presidents’ knowledge and attitudes as they impact planning practice. The other two respondents (chief academic officers and board chairs) were included for the purpose of gaining other perspectives on current practice of strategic planning. It also provided more opportunities to determine possible factors which may be impeding the practice of strategic planning. The research was organized as follows: Knowledge/Theory In this area of the research the intent was to measure presidents’ knowledge of strategic planning theory and processes. A series of Likert scale items were utilized to quantify presidents’ awareness of a variety of aspects of strategic planning. Likert scales were chosen because of their ability to assess individual knowledge in a non-threatening manner. Attitudes/Perceptions This part of the study focused on assessing presidents’ opinions of the importance of strategic planning. It was also designed to assess the presidents’ perceptions of the character and quality of current strategic planning practice within their own institutions. Rank order scales and comparative scales were used for these purposes. Current Practice Perceptions of the current practice of strategic planning were gathered from presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs of small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges in this section of the study. A series of Likert scale items was utilized for this purpose. 11 Other Factors This area of the study was designed to identify and rank factors which may be impeding effective strategic planning. The presidents and the other respondents were asked to assess the impact of several such potential factors including: the existence of appropriate planning structures and processes, the availability of necessary resources (personnel, expertise, time, and finances), the availability and flow of information pertinent to decision-making, the issue of presidential turnover, the ability to plan in a timely manner given the rapid pace of change in the external environment, the impact of success and/or failure in fund-raising, and the intrusion of unusual catalytic events into the life of the institution. A series of categorical response statements and comparative scale questions were used to gather this information. Two open-ended response items were also included. Assumptions As is evident from the elements included in the research methodology a number of assumptions were made in to define this research as follows: 1. The level of the president’s knowledge of strategic planning processes will impact his/her attitude toward strategic planning. 2. The level of the president’s knowledge of strategic planning processes will impact the practice of strategic planning. 3 . The attitude and perceptions of the president toward the importance and efficacy of strategic planning will directly relate to the perceptions of current planning practice within the institution. 12 4. The existence and character of planning structures, the availability of resources (personnel, expertise, time, finances), and the availability and flow of information for decision-making will impact the perceptions of strategic planning practice within an institution. 5 . Presidential tenure will relate to the duration and frequency of planning cycles within an institution. 6. Presidential turnover will relate to the existence and character of planning structures and processes. 7. The perceived pace of environmental change will impact the level of satisfaction with and the attitudes toward strategic planning practice. 8. The sense of satisfaction which participants display toward past planning processes will impact the current perceptions of planning practice. 9. The intrusion of unusual catalytic events into the life of the institution will affect the practice of strategic planning. I . . . This study was limited by a number of constraints, as follows: 1. Only information about presidents ’ knowledge of and attitudes toward strategic planning theory and practice was gathered. Chief academic officers and board chairs are included to ascertain their perceptions of current practice and other factors which may impede strategic planning. 2. The researcher sought only to learn the perceptions of the respondents. He did not attempt to measure actual practice either through observation or other means. 13 3. The study was limited by the fact that the decision was made to include presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs, and no other constituents. 4. The study was limited to small, non-profit, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges which were randomly selected; generalizations regarding resulting conclusions can only be made within that population. 5. Questionnaires were mailed to the president, chief academic officer, and board chair of each institution selected for the study. However, this study was limited to voluntary responses and, therefore, it was possible that any of these persons would choose not to respond. 6. Comparisons among the respondents are limited to aggregate data. No attempt was made to compare responses between individual respondents or institutions. D E . . [I There is a great deal of confusion and ambiguity about the meanings of many planning terms because there is no single source of definitions nor is there a uniform standard of usage. Since this study deals with planning, a few definitions related to planning are provided below. Planning - A process for determining appropriate future action through a sequence of choices. (Davidoff and Reiner p.11). The process of directing human activities and natural forces with reference to the future. (Branch 1983, 3). Comprehensive Planning - Planning which encompasses conceptually and analytically as many as possible of the essential elements of the organism which determine its course of action and influence its development, and 14 are within the primary control of the organism itself. It is planning for the totality rather than for one or several of its constituent parts, system rather than subsystem planning. (Branch, p. 3). Strategic (Contextual) Planning - The process by which representative leaders of an institution assess the institution’s current internal state and external environment, identify its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, prOpose various possible future states for the institution, and then select the desired state or states they will strive to attain in light of the mission, history, culture, and resources of the institution. (Cope 1985, 13-20). A Plan - A document which contains a visible set of predetermined courses of action. (Filella 1975, 42). A document which contains the determined future state(s) and related goals and objectives to which an organization is committed as well as the strategies necessary to achieving them as a result of comprehensive institutional strategic planning. Strategy - A course of action to achieve a goal or objective which has been determined as a result of a planning process and the allocation of resources necessary to achieve it. Academic Strategy - A clear sense of educational goals and objectives and a better means of allocating resources to reach them. (Keller 1983.) Total Quality Management - Total quality management (TQM) is a corporate strategy that focuses total company efforts on manufacturing superior products with continuous technological improvement and zero defects that satisfy customer needs. (Cateora 1993). 15 Management Information system - A system which utilizes computers to provide integrated data through various levels of management in an organization. (Huse and Bowditch 1973). Q . . E I S 1 Chapter 1 introduces the background for the study and defines the problem under consideration. In Chapter One, the purpose of the study, significance of the study, research questions, methodology, research assumptions and limitations are also presented. The first chapter also includes sections pertaining to the emergence of strategic planning, the challenges facing small, private, lesser-known, liberal arts colleges, reports on the practice of planning, the issue of presidential leadership and definitions of terms. Chapter 2 presents a review of related literature pertaining to the origins and evolution of strategic planning, strategic planning models, and several studies which have been completed in the last decade related to strategic planning in higher education. Chapter 3 presents the rationale for and descriptions of the methods and procedures utilized to gather and analyze the data for the research. Chapter 4 presents the results of the research, including the raw data and a discussion of the most significant data. Chaper 5 summarizes the research, presents recommendations which arise from the study and suggestions for further research. Summary In this chapter, the researcher first discussed the environment in which higher education is operating. Clark Kerr and Marian Gade, 16 George Kerr, and Robert Shirley were cited in reviewing the many problems and challenges which face the leaders of academic institutions. Then the shortcomings of long-range planning were reviewed, citing McKenna’s summary statement of the fatal mistake of long-range planning. Next, the emergence of strategic planning in higher education was briefly presented, noting the works of Philip Kotler, Patrick Murphy and Robert Cope. The final part of the introduction included a discussion of the challenges facing small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges in the U.S. and the issues surrounding presidential leadership. In addition to the introductory remarks, the chapter includes the presentation of the research problem, as well as the purpose of the study, its significance, and the specific research questions. Finally, a brief review of the research methodology was provided, followed by the assumptions and limitations of the study. The chapter concluded with a definition of terms. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE I] C I D l E S . El . In order to gain perspective on the present state of strategic planning in higher education, a brief review of its origins and evolution is presented below. . Formal planning procedures in higher education trace their origins to the corporate world, which was forced to confront the competitive realities of contemporary business practice much earlier than was higher education. Ironically, it was higher education which developed the theories of strategic planning for business. According to Hammermesh, ”strategic management had its genesis in the concept of corporate strategy that was developed in the early 1960s by a group of faculty members at the Harvard Business School. " (Hamermesh, 1983). John Reeves identified several of the academic roots of strategic planning in the business world: Anthony (1965) observed, ’The principles of strategic planning have their roots in economics.’ and Bracken (1980) noted that the first modern writers to relate the concept of strategy to business were von Neumann and Margenstern (1947) with their theory of games. (Reeves 1988, 13-14) ”Strategic planning, invented in the 1960s, was a response to the inadequacies of the long-range planning models of the 19503. ” (Evans 1987, 44) 17 18 Long-range planning was the planning model which immediately preceded strategic planning. It lasted only during the period of great expansion in the 1950s and 1960s, called the ”Golden Age” of higher education (Kerr & Gade 1981). The fatal flaw of long-range planning was its failure to give proper consideration to the external environment in which all organizations function. In simplest terms, long-range planning is an extrapolation of those trends which have characterized the immediate past. Its fallacies became evident when growth trends turned into down trends. David McKenna explains the problem, ”The difference between long-range and strategic planning is crucial. In the 1960s, planning took the form of computerized, mathematical, ten-year models in which the internal components of the institutions were quantified and translated into dollars. Building on current information and assumptions, the future was projected incrementally without allowing for potential changes that might affect the numbers.” (McKenna 1988, 6-7). This serious shortcoming accounts for the brevity of the lifespan of long-range planning. According to Evans, "Much of the literature addressing change in higher education was written in the 1970s. [And] planning during the 1970s was usually limited to forecasts of enrollment and financial matters.” (Evans 1987, 38-39). As the shortcomings of the long-range planning models of the 1960s and 1970s became increasingly apparent, the need for a new approach emerged. Strategic planning in higher education appeared on the scene in the early 1980s. 19 One of the first articles addressing the application of a business planning model to higher education was published in 1981 by Philip Kotler and Patrick Murphy. The model presented then by Kotler and Murphy is basic to understanding the strategic planning process for higher education. They defined strategic planning as, ”the process of developing and maintaining a strategic fit between the organization and its changing market opportunities. " (Kotler and Murphy, 471). Environmental sensitivity was prominent in their model. Then, in 1985, Robert Cope added a new dimension to strategic planning, calling his model, ”contextual planning. Cope explained "context” as follows: Context is fundamental to strategic thinking in complex organizations operating in fluid environments. As the essential nature of an organization appears to be determined by the interplay of components in context, the concept of contextual is fundamental to determining what and how. There are two contexts: internal and external. By contextual thinking, contextual management, or contextual planning, the reference is to the whole situation, background or environment, internally and externally. Contextual planning, as a process, then becomes the way things are put together, interwoven, composed, in order to determine strategic directions. Strategic direction, the result of contextual planning processes, guides the long-range behaviors of the institution into a best possible future state. (Cope 1985, 13-14). 20 Whereas strategic planning as defined by Kotler and Murphy was a giant step forward from long-range planning because of its attention to the external environment, as well as its inclusion of an internal analysis of existing resources, Cope’s model was more of a fine-tuning of strategic planning which gave emphasis to the whole context of an institution. He included previously ignored elements like institutional values, politics and culture as important ”environmental” considerations. In fact, he tended to maximize values and culture as ultimately more critical factors than marketing considerations. Another thread of planning development worthy of mention in this review is the design school model. The origin and essence of the "design school” model is presented below as described by Henry Mintzberg. One single set of concepts underlies virtually all the proposals to formalize the process of strategy formation. Sometimes called the SWOT model (for strengths and weakness, opportunities and threats), and most popularly known in the writings of the Harvard business policy people (especially Kenneth Andrews, in his own books [1971, 1980] and a textbook with his various colleagues, [Learned et al. , 1965; Christensen et al., 1982, etc.]), the basic ideas can be traced back at least to Philip Selznick’s influential little book, Leadership in Administration (1957). (Mintzberg 1994, 36) Having identified the source of design school theory, Mintzberg goes on to describe it (see model illustration on page 29). . . .strategy is created at the intersection of an external appraisal of the threats and opportunities facing an organization in its environment, considered in terms of key factors for success, and an internal appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of 21 the organization itself, distilled into a set of distinctive competencies. Outside opportunities are exploited by inside strengths, while threats are avoided and weaknesses circumvented. Taken into consideration, both in the creation of the strategies and their subsequent evaluation to choose the best, are the values of the leadership as well as the ethics of the society and other aspects of so-called social responsibility. And once a strategy has been chosen, it is implemented. That is essentially all there is to it—a simple "informing idea” . . . (Mintzberg 1994, 36). This model incorporates most of the features that are included in Kotler and Murphy’s theory, as well as the elements which Cope incorporated in his contextual planning concept. The design school model has been identified in the literature most frequently as strategic management. Mazur’s rendition of the strategic management model, shown on page 24, demonstrates the congruence among these various models, and serves to illustrate how the strategic management model reflects the design school theory. In summary, then, planning in higher education has evolved from long-range planning to strategic planning to strategic planning in context, most often referred to as strategic management. Recently, the literature has tended to focus on total quality management, a continuous improvement process. While this process is sometimes included in the planning literature, it actually has more to do with management than with strategic planning, and, therefore, is not explored in this review. 22 One other issue merits discussion before leaving this section on the development of strategic planning theory. Once again, it is Henry Mintzberg who speaks to the issue, providing an insight which does not appear in other writings, as far as this writer is aware. Mintzberg claims that there is a distinctive divide in the literature between "design school” theorists and those who espouse the ”planning literature” which was developed alongside the design school literature. According to him, ”a number of premises underlie.. .what we call the design school of strategic management—those who stayed with this model [i.e. , the design school model] in its simplest form (rather than elaborating it in the spirit of the planning school) " (Mintzberg, 38). The difference between the two schools is essentially one of simplicity versus complexity. Mintzberg maintains that the design school keeps strategic planning relatively simple, while the planning school is given to great detail and complexity. This difference can be seen more clearly by stating the premises of each school, according to Mintzberg. E . E l D . S l l 1. Strategy formation should be a controlled, conscious process of thought. 2. Responsibility for the process must rest with the chief executive officer: that person is THE strategist. 3. The model of strategy formation must be kept simple and informal. 4. Strategies should be unique: the best ones result from a process of creative design. 5. Strategies must come out of the design process fully developed. 23 6. The strategies should be made explicit and, if possible, articulated, which means they have to be kept simple. 7. Finally, once these unique, full-blown, explicit, and simple strategies are fully formulated, they must then be implemented. . E'EIEI'I' 1. Strategy formation should be controlled and conscious as well as a formalized and elaborated process, decomposed into distinct steps, each delineated by checklists and supported by techniques. 2. Responsibility for the overall process rests with the chief executive in principle; responsibility for its execution rests with the staff planners in practice. 3. Strategies come out of this process fully developed, typically as generic positions, to be explicated so that they can then be implemented through detailed attention to objectives, budgets, programs, and operating plans of various kinds. (Mintzberg, 38,39,42). In the same book in which he described these two schools of thought, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Mintzberg, asserted that strategic planning has failed. Most of his argument seems to be . registered against the planning school model, but he does include both models in his ultimate denunciation. Mintzberg’s basic argument is that strategic planning is decompositional in nature, that is, it relies on separating organizations into their various parts for the purpose of analyzing them in the hope that subsequent synthesis of purpose and objective will occur. He maintains that this process is counterproductive to creating synthesis, and that planning has fallen prey to such minimalization as to be unable to produce meaningful synthesis. He then takes great pains to demonstrate that planning, in all its rationalistic forms 24 and utilizing a variety of complex models, as practiced in industry, government, and the not-for-profit sector, fails to deliver the necessary strategies which lead to success for the organization . (Mintzberg 1994, 1-133). This, then, is the current state of the discussion of strategic planning in the literature. The writer shall not say more about this, except to mention that the results of the research reported in this dissertation reveal a level of commitment to strategic planning (most likely to the design school model) which the literature does not suggest. I? S . El . l I I I In this section the several models of strategic planning which have been discussed are presented in graphic form. They are presented in order to further assist in defining the concepts and scope of strategic planning. Four of the models, Kotler & Murphy’s, Cope’s, Mazur’s and Mintzberg’s, are variations on the basic strategic planning theories as has been noted. Jaggers’ model is presented because of its detail and because it represents one attempt to strictly prescribe the elements of strategic planning in a small college setting. ‘ 1. Kotler and Murphy’s Model The strategic planning model which was defined by Kotler and Murphy emphasizes a marketing perspective. This model identifies the essential elements of strategic planning as environmental analysis, resource analysis, goal formulation, strategy formulation, organization design, and system design. 25 Environmental analysis included five assessments: internal environment, market environment, competitive environment, public environment, and macro-environment. Resource analysis includes assessments of personnel, funds, facilities, and systems. Goal formulation pertains to setting the basic purpose, goals and objectives of the organization. In this model, strategy formulation refers to academic portfolio strategy, product/market opportunity strategy, competitive strategy, positioning strategy, and target strategy. These strategies are not always readily transferrable from the business world to the academy. Organization design pertains to the structure, personnel, and culture to implement strategy successfully and systems design refers to the need to have appropriate systems in place to carry out the various strategies (Kotler & Murphy 1981, 470-89). Kotler and Murphy have defined "strategy” narrowly, relegating it to a place of methodology to achieve organizational purposes, goals, and objectives. Their definition does not seem to be used by others who talk about strategic planning. Rather, the word "strategic” more often refers to the decisions about the organization’s larger purposes, goals and objectives. Nevertheless, theirs was one of the earliest models of strategic planning which was adapted to higher education, and as such, it served to move the theory into the academy. 26 MZSIOZZMZHS—t >Z>Fz>rn~nauan $25.50 . 309353913. 9.8355. was?” . non-van: mafia . $85255 9335. . dunno. gun—3. mafia Iv Ofln>Z—N>.=OZ Gnu-Oz o mag—8:3 o when? o 9:33 m CHOICES f 9 Internal: Strengths Commitment Phases: Formulation ........... Evaluation Figure 2 Cape's Strategic Planning Model 28 3. The Strategic Management Model The strategic management model presented here is taken from the study done by Denise Anne Mazur and represents an attempt to visualize the basic components of strategic management as found in the literature (Mazur, p. 4). ‘ Institutional Mission A 7 Organization External ' 7 Profile Environment a Strategic Analysis and Choice Long-Term Goals v and Grand Strategy Feedback ' Feedback Annual Objectives and Short-term Strategies 7 A Implementation Review and Evaluation Figure 3 Mazur's Rendition of the Strategic Management Model 29 4. Mintzberg’s ”Design School” Model As stated earlier, Mintzberg’s summary of the ”design school ” model of strategy formation incorporates what he says is the ”one single set of concepts [which] underlies virtually all the proposals to formalize the process of strategy formation, " the "SWOT” model. SWOT stands for strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats (Mintzberg, 36). External Inbrnal Appraisal . Appraisal Threats and N ‘ Strengths and Opportunities in Weaknesses of Environment Organization Key Success Distinctive Factors Competences Creatton ot Social Mmagertal Responsrwry Vdues . I. C ot Strategy Implementation ot Strategy Figurel Mintzberg's "Design School" Model 30 5. Jaggers’ Model for Small, Private Colleges and Universities Charles R. Jaggers III, created a detailed model for strategic planning in conjunction with his doctoral dissertation study at Ball State University in 1985. This model is summarized below in outline form because it deals specifically with small, private colleges and universities, the same general universe with which this study deals. Jaggers’ model is interesting for several reasons: (1) it does follow the design school model in the heart of its processes; (2) it also enlarges the scope of the planning process to include pre-planning activities; (3) it also recognizes the need to process plans through both budget and governance structures; (4) it is highly prescriptive and very linear. Jaggers may be too optimistic in his attempt to prescribe a planning system which can be imposed upon a variety of institutions. However, he can at least be credited with making an attempt to provide a comprehensive system. ‘- .1..l‘ 0 1". UK" 0 v." .‘..s’.,.. 0 II: I . . . H' 1 El . Phase I Pre-Planning 1. Conduct leadership discussions a. general discussion on process and structure 2. Develop planning structures and organization a. committee to manage the process 31 3 . Review and develop support mechanisms a. adequacy of financial and human resources b. allocation of time c. staffing required (I. data including financial information (existence of M18 system and/or Decision Support System) Phase II Foundations for Strategic Planning 4. Collect and review current institutional profile a. profile of the student body b. profile of faculty and staff c. financial profile d. profile of academic program e. organizational chart f. mission statement 5 . Review current educational values 6. Conduct inventory of current college goals a.utilize the Small College Goals Inventory 7. Conduct desired position analysis a. mission b. clientele c. goal dimensions d. program/service mix e. geographic service mix f. comparative advantage 32 g. organizational culture h. working climate i. developmental programs Phase III Situation Analysis 8. Conduct external analysis a. direct forces - market needs and demands, impact of regulatory and accrediting agencies, constituent opinions, and student demographics b. indirect forces - economic, social/cultural, demographic,etc. c. competitive situation d. external environmental assumptions e. environmental opportunities and threats 9. Conduct internal organizational analysis a. academic program b. administrative and support services c. organizational culture d. available resources - financial, facilities, equipment, skills of key people e. internal organizational assumptions f. internal strengths and weaknesses 10. Conduct present position analysis a. identify and match key external opportunities and threats with key internal strengths and weaknesses 33 Phase IV Strategic Decision-Making 11. Conduct gap analysis and strategic variable adjustment. Possibilities include: a. identifying areas of the educational program which require adjustment b. identifying factors which can and cannot be controlled c. focusing on program distinctives or deve10ping new areas of excellence d. adjusting educational purposes and clientele served e. identifying a distinctive market niche 12. Review strategic alternatives 13. Make strategic choices a. develop a sound set of strategic goals and priorities for the institution 14. Review and refine strategic plans a. provide opportunities for input b. promote ownership of institutional goals c. refine planning goals and priorities d. communicate institutional intentions 15 . Select strategic approaches a. align the externally focused priorities and goals with defensive, offensive, or creation strategies b. align internally focused goals and priorities with broad categories defined as improvement and initiation strategies 34 c. compile a document which articulates recommended institutional strategies d. submit document to trustees for endorsement Phase V Strategic Implementation and Actions 16. Develop strategic plans by functional areas: a.foundation plan b. education plan c. financial plan d. public relations, marketing plan e. service plan f. human resources plan g. organizational plan h. facilities, equipment, campus plan i. information/technology plan 17. Development of action plans a. include goals, objectives, human resource requirements, financial requirements, and projections 18. Channel plans through budget process and governance structures 19. Implement annual plans 20. Monitor and assess progress These five models serve to illustrate the essential elements of strategic planning, as discussed in the literature. The primary concept includes emphases upon external and internal assessments to ascertain internal strengths and weaknesses and external Opportunities and threats 35 as a basis for decision-making about plotting the course for the future direction(s) which an organization should pursue. B E S l l S l' E S . El . In this section six studies are reviewed, each of which examined some aspect of strategic planning over the last decade. These particular studies have been chosen because they are all related to higher education, and the results inform the research presented in this dissertation. J .A. Richard Guertin produced a study in conjunction with his doctoral dissertation at The George Washington University in 1987 entitled, ”A Study on Active Presidential Decision Making, Strategic Planning, and Supportive Computer Automation At Small Universities and Colleges. " Mr. Guertin addressed two questions in his study: (1) ”to what extent do small universities and colleges use planning and management factors and computerized systems in the strategic planning and decision making processes?” (2) "would the utilization of a microcomputer automated, relational, data base management system help academic decision makers manage vast information in the strategic planning and management processes?” (Guertin 5). Mr. Guertin utilized a survey instrument to collect his data, focusing on small colleges and universities with student p0pulations ranging from 1000 to 2500. Two of the thirteen findings from this research are relevant to our study: ( 1) "presidential strategic planning processes focus on ’active decision making’ and an ’outward focus toward the environment’ as their two highest priorities. The highest priority among 36 their considerations in strategic planning were ’academic and financial strengths and weaknesses’ and ’leader abilities and priorities. ’ " (2) "two thirds (65 percent) of the presidents conduct their strategic planning effort within their offices, and 31 percent indicated they personally lead the effort. Additionally, 54 percent also use a collective analytical effort by the president, the faculty, and the staff" (Guertin, 181). One of Guertin’s recommendations was that "further work be done with the presidents of small institutions to improve their capability for more effective strategic planning” (Guertin, 193). Perhaps the most important finding relative to our research was that most planning efforts were conducted within the presidents’ offices and that nearly one-third of the respondents indicated that the president leads the planning effort. The president’s attitude toward strategic planning and his/her ability to give leadership to it is obviously very important in light of these findings. Another study, this one conducted by the National Center for Strategic Planning & Resource Development in 1993 , was a national survey on planning in higher education. ”Survey instruments were distributed to the presidents, Chancellors, chief executive officers and heads of 3,367 U.S. institutions, and 1,184 usable instruments were received for a response rate of 35.2% . " This study yielded several relevant outcomes. Once again, it was demonstrated that ”the president of an institution is critical to the planning which the institution undertakes in three ways: 37 the chief executive officer is most often identified as having overall responsibility for planning; the president is the most likely person to whom the chief planning officer reports; the president is the most significant ’driving force’ behind institutional planning efforts. " One other finding from this research, which could have been predicted, was that "accreditation plays a strong motivating role in institutional planning efforts.” This finding will likely come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with higher education in this country. Of interest to this researcher is that 81.7 % of the respondents in this study indicated that their institutions utilized planning committees and that 32% of those institutions which utilize planning committees meet with the committees on a monthly basis. Furthermore, 84.2% of the respondents indicated that their institutions do have an overall plan, and ”setting institutional priorities” received the highest rating as a ”potential benefit of planning. " The second most important benefit of planning, according to these respondents, was that it ”established a rational framework for budgeting and resource allocation" (National Center for Strategic Planning and Resource Development 1993). In 1985 Beverly Copeland conducted a study in which she examined the strategic planning practices of small private liberal arts colleges in the southeastern United States. The basic purposes of her study were "to determine if planning was currently incorporated by small, private liberal arts colleges; and, if such plans exist, ”to evaluate them in terms of the components of strategic planning” (Copeland 1985). 38 Using the states of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, Copeland selected two colleges from each state through the utilization of the random numbers table which met the criteria for her sample. She interviewed three administrators from each of the colleges around the same set of questions. The primary question was, "does strategic planning occur in small, private liberal arts colleges?” Her operational definition of strategic planning included four components: forecasting short- and long-range external and internal events that will affect the organization; establishing the context for strategic planning by assessment of mission and purpose and determination of organizationwide short- and long-range objectives of the organization; development of an organizationwide plan with the mission as the central strategy and a selection of strategies based on forecasting to accomplish the mission; evaluation and change (if necessary) of the strategic plan based on continuous forecasting, assessment of mission, strategic planning processes, implementation and results (Copeland, 12-13). Copeland also addressed the following subquestions: ( 1) Has the college forecasted external and internal events that will affect the college? (2) Has the college recently assessed its mission and purpose? (3) has the college recently established short- and/or long-range objectives? (4) Has planning been organizationwide? Does the plan have the mission as the central strategy? Is there a selection of strategies based on forecasting? (5) Have plans been implemented, evaluated and changed, if necessary, to assure flexibility? (p.13). 39 Copeland’s findings were enlightening, beginning with the fact that she found ”considerable variance regarding the scope of activities related to strategic planning. ” She discovered that although elements of the four components of strategic planning existed in all 10 colleges, only 3 colleges engaged in all four of the components of strategic planning. One of her findings verifies Mintzberg’s contentions about the failures of strategic planning, noting that generally, administrators thought that forecasting was fraught with great uncertainty, and therefore not worth the effort required. Furthermore, her study revealed that planning is not perceived to be organizationwide at most colleges, but is perceived as being instituted by top-level management (pp. 101 , 103). The overall result of this study would have to be characterized as discouraging, but not surprising. It appears that small, private liberal arts colleges in the southeastern United States were not practicing strategic planning successfully in 1985. Another study worthy of mention in this review is that done by Denise Anne Mazur in conjunction with her dissertation at Michigan State University in 1991. Her study focused on the question of ”whether those who participated in the strategic planning process at one college demonstrated greater knowledge of and commitment to the organization’s strategic mission and goals than did those who did not” (Mazur, p.9). 40 One of the principles of strategic planning is the utilization of participatory processes. Mazur sought to understand if such participation created a more knowledgeable and favorable disposition toward the mission and goals of the institution among participants than those held by non-participants. In order to accomplish this research, Mazur utilized a questionnaire to survey members of the key stakeholders of the institution including faculty, staff, students, alumni, and trustees. In addition, she interviewed ten individuals who represented groups actively involved in administration of the college to provide a fuller description. From her study, Mazur drew the following six conclusions: 1. Overall, with some exceptions, those who participated in strategic planning activities were more knowledgeable about the mission and strategic planning. 2. Organizational values of the institution affected the strategic planning process. This conclusion resulted from her findings that paradoxes in certain organizational values hindered the effectiveness of the process. 3. The combination of process leader and executive leader as the role of one individual, the president, mitigated the effectiveness of the process. As this particular college was moving toward a more participative style of management, they experienced some difficulties from a mixture of old and new styles. 4. The success of the strategic planning process and the strategic plan was hindered because the strategic planning process and the strategic plan was not well communicated. 41 5 . A process step involving participation by college members was more successful if the college community perceived that they had influenced the development of the products of that process component. 6. Members of the college associated the failure to define a vision with the perception that the strategic plan lacked unity and that the process did not have a clear focus. This was an interesting outcome of the study. ”Faculty and staff members who were interviewed were unanimous in stating that the strategic planning process and the resulting strategic plan suffered in effectiveness because a vision or focus was not successfully defined " (pp. 85-94). This study serves to illustrate the importance of highly participative processes and the need for clear communication to constituents of both the planning process and the resultant strategic plan. It also serves to highlight the delicate balance which contemporary college presidents often have to strike in providing strong, visionary leadership without being perceived as autocratic or top-down in their style. Another study which is pertinent to this particular study is one conducted by Paul H. Dixon in 1986, entitled ”How the Presidents of the Private Colleges and Universities in Ohio View and Engage in Strategic Planning. ” Completed in conjunction with Dixon’s doctoral dissertation at the University of Cincinnati, this research project was designed to investigate four specific questions: (1) how do presidents of the private colleges and universities in Ohio implement strategic planning as the literature would define it? (2) how are the presidents involved in the 42 leadership of the process of strategic planning? (3) how do the presidents view the changes in the planning process on their campuses since 1980? (4) how does the enrollment status affect the planning? (Dixon, pp.5—6). Dixon gathered the data for his research through means of a 62- question survey instrument which be distributed to the 44 presidents of the private colleges and universities in Ohio which are accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Mr. Dixon himself was the president of one of these schools at the time he conducted the research, which may help to explain his remarkable success in getting the cooperation of 35 of the presidents with 2 others indicating that they felt uncomfortable completing the survey since they were serving as interim presidents at the time. Mr. Dixon focused upon strategic planning because of its sensitivity to the environment and its attention to plotting the future, an important consideration in the environment of retrenchment and competition which marks contemporary higher education, especially in private colleges and universities. The other focus was placed upon the president’s view and practice of strategic planning in recognition of the great importance of the leadership of that officer. In order to examine the first sub-question, this researcher asked questions about the essential elements of strategic planning, such as the "evaluation of college mission, analysis of external environment, tying the process to day-to—day decision making and budget decisions, flexibility of the process, and establishing a market niche.” He found 43 that the presidents "overwhelmingly agreed that these areas are important and are taking place on their campuses” (p. 84). The second sub-question investigating how presidents were involved in the leadership of planning showed equally affirmative results. "Almost 90 percent of the presidents considered planning to be either their top administrative priority or one of their top five priorities. Most of them described their leadership style as someone who directs the process and assists others, or as one who is interested and assists others in planning" (p. 93). In addition, Dixon found in response to his other two sub-questions that there was ”new interest and commitment to planning on the part of these presidents since 1980” (p. 108) and that enrollment was not a particularly meaningful factor relative to the view and practice of strategic planning by these presidents (pp.110—111). Dixon concluded that ”a high percentage of these presidents value strategic planning and are leading strategic planning efforts on their campuses" (p. 112). He goes on to say that while his data cannot demonstrate conclusively that the success which many of these colleges and universities have enjoyed in the midst of the current difficult environment is due to strategic planning, it does reveal that these presidents believe the strategic planning experience was positive, that they are committed to strategic planning, and they are leading these efforts on their campuses (p.114). 4.4 One final study is presented to conclude the section on previous research completed in the last decade related to strategic planning in institutions of higher education. During the summer of 1991, Marc Jeffrey Martin conducted research in conjunction with his doctoral dissertation at Kent State University which also informs this researcher’s study. While the scope of his research went beyond the practice of strategic planning, it is relevant because of its inclusion of a segment about presidents’ perceptions of strategic planning. Mr. Martin distributed research instruments to 394 presidents of academic institutions, and received 188 usable questionnaires in return. According to Martin, from the responses to his instrument, these "presidents indicated a belief that they possessed competency in strategic planning. About 90% of the respondents reported that their institutions had used strategic planning for a mean of 5.2 years. However, responses to inquiries about their commitment to and utilization of those strategic plans was moderate (Martin, pp.157-158). In his book, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Henry Mintzberg blatantly declares that strategic planning has failed, as was noted earlier. Whether Mintzberg is correct or not was not the central issue of this research, but it should be noted that presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs of small, private, liberal arts colleges believe that strategic planning has helped them succeed in improving many of their schools’ programs and systems. It appears from the studies which have been reported in this review that most colleges and 45 universities perceive some benefit from the practice of strategic planning on their campuses. While this research was not designed to discover the particular school of planning which small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges employ, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that most are using the more simplified model reflective of the "design school” than the more complex model of the "planning school. " Mintzberg’s criticisms tend to be targeted more toward the complexities of the planning school. Nevertheless, there is no evidence uncovered by the writer which demonstrated that colleges and universities were very successful in translating the general missions, goals, and objectives which their planning processes created or defined into solid action plans and into the annual budget. In this criticism, Mintzberg cannot be refuted by the evidence of the literature and the studies which have been conducted. Has strategic planning failed? Perhaps it has in the technical sense, i.e., in terms of creating ongoing planning systems which are working as finely tuned operations which create an array of strategies from which to choose the desired future of the institution. But the studies which have been reviewed in this chapter, as well as the research which is presented in this document also tend to provide supportive data to demonstrate that presidents of colleges and universities believe that strategic planning has reaped some positive benefits, and that it is a better tool than any of its predecessors. 45 Summary In this chapter, the literature related to the context and development of strategic planning was reviewed. The evolution of planning theory was traced from the long-range planning models of the 1950s and 1960s to the recent strategic planning models of the 1980s and 19908. Five planning models were presented in either graphic or outline form and several planning studies which have been conducted within the last decade were reviewed. CHAPTER 3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY WNW—MW The literature on strategic planning in higher education in the United States indicates that questions remain concerning the practice of strategic planning. There is evidence of the practice of strategic planning in many quarters, but there is not much data about the perceptions of that practice (Schmidtlein & Milton, 1989, Cameron, 1983). This study has been designed to address the latter issue. The researcher’s first purpose was to examine presidential knowledge and understanding of strategic planning processes and the presidents’ attitudes toward strategic planning. The researcher also examined the perceptions of chief academic officers and board chairs relative to the practice of strategic planning in small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges and universities in the United States. A secondary purpose of the research was to ascertain what factors may be impeding the effective practice of strategic planning in the opinions of these three important leaders. In order to accomplish these objectives, it was determined that a survey research process would be needed to acquire sufficient data for making some generalizations to the larger population of institutions within the defined group. Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and Ott (1990, p. 7) indicate that the ”objective of statistics is to make inferences about a population from information contained in a sample. " The most practical means of obtaining data, in this research, was to utilize a questionnaire. 47 48 292mm Selection of the population for this research was determined through a combination of factors: the researcher’s own interest in small, private liberal arts colleges; the research director’s concern that the population include a large enough representation of small colleges and universities to enhance the significance of the study; and probably most importantly, the existence of evidence from the literature that small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges were among those most at risk in the current environment (Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 1980; Mayhew, et. al.). The Carnegie Council report listed the following reasons why small, private liberal arts colleges were most vulnerable to the changes in demographics and other external environmental factors: 1. It is not generally possible for them to greatly lower their admission requirements; 2. They usually recruit in their localities and can be badly affected if they are in a small town or rural area that is losing population or in a state that is losing population; 3. They can be vulnerable if they are in a large metropolitan area with a vast range of low-tuition public institutions; 4. They are particularly vulnerable if they are single-sex, and very small in size—with heavy fixed costs per student and unable to offer the range of programs, particularly technical ones, that students have been demanding; and 5 . If they have concentrated on teacher education and/or first generation ethnic students, they are additionally affected. Teacher education at the undergraduate level has generally been cut by one- quarter. Second-generation students are likely to explore college opportunities more widely than is possible in the local, and often religious, institutions with which non-college attending parents have 49 generally felt more comfortable as places for their children (as research has shown that second-generation students—currently half of the total- show greater preference than first-generation students for private institutions, and for research universities and selective liberal arts colleges) (Carnegie Council, 1980). The population of small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges was developed by utilizing the 1994 edition of The HEP Higher Education Directory. Small was defined as those institutions whose enrollments were between 500 and 2500 students. Private was interpreted to mean any non-public, non-proprietary, degree-granting institution, and egalitarian was defined as those institutions whose tuition costs per year were less than $18,000. Six hundred seventy eight (678) such institutions were identified in the directory within this set of parameters. 5 l S’ I S I . In order to determine the number of respondents which would be needed to ensure a reliable estimate of each parameter of the population, the following equation was utilized to determine the necessary sample size allowing for a .1 margin of error where the actual mean is not known: n = Npq/[(N-1)D + pq] (Schaeffer, Mendenhall, Ott 1990, 75) Using this formula it was determined that a sample of 87 would be necessary for generalizing to the larger populations of presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs. The researcher then arbitrarily determined to seek a response of approximately 100 from each population to add a measure of reliability. In order to maximize the probabilities of securing a response of at least 100 from each population, the researcher 50 decided to select 200 institutions for participation in the survey, believing that it would be possible to obtain a 50% response. The sample institutions were selected by assigning a number to each institution previously identfied in the directory and then utilizing the random numbers chart to select the sample. Once the sample had been drawn, surveys were sent to the president, chief academic officer, and board chair of each institution. The process of reaching board chairs directly was hindered from the outset, even though phone calls were placed to each of the institutions to request the address of the board chair. While many of the institutions did cooperate with this request, many others instructed the researcher to submit the questionnaire for the board chairin care of the president’s office. Having no other recourse and because there was no desire to create suspicions or animosity with any potential respondents, this request was honored. C E I . l' N o attempt was made to create data for each individual institution. Furthermore data collection and processing were handled in such a way as to ensure that neither individual respondents or institutions would be identified in any report of results. All prospective respondents were given this assurance in the cover letter (see Appendix D) which accompanied the questionnaire. Questionnaires were coded and the only person with access to the codes was the researcher. In addition, the respondents were reminded in both the cover letter and on the survey instrument itself that their participation was voluntary. 51 W The questionnaire was designed by the researcher utilizing the principles of strategic planning which had been identified in the literature and the information which was needed to answer the research questions. The research questions addressed in this study were: 1. What is the relationship between presidential knowledge of strategic planning theory and processes and the president’s attitude toward strategic planning? 2. What is the relationship between presidential knowledge of strategic planning theory and processes and current practice as perceived by three important leaders, the president, the chief academic officer, and the board chair? 3. How do presidents assess the current practice of strategic planning processes at their institutions? 4. How do chief academic officers assess the current practice of strategic planning processes at their institutions? 5. How do board chairs assess the current practice of strategic planning processes at their institutions? 6. To what extent do a series of other factors impede strategic planning practice in the perceptions of the presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs? A series of Likert-type scales were utilized for most sections of the questionnaire to allow for rapid response in a manner which was also 52 non-threatening. Other sections utilized rank order scales for the purpose of determining strength of belief and relative importance. Validity of the instrument was enhanced by taking time and care in the construction phase through multiple checks with practicing professionals as well as through the field test process. Reliability was enhanced through the selection of a sizable sample and through persistence in seeking a good response. Initial drafts of the questionnaire were reviewed by colleagues in administrative positions as well as by the members of the researcher’s guidance committee. After the refinements were made which this group of individuals suggested, the instrument was field tested. W Since the research was designed primarily to ascertain the opinions of presidents of small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges, a group of eleven presidents of such colleges which were not in the sample group were asked to test the instrument, as well as one consultant who is knowledgeable of higher education planning processes. The researcher telephoned these acquaintances to request their cooperation in the test and upon securing their positive response mailed the initial draft of the questionnaire along with a cover letter and response device (see appendices A, B, & C). In addition to asking these individuals to complete the questionnaire, they were also asked to respond to the following eight questions: 1. How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire? 2. How comfortable were you with the length of time it 53 took you to complete the questionnaire? 3 . Do you think other respondents will find it takes too long to complete, and, therefore, be unlikely to persevere to the end? 4. Are there any items or instructions in which the wording or meaning is difficult to understand? If so, do you have suggestions for improving these items/sections? 5 . Are any of the sections of the questionnaire expecially interesting or especially dull and tedious to complete? If so, do you have any suggestions for improving these sections? 6. Is the flow of the questionnaire logical, or is it confusing? Do any of the questions seem out of order? 7. Are there any subjects related to strategic planning which should be included? Are there any items you would like to see included or excluded? 8. Are there any other observations or suggestions you have? As a result of the field test we altered several items on the questionnaire and clarified one set of instructions which was confusing. Appendix E is a reproduction of the final questionnaire which was sent to presidents. Appendix F is a reproduction of the questionnaire which was sent to the chief academic officers, and appendix G is a reproduction of the questionnaire which was sent to board chairs. The primary difference in the questionnaires is that the presidents were asked to respond to items relating to their knowledge and attitudes about strategic planning, while the chief academic officers and board chairs were only asked about their perceptions of the current practice of strategic planning at their institutions, as well as opinions about possible impediments to effective planning. 54 I} C H . S B E l I l . After the colleges had been randomly selected, a letter was sent along with the appropriate questionnaire to each of the presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs of all 200 institutions. The cover letter had been carefully drafted to gain interest in the research and to request participation. It was mailed in an envelope which carried the name and institution of the researcher as the return address, and the self-addressed, pre-stamped return envelope included the researcher’s title and institution. Both of these things were done deliberately in order to attempt to identify the researcher as a colleague. The letter also requested that the survey be returned by a particular date two weeks after the original mailing date. As mentioned above, the mail packet included a self-addressed, stamped envelope to enhance the liklihood of response. After three weeks had passed, the researcher mailed a reminder postcard to all those who had not yet returned the survey (appendix H) . Finally, after three more weeks, the researcher sent an additional number of entirely new packets to presidents who had not yet responded in order to ensure a satisfactory response rate. Cost prohibitions prevented the researcher from sending the entire packet out again to the non-responding chief academic officers and board chairs. Even though there was a great deal of expense connected with these procedures, the extra measures seemed to pay-off in terms of enhancing participation. 55 The response rate was quite good for the presidents (113) and chief academic officers (103), and reasonably good for the board chairs (52) out of 200 possible responses for each group. Summary The research design for this study is characterized as a quantitative assessment of attitudes and perceptions relative to strategic planning which are held by three key leaders of small, private liberal arts colleges. In furthering our understanding of these attitudes and perceptions, we can hope to better understand what may need to be accomplished in order to strengthen the practice of strategic planning at such institutions. CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA WW Since this research was conducted in order to gather both descriptive information and to examine a number of variables related to strategic planning, a cross-sectional survey research design was used. According to Babbie, ”cross-sectional surveys can be used not only for purposes of description but also for the determination of relationships between variables at the time of the study" (Babbie, p. 56, 1990). For this research, the universe included all institutions of higher education and the population included all the small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges in the United States. The sampling units were the presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs of these institutions. In order to enhance reliability, the sample was selected by means of a random numbers chart. The institutions in the population were identified by reference to the 1994 HEP Higher Education Directory. Two-hundred (200) institutions were selected and survey instruments were mailed to the president, chief academic officer, and governing board chair of each. A total of 268 usable, completed questionnaires were returned, 113 from presidents (56.5%), 103 from chief academic officers (51.5%), and 52 from board chairs (26%). The number of usable instruments from presidents and chief academic officers permits reliable generalization to their respective populations. While the number of usable instruments 56 57 received from board chairs does not permit generalization to that population, this group’s reponses were not substantially different than those of the presidents and the chief academic officers. W The results of the survey obtained from the questionnaires and the analysis of those results are reported in this chapter. The findings are first presented in the order in which the questionnaire was arranged. Following the presentation of this more descriptive data, the findings are then analyzed according to how the data addresses the six research questions and the underlying assumptions which defined the study. W First, some basic descriptive data relative to the sampling frame are provided. It should be noted that 88 % of the respondents indicated that a strategic planning process is currently in place at their institution and that 86% of those who said there was not a strategic planning process currently in place indicated that the institution had utilized strategic planning at some point in the past. Clearly, then, an overwhelming number of the three particular leaders of small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges who were questioned in this study are aware of strategic planning and perceive that it is now being practiced or that it has been practiced at their institutions. Their perceptions of that practice will be reviewed in more detail later. Of the 102 presidents who responded to the survey item which asked how many years into the future they project when conducting strategic 58 planning, the large majority (80%) indicated that they project between 3-5 years into the future in the course of their strategic planning. In addition 50% (45 of 90) of the presidents who responded to the item which asked how many times during their tenure as president a new strategic planning process has been initiated answered, ”once. " An additional 27.8% (25) said, "twice” and 15.6% (14) said, ”three times." One of the most enlightening results of this research is the finding related to the perceived impact of strategic planning. Overall, the respondents report a high incidence of favorable effects as a result of strategic planning in most areas of their institutions. In fact, responses to the questionnaire item which asked, ”in your experience to date, which areas of your institution have been favorably affected as a result of the practice of strategic planning,” were quite positive. Of all the areas about which the researcher inquired, only two were mentioned by fewer than 50% of the respondents as having been favorably affected (Table 1). Furthermore, there was little variation in the responses to this group of items by the type of respondent, demonstrating that presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs all agree that strategic planning has had these favorable results. The data presented in Table 1 below clearly demonstrate that in the perceptions of the presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs of small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges in the United States, strategic planning has already had a positive impact on many aspects of their institutions. Specifically, 92% of the respondents believe that 59 academics have been favorably affected by strategic planning. Furthermore, as was noted above, only ”registrar functions” and ”continuing education" were mentioned by fewer than 50% of the respondents. It should be noted, however, that in every instance, the chief academic officers were less positive about the effects of strategic planning than either presidents or board chairs. The research was not designed to discover reasons for these differences so it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty why this disparity exists. Table I Areas of Institution Favorably Affected by Strategic Planning Am Islets m 26.9 M W 24mm mama) 21115515.) 41112911 Academies 222(925) 95 (9495) 81 (87%) 46 (9395) Admissions 186 (77%) 82 (81%) 67 (72%) 37 (78%) BusinoesOffioo 138 (57%) 60 (59%) 50 (54%) 28 (60%) swim 184 (76%) 87 (86%) 64 (69%) 33 (70%) Fdeaising 1750315) 81 (80%) 57 (61%) 37 (78%) RogistrarFlmctions 68 (28%) 29 (29%) 22 (24%) 17 (36%) Physical Plant 186 (77%) 83 (82%) 66 (71%) 37 (79%) ContinuingEdueation 89(37%) 43 (4395) 27 (29%) 19 (40%) Coastitlleacy Relations 120 (50%) 56 (55%) 39 (42%) 25 (53%) Survey items 9-14 (see appendix E) were designed to address elementary aspects of the presidents’ knowledge of strategic planning processes and their attitudes toward strategic planning. There was a great deal of agreement in the presidents’ responses to these items (see Table II) except for items 10 and 14. 60 Item 10, concerning the interchangeability of the terms, "long-range planning" and ”strategic planning, ” elicited a relatively even spread of responses, which tends to show that the presidents are not entirely clear about the differences between these two planning theories. However, when the tests were done to see if these differences in understanding affected the responses to other items on the instrument, no significant relationships were found. There were significant differences found according to the response one provided to item 14, and this issue is discussed later in the chapter. Table II Presidents’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Strategic Planning WM 11:. S12 12 I! A SA s.p. one of pres.most inn). duties 114 0 l 5 44 64 long-range p. and s.p. are interchangeable 114 15 41 12 38 8 reviewing inst. prof. is essential to s.p. 114 1 0 7 42 64 s.p. does not need to incl. swot analysis 113 53 37 7 12 4 pros.noodstoknows.p.tbeoryandprocoas 112 0 5 7 57 43 comtter expert doe-making impomnt 113 3 28 31 41 10 fl) - strongly disagree; D-disagree; N -neutral; A -agree; SA -strongly agree Generally speaking, however, the presidents demonstrated awareness of and support for various strategic planning processes. In fact, the results tend to provide a very strong statement of support for strategic planning. Noteworthy in this regard is the fact that the mean score on the item pertaining to the importance of strategic planning was 4.5 on a scale of 1-5 with 95 % of the respondents either agreeing or strongly 61 agreeing that it is one of the president’s most important responsibilities. The item which was designed to assess the presidents’ attitudes about the importance of their being knowledgeable of strategic planning theory and processes had a mean score of 4.23, also a strong affirmation. The next section of the instrument (items 15-22 on the survey) asked for the presidents’ opinions of the importance of various processes and perspectives relative to strategic planning (see Table III). Table III Presidents’ Opinions of the Importance of Strategic Planning Processes W a: ll LI 1! 81 XI pres. ldrshp. in initiating s.p. 114 1 0 l 4 108 pres. visibility in championing s.p. 114 0 0 3 17 94 reviewing the inst. mission statement 114 0 l 2 26 85 conducting external analysis 113 0 2 4 47 60 creating strategic alternatives for goal sol. 113 3 6 16 57 31 selecting specific goals and written plan 113 0 2 2 37 72 dev.plansforenchoporationalunit 114 l 4 7 48 54 involving board members in s.p. 112 0 3 8 28 73 Us unimportant; Llelittle importance; Ill-neutral; 81- some importance; Vl=very important The data from this section reveal several insights. On one hand, there is very strong affirmative opinion among the presidents relative to the importance of presidential involvement in strategic planning. Ninety- five percent (95 %) said it was ”very important” to have presidential leadership in initiating strategic planning. Furthermore, ninety-four percent (94%) said that it was ”very important” for the president to be 62 ”visibly championing” the strategic planning process. On the other hand, there is much less affirmation of the importance of developing plans for each operational and academic unit. Only 47 % thought this was "very important. " Also, just 27% said that “creating strategic alternatives prior to selecting specific strategic goals” was "very important. " But, even on this particular item, when those who indicated that there was ”some importance” associated with creating strategic alternatives for goal selection are included, the percentage of favorable response jumps to 78%. Even though this item was not singled out for revision as a result of the field test, it occurs to the researcher upon further reflection, and as a result of the responses, that it may have been phrased in such a way as to create ambiguity. For that reason, it is unwise to read too much into the data on this point, in the researcher’s opinion. The next section of the survey begins to address the respondents’ perceptions of current practice of strategic planning. Mean scores on this section are quite a bit lower than were those for the earlier sections of the survey which dealt more with knowledge and attitudes toward strategic planning than with assessment of current practice. Also, the mean scores of the chief academic officers’ responses are much lower than those of the presidents and board chairs for this section, sometimes by as much as .47 points below the mean for the total group. As was mentioned before, this difference is noteworthy, but there is not any data in the research to provide insight into the reasons for the discrepancy. Speculation might suggest that deans just tend to be less satisfied with process than 63 presidents or board chairs because they spend more time on process. The respondent group as a whole reports greatest success at defining institutional strengths and weaknesses (mean score of 4.11 on a scale of 1-5) and the least success at creating strategic plans for all areas of the institution (mean score of 3.28). Refer to Table IV. Table IV Assessmmt of Current Practice of Elements of Strategic Planning W Main Em QAQ m Defining institutional strengths and weaknesses. 4.11 4.21 3.99 4.12 Defining a desired 'postion' for the institution. 3.92 3.99 3.72 4.18 Asoertaining environmental opportunities and threats. 3.69 3.90 3.47 3.68 Making str. decisions based an int. and ext. analyses. 3.68 3.95 3.36 3.71 Channeling plane through governance strucarres. 3.64 3.87 3.32 3.77 Assessing progress toward attainment of str. goals. 3.53 3.72 3.21 3.76 Channeling plans through the budgeting process. 3.43 3.65 2.96 3.89 Creating strategic plans for all fans. of the inst. 3.28 3.46 2.96 3.54 While the previous section of the instrument was designed to assess perceptions of current practice, the next section asked the respondents to state their level of satisfaction with current practice relative to several other aspects of strategic planning (see Table V). Perhaps the most interesting thing to note about this particular section of the survey is the fact that the combined group mean scores for each item included in this section is above 3.00, the neutral point on the scale. That same observation can be made about the previous section as well. This leads to the conclusion that there is a relatively good feeling about the current practice of strategic planning (see Table V). However, once again, the 64 chief academic officers rate every item below the average for the entire group of respondents. Apparently, the chief academic officers are not as satisfied with current practice as are the presidents and board chairs. Table V Level of Satisfaction with Current Practice of Strategic Planning WW Mm Em 9A9 BLQII The statement of the mission of the institution. 4.54 4.60 4.43 4.62 Delineation of the edwational values of your inst. 4.35 4.34 4.29 4.48 Key persons’ skills in planning processes. 3.90 4.03 3.72 3.98 Clarity of def. of the inst’s 'position’ in the market. 3.88 4.01 3.69 3.96 The overall practice of strategic planning. 3.86 4.04 3.56 4.06 The organintional planning stnrctures. 3.77 3.98 3.45 3.94 Board members’ level of involvement in st. planning. 3.62 3.79 3.30 3.88 Planning support systems at your college. 3.48 3.57 3.26 3.73 The effectivaress of past planning processes at your inst. 3.10 3.26 2.85 3.26 The next two sections of the questionnaire dealt with the respondents perceptions of their institutions’ current practice of assessing certain external and internal environmental factors for input into the strategic planning process. The list of external factors were: market needs and demands, regulatory and accrediting agencies, economic factors, church constituency (where applicable), other community constituencies, demographic trends, technological trends, and opportunities and threats. The greatest percentage of responses for this section were ”good" from among a list that included the terms, ”poor, fair, average, good, excellent. ” The highest composite mean (3.96) was for ability to assess 65 the church constituency and the lowest composite mean (3 .56) for ability to assess other constituents (see Table VI below). Table VI Assessment of institution’s current practice of analyzing external factors W Man Em CA9 m market needs and demanrk 3.57 3.63 3.41 3.73 regulatory and accrediting agencies 3.93 3.90 3.85 4.14 economic factors 3.71 3.89 3.51 3.75 church constimency (where applicable) 3.96 4.01 3.78 4.18 other comnarnity constiarencies 3.56 3.68 3.30 3.78 demographic ands 3.85 4.05 3.69 3.75 technological trurds 3.59 3.63 3.47 3.72 opportunities and threats 3.77 * 3.90 3.56 3.92 The list of internal factors included: academic programs, administrative support, organizational culture, financial resources, buildings and equipment, institutional values, institutional strengths and weaknesses, and human resources. The highest composite mean for this section was for the item, "analysis of institutional values” (4.19) and the lowest composite mean was for ”analysis of organizational culture” (3.50), as may be seen in Table VI] on the next page). 66 Table VII Assessment of institution’s current practice of analyzing internal factors W Mm m 939 m academic program 3.84 3.90 3.77 3.88 administrative support 3.68 3.87 3.35 3.94 organintional culture 3.50 3.70 3.17 3.73 financial resorrrces 4.01 4.19 3.75 4.16 buildings and equipmt 3.96 4.13 3.30 3.94 institutional values 4.19 4.25 4.02 4.38 institutional strengths and weaknemes 3.98 4.11 3.80 4.06 himan resoruoes 3.58 3.81 3.37 3.51 Overall, as might be expected, the respondents’ indicated that their institutions do a better job of analyzing the internal elements than the external components. Nevertheless, all the means in both of these sections are 3.5 or greater which translates into quite a positive rating of their ability to perform these assessments. Once again, however, note that the chief academic officers rate every item lower than the presidents and the board chairs. What is, perhaps, most revealing about this section of the survey are the respondents’ selections of which external factors have the greatest potential impact on the future of the institution and which internal factors are most important to the institution’s future success. Fifty-four percent (54%) of the respondents chose economic factors as either their first or second choice as the external factor which will have the greatest potential impact on the future. Furthermore, sixty-eight percent (68 %) chose financial resources as their first or second choice of internal factors which 67 are most important to the institution’s future success. Clearly, these leaders perceive that financial concerns are the biggest issues they face relative to the future of their institutions. This concern about finances is futher underlined in the results of the next section of the survey. In this section, the respondents were asked to rank order from 1-10 those factors which were the greatest impediment to effective strategic planning. The composite result in order of perceived greatest impediment to perceived least impediment was: . limited institutional endowment; inability to raise adequate funds to capitalize plans; the pace of change in the external environment; time-consuming nature of strategic planning processes; inadequate data retrieval capabilities; inadequate planning structures; inability to assess external opportunities and threats; lack of expertise in planning among key personnel; lack of clarity in the institutional mission statement, and 10. the president’s travel schedule. Pesewsww— In the perceptions of the presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs, the issue of finances is again seen to be the factor which most inhibits these institutions. If the reader will refer to page five of Appendix B, it can be seen that these items were arranged in such a way as not to lend themselves to this outcome. Both of the factors which emerged at the top of the ranked list were related to finances, and both of these factors had been deliberately placed by the researcher near the 68 bottom of the list which was to be ranked. The result is much more impressive in light of this fact, the researcher believes. Clearly, money is the big issue, in the opinion of these college leaders. In the next section of the survey, the respondents’ opinions were sought concerning the importance of certain duties which contemporary small college presidents perform while fulfilling their responsibilities. In order to ascertain this information, the respondents were asked to rank the following list of duties in order of importance from 1-9. The composite result of the rank ordering was: . leader visionary fund raiser spokesperson planner manager scholar negotiator lobbyist Several things are noteworthy about this finding. First, it is clear Pesewsww~ that these leaders think that the president’s most important duty is to lead. Secondly, it was important to the researcher and to this research to find out where planning ranked in order of importance in the minds of these key leaders. The fact that ”planner” was fifth on the list is interesting on several counts: 1. note those roles which are listed below it in importance, including ”manager” and "scholar,” which one might expect to be given great importance; 2. this ranking tends to support the presidents’ earlier responses about the importance of strategic planning; 69 3 . only roles which relate to leadership, money and public presence ranked higher. Given the full range of duties to which presidents must attend, the researcher believes that this finding about the relative importance of their role as a ”planner" is impressive. Certainly, being fifth on this list would not seem to indicate that it is too low a priority, which was one of the issues the research was designed to ascertain. The one open-ended question on the survey asked the presidents to describe any significant event in the institution’s history which could affect its immediate and long-term well-being. There were numerous responses to this item and, as might be expected, a wide variety of circumstances were described. A sampling of topics which were mentioned is included below: * enrollment increases * enrollment decreases * racial tensions * national recognition * success in fund raising * lack of success in fund raising * loss of a significant donor * consolidation with another school * changes in governmental regulations * natural disasters * faculty strikes * unexpected debts * elimination of debt * frequent changes in presidents * political skirmishes * miscellaneous events which are not easily summarized. 70 While all of these events apparently have impacted the respective institutions, they did not appear to have a great impact on the manner in which the respondents answered the other items on the questionnaire. The final section of the questionnaire was designed to gather demographic information about the president and his/her college. It yielded the following data: the majority of the presidents who responded to this survey were not at their current institution prior to their current position; the average number of years which these presidents have been president is 9.6 years, and the average length of their current presidency is a surprisingly high 8.29 years; the average number of presidents who have served these institutions in the last twenty years is 3 .55; the market values of endowments ranges from $0 - $134,000,000, with the average being slightly over $16,000,000; operating budgets range from $1,200,000 to $56,000,000, with an average of nearly $16,000,000; the total amount of gifts and grants received in the last fiscal year ranged from a low of only $12,000 to a high of $72,000,000, with the average being $3,665,800. Even though these data were not utilized for testing purposes, they demonstrate that there was great diversity among the institutions included in the sampling frame. This fact tends to make the relatively consistent patterns of response on the survey instrument more remarkable. 71 l l l . l B I Q . Question I . ”What is the relationship between presidential knowledge of strategic planning theory and processes and the president’s attitude toward strategic planning? " Assumption one (”the level of the president’s knowledge of strategic planning processes will impact his/her attitude toward strategic planning”) directly relates to this question. It is important to note here that all the data for this research was derived from the perceptions of the respondents, not from direct observation or any other means of assessment of knowledge or practice. In order to address these assumptions, the researcher tested the relationship between items 9-14 on the questionnaire, which pertained to presidential knowledge of and attitudes toward strategic planning theory and processes, and items 15-22 on the survey instrument, which pertained to presidents’ attitudes concerning the importance of various elements of strategic planning theory and practice. As reported earlier, the descriptive data revealed a strong consensus of positive Opinion toward both the theory and practice of strategic planning. However, the data do not permit a conclusion that a direct relationship exists between these factors. Nevertheless, it remains clear that presidents of small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges profess to understand the concepts of strategic planning and they also state their support of its practice. In addition to the conclusions drawn from the descriptive data, other conclusions were derived from statistical analysis of the potential relationships between survey items 9-14 and items 15-22. In a few 72 instances, relationships between individual factors in each set were found to be statistically significant, and those findings are reported below. Both the chi-square test and the analysis of variance test revealed a statistical relationship between item 14 (”it is important to have computer- based expert decision-making systems in place as an aid to the strategic planning process”) and item 17 (the importance of ”reviewing the institutional mission statement”). The chi-square test resulted in a "p value" of .001 which does suggest a strong relationship between the two items in question. A "p value" of .002 was derived from the analysis of variance test, further confirming this strong relationship. However, upon pondering the import of this particular relationship, the conclusion was reached that it is not a rationally important relationship, in spite of the statistical significance. The overall mean score for the importance of item 17 was 4.71 regardless of the response on item 14, so no meaningful relationship exists apart from the fact that the presidents who believe it is important to have computer-based decision-making systems hold even stronger opinions of the importance of reviewing the institutional mission statement as a part of strategic planning than do the other respondents. A second relationship which revealed statistical significance was that between item 14 (stated above) and item 21 (the importance of "developing strategic plans for each operational and academic unit which support the overall institutional strategic plan. ") Table VIII on page 73 shows this relationship. 73 Table VIII Comparison of Mean Scores in Relationship of Items 14 8t 21 (Overall Mean Score on Item 21 -- 4.32) Mean Scores on item 21 broken down in relationship to response to item 14 WW W21 Strongly Disagree 2.67 Disagree 4.29 Neutral 4.48 Agree 4.22 Strongly Agree 4.70 Again, both the chi-square and analysis of variance tests resulted in statistical significance. In this case, the relationship does appear to make rational sense as well. Those individuals who are more strongly opinionated about the importance of expert computer decision-making systems are the most likely the type of individuals who would reasonably be more interested in the kind of detail which is involved in the follow through processes related to creating individual strategic plans for each operational unit. Nevertheless, even those who disagreed with the statement that having computer-based systems was important registered a mean score of 4.29 on the item which questioned the importance of developing strategic plans for each operational unit, a very strong statement of support. Another anomaly worth reporting was discovered in the data analysis relating to the use of computer-based decision-making. The mean score of those who believe that computer-based decision-making systems are important was .26 points less than the mean score of those who were 74 ”neutral” about the importance of computer-based systems, relative to the importance of creating individual unit strategic plans (4.22 versus 4.48). Furthermore, the mean score of those who disagreed that use of computer-based decision-making was important, was higher for item 21 relating to the importance of creating individual unit strategic plans than the mean score of those who agreed that computer-based decision-making was important. It is very clear, however, that those who selected "strongly disagree” on item 14 also had a much lower mean on item 21 than all others. Given these facts, then, it is difficult to make a strong argument that the belief in expert computer systems is significant. A relationship was found between item 9 ("strategic planning is one of a college president’s most important responsibilities") and item 20 (the importance of ”selecting specific strategic goals and producing a formal written plan”). The more strongly a respondent agreed with the statement in item 9, the more that same respondent thought that item 20 was important. The mitigating factor in this analysis is that only 1 respondent disagreed with item 9 and only 5 respondents were neutral. The remaining 107 respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement in item 9. This skewing of responses toward one end of the scale tends to make the statistical relationship less meaningful. The same was true of the relationship between responses to items 9 and 21. Similar results occurred in several other relationships between these items. Since these relationships do not contribute to greater understanding than the descriptive data provided, details of those tests have not been included. 75 One relationship was found to be very strong and does provide evidence to support that which would seem to be logical in the first place. There is a strong relationship between the responses to item 13 (”the president needs to be knowledgeable of strategic planning theory and processes”) and item 15 (the importance of ”presidential leadership in initiating strategic planning”). The analysis of variance test yielded a "p- value” of .018, confirming a very strong relationship between the responses to these two items. It could be argued that such a relationship is reasonable on the basis of informed intuition, and this statistical result would confirm such reasoning. In other words, the more strongly one agrees that the president needs to be knowledgeable of strategic planning theory and processes, the more likely it is that the same individual would think it important to have presidential leadership in initiating strategic planning. The relationship can be said to have both statistical validity and face validity. The same type of relationship exists between the responses to item 13 and item 16 (the importance of ”presidential visibility in championing the strategic planning process.") In this case the analysis of variance "p-value” was .029. In fact, the same kind of strong relationship exists between responses to item 13 and the responses to item 19 (the importance of ”creating strategic alternatives prior to selecting specific strategic goals”), item 20 (the importance of "selecting specific strategic goals and producing a formal written plan"), and item 21 (the importance of "developing 76 strategic plans for each operational unit which support the overall institutional strategic plan. ") In all three of these situations, the relationship is rational, and therefore, one can say that the data provide support for the rational conclusion. Based upon the analysis of these data, the conclusion can be drawn that there is a relationship between presidents’ knowledge of strategic planning theory and processes and their attitude toward strategic planning. The strong affirmative response which the presidents’ provided on both sections of the questionnaire which related to knowledge and attitudes as presented in the descriptive data leads the researcher to suspect such a relationship. In addition, the statistical significance of several of the relationships of the various elements in each section as presented in this review have confirmed that there is a relationship between knowledge and attitudes. It is difficult, however, to infer the strength of the relationship since there were so few examples available for analysis in this data which provided insight into the situation where there was little or no belief in the value of strategic planning. Question 2. "What is the relationship between presidential knowledge of strategic planning theory and processes and current practice as perceived by three important leaders, the president, the chief academic officer, and the board chair?" To answer this question, the data relative to assumptions two and three were analyzed. 77 Assumption two was: ”the level of the president’s knowledge of strategic planning processes will impact the practice of strategic planning; " assumption three was: “the attitude and perceptions of the president toward the importance and efficacy of strategic planning will directly relate to the perceptions of current planning practice within the college. " It is probably worth noting again at this point, as was noted earlier, that all the data for this research was derived from the perceptions of the respondents. Therefore, obviously the data reflect the respondents’ perceptions of knowledge and practice, not an objective assessment of knowledge and practice. The sections of the questionnaire which related to these two assumptions were items 9-14 (president’s knowledge and attitude), and items 15-22 (presidents’ attitudes toward the importance of selected strategic planning processes, items 23-30 (assessment of current practice), and items 31-39 (satisfaction with current practice). What is perhaps most interesting to note about these comparisons is the fact that there is no indication of a relationship between any of the pairs of variables, even from the chi-square and AN OVA tests which were performed upon every pairing of variables from these sections. While presidents consistently gave strong responses to items 9-22 relating to knowledge, attitude, and importance of strategic planning, they and their chief academic officers and board chairs just as consistently gave relatively neutral responses to items 23-39 which related to assessment of current practice and satisfaction with current practice (Tables IV and V). 78 One must conclude that the statistical data derived from this research do not support research assumptions two and three. Therefore, the researcher must also report that, in spite of his suspicion that a strong relationship would be found between presidents’ knowledge of and attitudes toward strategic planning and their assessment of current practice at their institutions, the data do not support such a conclusion. The researcher can suggest only one possible explanation for this surprising result. It may be that the frustration which respondents expressed relative to not having the resources to fully actualize strategic plans translates into their being less-than-satisfied with current strategic planning practice, in spite of the strength of their belief in the importance of strategic planning. Questions 3, 4, 5. ”How do presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs respectively assess the current practice of strategic planning at their institutions? " To answer these questions, first a review the descriptive data which pertains to the responses to items 23-30 on the survey instrument (those which relate to the assessment of current practice) is presented. Then the findings relative to assumptions three, four, and eight, all of which are relevant to research questions three, four, and five, are presented. Relevant assumptions: The attitude and perceptions of the president toward the importance and efficacy of strategic planning will directly relate to the perceptions of current planning practice within the institution. 79 The existence and character of planning structures, the availability of resources (personnel, expertise, time, finances), and the availability and flow of information for decision-making will impact the perceptions of strategic planning practice. The sense of satisfaction which participants display toward past planning processes will impact perceptions of current planning practice. Before addressing these assumptions, several observations are presented which were derived from examining the descriptive data presented in Table IX: the means scores for the CAO’s are less than those for the other two respondents for each item; the respondents all believe their institutions are doing a good job (ie. mean of 3.70 and above) of ”defming a desired position for the institution" and ”defining institutional strengths and weaknesses; ” the rest of the mean scores for all the respondents range from a low of 2.96 to a high of 3.95 so that, with the exception of the two items mentioned above which are rated much higher, all the respondents rate current practice of strategic planning processes at their institutions as average or just above average. From the descriptive data alone, then, the conclusion is that presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs of small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges in the United States assess the current practice of strategic planning as being better than average (see table IX on next page). Two caveats: 1. CAOs consistently rate current practice less favorably than do presidents and board chairs; 2. board chairs frequently rate current practice higher than either presidents or CAOs. 80 Table IX Comparison of Respondents’ Mean Scores for Assessment of Current Practice Defining a desired 'postion' for the institution. 3.99 3.72 4.18 Ascertaining environmental opportunities and threats. 3.90 3.47 3.68 Defining institution! strengths and weaknesses 4.21 3.99 4.12 Making strategic decisions based upon internal and external analyses. 3.95 3.36 3.71 Creating strategic plans for all functional areas of the institution. 3.46 2.96 3.54 Channeling plans through the budgeting proceu. 3.65 2.96 3.89 Channeling plans through governance structures. 3.87 3.32 3.77 Assessing progress toward attainment of strategic goals. 3.72 3.21 3.76 An examination of the statistical data derived from analyzing assumption three reveals almost no significance between the presidents’ attitudes and perceptions toward strategic planning and his/her perceptions of current practice, contrary to the research assumption. The one exception is that there is a strong relationship between the president’s reponse to item 19 (the importance of ”creating strategic alternatives prior to selecting specific strategic goals”) and the response to item 39 (level of satisfaction with ”current practice as it relates to board members’ level of involvement in strategic planning"). But, even though this statistical relationship is very strong, there is little reason to invest this particular relationship with special importance. However, the analyses which were done in order to test assumption four revealed a large number of significant relationships between the respondents’ assessments of the current practice of analyzing external and 81 internal factors (items 40-55 on the questionnaire) and their responses to items 23-30 (assessments of current practice of specific strategic planning processes) and items 31-39 (assessments of level of ”satisfaction with current practice of strategic planning”). These relationships are not only statistically significant, they also make sense inasmuch as one would tend to see a natural connection between how well institutions are doing the internal and external assessments of environment (which is in itself an important element of strategic planning practice) and how well institutions are doing in other elements of strategic planning practice. The relationships in Table X (see pages 82 & 83) are reported in order to demonstrate these connections. From these data, several observations can be made: 1. it is true that there is a relationship between the level of satisfaction with existing planning structures and perceptions of planning practice; 2. there is a relationship between the level of satisfaction with planning support systems and overall perceptions of planning practice; 3. there is a relationship between the level of satisfaction with past planning processes and perceptions of current practice. 82 Table X Relationships Between Respondents’ Assessments of Elements of Strategic Planning Independent Variable Ratiruofirntiartion’sanrartpracticeofamessingchmehconstiamcy Dependent Variable Oil-Square Test Assessmentofoverallpracticeofstrateficplaming p-.001 Level of satisfaction with organintional planning structures p = .002 levelofsatisfactionwithplanningmpportsystenu p-.001 Ievelofsatisfactionwithkeypereons’skillsinplanningprocesu p=.001 Lovolofutisfactionwithdrestatemartofthemissionoftheinstimtion p=.001 Level of satisfaction with the clarity of definition of 'position' in the market. p = .006 Level of satisfaction with board members’ level of involvement in strategic planning. p a: .001 Independent Variable Ratingofimtitution’scrn'rurtpraaiceofassessing community corstituencies Dependent Variable Chi-Square Test Level of satisfaction with the overall practice of strategic planning. p = .001 Level ofsatisfactionwithorganintionalplanningstrucmres. p = .001 Level ofsatisfactionwithplanningsupportsystems. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with key pernans’ skills in planning processes. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with the statement of the mission of the institution. p = .013 Invelofsatisfactionwiththedelineationoftheeducational valms ofthecollege. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with the clarity of definition of 'position" in the nurket. p - .001 Level of satisfaction with the effectiveness of past planning practices. p a .007 Level of satisfaction with board members’ level of involvement in strategic planning. p = .001 83 Table X (continued) Relationships Between Respondents’ Assessments of Elements of Strategic Planning Independent Variable Ratimofinstiarfion’sanrmrtpraaiceofusafingimtimtionalvalus. Dependent Variable Chi-Square Test Level of satisfaction with the overall practice of strategic planning. p = .001 levelofsatisfactionwithorganizationalplanningstnrcarres. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with planning support systems. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with key persons’ skills in planning processes. p = .001 levelofmfisfactionudththestatementofthemissionoftheinstimtion. pal-.001 Level of satisfaction with the delineation of the educational values of the college. p =- .001 Level of satisfaction with the clarity of definition of 'position' in the market. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with the effectiveness of past planning practices. p s .014 Level of satisfaction with board members’ level of involvement in strategic planning. p = .039 Independent Variable Rafingofmstimtion’sam'artpracficeofassaaingorganizaaonaladm Dependent Variable Chi-Square Test Level of satisfaction with the overall practice of strategic planning. p - .001 levelofsatisfactionwithorganizationalplanningstructures. p=.001 Level of satisfaction with planning support system. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with key persons’ skills in planning processes. p a .001 Level of satisfaction with the statement of the mission of the institution. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with the delineation of the educational values of the college. p - .002 Level of satisfaction with the clarity of definition of 'position' in the market. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with the effectiveness of past planning practices. p = .001 Level of satisfaction with board members’ level of involvement in strategic planning. p = .002 34 Furthermore, there is a strong relationship between the level of satisfaction with the statement of the mission of the institution and the perception of current practice of strategic planning; and there is a strong relationship between the level of satisfaction with board members’ level of involvement in strategic planning and the overall perceptions of strategic planning practice. These observations are reasonable, the researcher believes, because of the fact that the elements we have identified above consistently were seen to be significantly related to the processes of strategic planning. In answer to research questions three, four, and five, then, the data demonstrates that presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs of small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges believe that their institutions are doing a better than average job of strategic planning. In addition, there is a relationship between the level of satisfaction with the institution’s perceived performance in conducting certain elements of strategic planning practice, and the overall rating of strategic planning at the institution. Question 6. "To what extent do a series of other factors impede strategic planning practice in the perceptions of the presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs?” First of all, contrary to the research assumption, there was no statistical significance found in the relationship between the respondents’ ranking of the importance of "the pace of change in the external environment” as an impediment to planning and their overall perceptions 85 of current strategic planning practice. This was true in spite of the fact that the respondents ranked ”pace of change” as the third most significant impediment to effective strategic planning. On the other hand, there were a number of statistically significant relationships between the ranking of factors which were viewed as impediments to strategic planning practice and the respondents’ perceptions of satisfaction with their institutions’ current practice. In general, the more a respondent saw particular factors as impediments to strategic planning, the less satisfied those respondents were with elements of current strategic planning practice at their institutions. These relationships became evident from testing the rankings of impediments to planning against the perceptions of satisfaction. Since these data are both cumbersome and complicated to present in table format, or any other format, just the general descriptive statement is provided instead. Finally, there are several other assumptions included in the research design which will now be addressed. The first of these is assumption five which reads, ”presidential tenure will relate to the duration and frequency of planning cycles within an institution. " To examine this assumption, the researcher tested possible relationships between the responses to items 81, 82, 83, and 85 on the survey instrument, which provided categorical information relative to presidential tenure, and items 5, 6 and 7 on the questionnaire, which ascertained information relative to 86 the number of years into the future which institutions project when doing strategic planning and the duration and frequency of planning cycles. The data do not reveal any significant relationship between and among these various factors. Regardless of the reponses to items 81, 82, 83, and 85, the responses to items 5, 6, and 7 were either so consistent as to render the relationships meaningless or there was such diversity that there was no significance. For example, the overwhelming majority of the respondents (81%) indicated that they project 3-5 years into the future when conducting strategic planning. On the other hand, there was such a wide variety of responses to the question which asked about how many times per year the strategic planning committee meets to monitor and assess progress toward achieving the strategic objectives identified in the strategic plan that there was no relationship to the tenure of the president. The one exception to this lack of relationship is so obvious that it did not require statistical analysis to see it, namely, the longer a person has been president, the more it is likely that multiple strategic planning processes have been initiated during his/her tenure. Assumption six reads, ”presidential turnover will relate to the existence and character of planning structures and processes. The statistical analyses do not support this assumption. In fact, the existence of strategic planning processes is so pervasive in small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges as to effectively render the question moot. 87 The last assumption which was tested reads, ”the intrusion of unusual catalytic events into the life of the institution will affect the practice of strategic planning. " Again, the pervasiveness of strategic planning in the research universe as shown by the data renders the question meaningless. There was no significant relationship between whether or not an institution had experienced a catalytic event and the existence of strategic planning. Table XI Relationships Between Responses to Item 82 and Item 7 Independent Variable How many years have you served as president of any college? Dependent Variable Howmanyfimesdufingymutenumaspmsidenthasanewsfiategicplanningprocessbeeninitiated? Independent Variable Total 0-4yrs. 5-9yrs. 10-14yrs. 15-19yrs. 20+yrs. Mm Q2 1.2 12 1.! 11 Q Depaldalt Variable 0 l 1 1 45 18 17 6 3 l 2 25 13 3 4 4 3 14 1 4 5 3 l 4 4 3 1 8 1 1 88 Summary Data collected in this research provide ample support for several of the research assumptions, but it fails to support several other research assumptions. The data also provided information to answer the six research questions, and these answers have been presented in this chapter. In chapter five, a discussion of the conclusions is presented, along with recommendations for further study, other suggestions, and concluding remarks. CHAPTER 5 MAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Qxentimflhefimdx In this study the researcher sought to understand the relationship between presidents’ knowledge of and attitudes toward strategic planning and the current practice of strategic planning in small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges. A cross-sectional survey design was utilized because of its ability to determine relationships between variables as well as to gain descriptive information about the practice of planning in these institutions. The study was also undertaken in an attempt to understand why colleges do not seem to be successful in sustaining planning in spite of the literature’s emphasis on the importance of planning. By focusing on the knowledge and attitudes of college presidents, the researcher was able to investigate one possible reason for the dysfunction. Data were obtained from a questionnaire which was distributed to presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs. The survey instrument was also designed to gather information about other possible impediments to planning. Opinions of chief academic officers and board chairs were included to broaden the perspectives on current practice. The questions explored in the study were: 1. What is the relationship between the presidents’ knowledge of strategic planning and his/her attitude toward strategic planning? 2. What is the relationship between the presidents’ knowledge of strategic planning and current practice at his/her institution? 89 90 3 . How do presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs assess the current practice of strategic planning? 4. To what extent do other factors impede strategic planning in the opinions of college presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs? E. l' l C l . Several interesting findings were drawn from the data which were collected and analyzed in the study. From these findings, a number of conclusions can be inferred. Because of the good response rate (56.5 % of presidents and 51.5 % of chief academic officers), the findings are generalizable to those populations, consistent with the principles of statistical analysis. Response rate from the board chairs was only 26% , so the findings cannot be generalized to that population. However, the responses from the board chairs were not substantially different from the responses of the other two groups of respondents. finding, Presidents, chief academic ofiicers, and board chairs of small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges in the United States have a very strong afiinnative opinion of strategic planning. As a group, the presidents of these colleges have made it very clear that they believe in strategic planning. While there is somewhat less than overwhelmingly positive opinion about the current state of the processes of strategic planning in their colleges, there remains a very strong belief in its importance. This fact is not, in and of itself, particularly surprising inasmuch as the literature reveals a high degree of theoretical support for planning. What is worth recognizing, however, is that presidents, chief 91 academic officers and board chairs believe that strategic planning has already made a positive impact on many aspects of their institutions. This revelation adds new import to the finding about the high esteem in which strategic planning is held in these institutions. CONCLUSION: THIS FINDING SERVES TO DISCLAIM ANY NOTION THAT THE REASON FOR LACK OF SUSTAINED SUCCESS IN PLANNING, AS REPORTED IN THE LITERATURE, MAY BE DUE TO PRESIDENTIAL INDIFFERENCE OR OPPOSITION TO STRATEGIC PLANNING. W Presidents believe that presidential leadership in championing strategic planning is very important. Opinions vary on the roles which presidents of colleges and universities should assume in the planning process. There are those who suggest that the president should be the leader and there are others who argue that the president should not lead the planning process. It is clear from this research that presidents of small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges in the United States believe very strongly that it is their responsibility to champion the planning process. The researcher did not ask specifically whether the president should actually lead the process or chair the planning committee, so he cannot speak to that issue specifically. But, whatever functional role the president takes, the presidents themselves believe that their role must include that of making sure the planning process happens. CONCLUSION: STRATEGIC PLANNING PROVIDES AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR PRESIDENTS TO EXERCISE LEADERSHIP IN A PARTTCIPATORY MANAGEMENT MODE. 92 m1. Strategic planning has enabed college leaders to make many positive changes in their institutions. In spite of the opinions of Henry Mintzberg about the failures of strategic planning, leaders of small colleges in America believe that strategic planning has had a very positive impact on their colleges. Improvements in virtually every aspect of college operations have been attributed to strategic planning. Ninety-two per cent (92 %) of the respondents indicated that strategic planning had positively affected the academic program at their institutions, and everything from admissions to physical plant operations were also cited as having been improved. This finding reflects the perceptions of presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs of small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges in the United States. The fact that these leaders overwhelmingly attributed many improvements on their campuses to strategic planning is, I believe, a new piece of knowledge, never before reported. CONCLUSION: IN SPI'TE OF MINTZBERG’S CRITICISMS, APPARENTLY STRATEGIC PLANNING IS AN EFFECTIVE VEHICLE FOR SMALL, PRIVATE EGALITARIAN LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES. While this conclusion does not prove that strategic planning is a panacea, it does suggest that strategic planning is both important and successful, at least for these institutions. W Leaders at small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges in the United States believe that financial concerns are the most critical issues they face as they plan for the firture. While concern about finances is certainly nothing new, and even though the need for more resources is often the easiest factor to identify, it is, nevertheless, true that the leaders who were surveyed in this study 93 believe that money is the most significant factor relative to their ability to be successful in the future. What was perhaps most interesting about the results of the survey was the fact that two financial issues, "limited institutional endowment" and "inability to raise adequate funds to capitalize plans, " were seen as the greatest impediments to effective strategic planning. Leaders of small colleges apparently believe that lack of money mitigates their ability to plan effectively. The reasons for this belief were not explored. Additionally, in identifying the internal and external factors most likely to impact their futures, these leaders again selected economic and financial issues. The respondents seemed to be paraphrasing the well-known principle of real estate investment (location, location, location) by indicating that the future of their colleges is dependent upon money, money, money. CONCLUSION: EFFECTIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING IS CRITICAL TO THE FUTURE HEALTH OF THESE SMALL COLLEGES. The ability to increase enrollments, endowments and gift income is certame enhanced by a strategic planning process which fosters the involvement of individuals who are able to help capitalize plans and by the presence of a plan which is based upon clear thinking and fresh vision. In addition, a good strategic planning process will assist college leaders by creating a format in which tough issues and difficult decisions can be hammered out deliberately and thoughtfully. 94 If it is true that money is the major issue for these colleges, and if it is also true that there is a connection between effective strategic planning and successful fund-raising, then there is reason to pay close attention to strengthening strategic planning in this population of colleges. Furthermore, effective strategic planning can assist college leaders in identifying ways in which they can strengthen the program offerings and fiscal management of their institutions. Both of these issues are also relevant to maximizing resource management which contributes to the fiscal health of an institution. W Presidents, chief academic ofiicers, and board chairs of small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges believe their colleges are doing a good job, but not necesarily an excellent job, of strategic planning. However, the chief academic ofi‘icers consistently rated current practice less favorably than either presidents or board chairs. This finding is derived from analyzing the data. On one hand the respondents rated their level of satisfaction with current practice of strategic planning at their institutions asjust above average. On the other hand, their responses also indicated that they do not believe their institutions are doing a particularly outstanding job of assessing many of the external environmental factors which impact them. They also indicate lack of complete satisfaction with the institutions’ past planning practices. Chief academic officers, who often have the most direct involvement in planning, may be the most knowledgeable, and they are not nearly as complimentary as the other respondents. This finding causes the researcher to question the implications of this fact and to suggest that more research is needed to understand its full meaning. 95 CONCLUSION: THE PROCESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING NEEDS IMPROVEMENT, AND THEREFORE, STRATEGIC PLANNING TRAINING COURSES AND SEMINARS MAY BE NEEDED TO ADDRESS THIS NEED. Finding 6. No impediments to planning emerged from this research which were so ominous as to suggest that strategic planning is impractical or inefl’ective. Financial limitations, both in terms of institutional endowments and fund-raising ability, were cited as the greatest impediments to effective strategic planning. The researcher interprets this to mean that these strictures are the greatest inhibitors to success in fulfilling plans. Pace of change in the external environment and the time-consuming nature of strategic planning, along with inadequate data retrieval capabilities and inadequate planning structures, were also among the top six impediments, according to the respondents. But, none of these impediments would appear to be so overwhelming as to disaffect the respondents from continuing to engage in strategic planning at their institutions. CONCLUSION: THE DESIGN SCHOOL MODEL OF STRATEGIC PLANNING PROBABLY AFFORDS THE BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS IN STRATEGIC PLANNING AT THESE COLLEGES. RecommendatioanQLEurthELReseamh 1. MORE RESEARCH SHOULD BE DONE TO DETERMINE THE SPECIFIC CHARACTER OF STRATEGIC PLANNING IN THESE COLLEGES AND THE REASONS FOR CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICERS’ LOWER OPINION OF CURRENT PRACTICE. In light Of the conclusion that there is strong support Of strategic planning, and because this researcher gathered information about the perceptions of planning, rather than actually Observing the practice of 96 planning, research should be done which observes the planning processes, or in some other manner, adds insight into the actual practice of planning at these institutions. DO these institutions have similar understandings Of the nature of strategic planning? Are there consistencies in the practice of strategic planning among these colleges? What elements of strategic planning must be included to ensure success. Are there elements of the process which are not essential? Is it important to quantify planning Objectives or is it enough to simply gain consensus on major initiatives? These, and other questions, should be researched in order to more completely understand strategic planning at these colleges. 2. A RESEARCH PROJECT SIMILAR IN DESIGN TO THE ONE REPORTED IN THIS DISSERTATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AMONG LEADERS OF LARGE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. One of the questions which remains following this research is whether the conclusions are equally valid among the leaders of larger, public and private institutions. It is possible that there is something about the smallness Of the institutions which were included in this research which makes them more able to conduct strategic planning. The problems which Mintzberg identifies may, in fact, be more likely to occur in larger organizations where it may be more difficult to simplify the planning process or to effectively include all appropriate stakeholders. 3. FURTHER RESEARCH SHOULD BE DONE TO INVESTIGATE THE ROLES WHICH PRESIDENTS ASSUME IN STRATEGIC PLANNING. This research should be done in order to try to learn if there are a variety of roles presidents can successfully assume in the planning process. Is it possible that small colleges are unique in a way that would 97 argue for a particular role for the president (i.e. , Does the president need to chair the planning process in order for it to be successful in terms of achieving many or most of the desired outcomes?). Does the ”smallness” Of small colleges become an asset in terms of permitting presidents the freedom to provide effective leadership in the planning process which would be more difficult to achieve at a larger institution? If the president does not lead the planning process, what role should he or she assume? 4. MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE SPECIFIC WAYS IN WHICH IMPROVEMENTS HAVE OCCURRED. This recommendation goes to the issue Of the possible limitations of strategic planning. This study showed that, while strategic planning was credited with helping institutions improve many aspects of their operation, not every area of the institution was favorably impacted, at least not at a majority Of the respondents’ institutions. Does this result imply that there may be certain areas of institutional life which are less well-suited for strategic planning, or does it simply mean that colleges have not fully utilized strategic planning? Is the strategic planning process more appropriate for areas Of the institution which are easily quantifiable than for those areas in which outcomes are more subjective? It is possible that the distinctions between strategic planning and total quality management (TQM) are not clear. Is there a need to clarify the differences between these concepts? The researcher would propose that one distinction is that strategic planning has to do with vision and that TQM has to do with efficiency and effectiveness. This research did not attempt to address these differences. 98 5. RESEARCH SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO INVESTIGATE THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN STRATEGIC PLANNING AND SUCCESSFUL FUND RAISING. The fund-raising profession is already aware of the importance of strategic planning as a starting point in successful fund development. However, there is little, if any, academic research which validates this ”knowledge. ” The statement above would seem to have ”face validity” but it would be helpful to verify this belief through formal research. W In addition to the recommendations for further research, the researcher offers these additional observations and suggestions: 1. ASSIST COLLEGE LEADERS IN UPGRADING THEIR ABILITIES TO LEAD AND PERFORM EFFECTIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING. It is clear from this research that leaders of small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges already believe in the effectiveness of strategic planning, and that most of them are already engaged in its practice. But, these same leaders also reported being less than fully satisfied with the current practice of strategic planning at their institutions. This fact leads to the Observation that there is a need to strengthen strategic planning skills among these leaders. Many seminars and other training opportunities currently exist, but there may be a need to assist in communicating existing opportunities, and perhaps there is even a need to create additional training Opportunities for this population. The Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC), the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) and others could meet this need. 99 2. WORK TO STRENGTHEN STRATEGIC PLANNING SKILLS. This is a further affirmation of the previous suggestion. As long as there is a perception that strategic planning is important and effective, there is reason to strengthen its practice. A research project which further clarifies the particular skills which are in need of strengthening could be useful in addressing this concern. It would also be helpful if a streamlined model for planning could be developed which would identify the essential elements for successful practice and minimize those which are cumbersome or unproductive. This research revealed that institutional strategic plans are not consistently or effectively translated into departmental strategic plans. Perhaps there is also a need for assistance in this area. Summary Strategic planning is alive and well at small, private, egalitarian, liberal arts colleges in the United States. While there are difficulties associated with strategic planning, presidents, chief academic Officers and board chairs of these colleges believe such planning has already been effective for the good Of their institutions. Strategic planning is not a panacea for everything that ails contemporary colleges and universities, but it is an important tool for leaders to use in charting the future courses of their institutions. 100 Walks An interesting pair Of findings emerged from the data as noted earlier: 1) presidents believe in strategic planning, and 2) presidents believe money (or the lack of it) is their biggest problem. Presidents of small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges have very challenging responsibilities. As this research has confirmed, limited financial resources and environmental economic pressures are believed to be the greatest impediments to effective strategic planning. Furthermore, providing leadership in higher education has become an increasingly troublesome challenge. Bennis, Bok, Corson, Kerr, Fisher and others have detailed the changes in the college presidency, as power and authority have shifted away from the president toward the faculty, and other constituents. These authors have noted that college presidents have difficulty providing leadership in contemporary society. The old, authoritarian leadership paradigm is no longer acceptable to faculties, staffs, and even students. Leaders must now be able to artfully involve these and other constituents in the planning and management of their organzations. The writer believes there are important connections between these two issues, and that strategic planning is a singularly unique vehicle for addressing both. The dissertation is concluded with a brief discussion of those connections. First consider the matter of leadership. As mentioned above, autocrafic leadership is no longer viable. Charismatic leadership is 101 another possible leadership paradigm, but while most leaders are possessed with some measure Of charisma which allows them to rise above their peers, even great charisma is rarely enough to afford one the luxury of unchallenged leadership in these days. The only leadership model which seems to work in this time is a model which can, perhaps, best be described as ”democratic. " In other words, contemporary leaders must operate on the basis of consensus. Leaders may long for the " good Old days" when the word of the president was law, but such longing would appear to be futile and wasteful. Those days are not likely to return, so leaders must learn to maximize their leadership in the context of the democratic paradigm. Strategic planning is ideally suited to this model of leadership. It allows presidents to champion the cause, but it also demands widespread involvement from many constituencies. When done well, strategic planning affords leaders the opportunity to give true direction to an organization while involving key stakeholders in the process of determining the future of their organization. In addition to being a vehicle for planning, then, strategic planning can also become a leadership strategy, in its own right, which will enhance presidents’ ability to lead their institutions. Next, consider the issue of resource development. Professionals in resource development have long been aware of the connections between good plans (called a ”case for support") and the ability to raise funds. 102 Advancement practitioners also know that money is raised by involving capable people in meaningful ways in the process of determining how their funds will be utilized. To quote an Old fund-raising maxim, ”people give to people. ” Resource development is an art, not a science, even though there are a number of recognized principles which are accepted among development professionals. One Of the most important of these principles is that major gifts result from commitment to the organization and its leaders. Such commitment emerges from meaningful involvement with key organizational leaders in creating ways to enhance and maximize the services which the organization provides to its clients. Strategic planning, properly conceived and conducted, presents such opportunities for meaningful relationships. By involving those alumni and friends who have the potential of providing significant support in the process of strategic planning, presidents enhance their ability to raise the funds they so desperately need and desire. As the writer noted in the recommendations for further research, there is a need for more formal research into the connections between strategic planning and fund-raising. But, advancement professionals already know from experience that this connection is real. In this writer’s opinion, then, strategic planning has the potential to be much more than just a means of planning. It can become an important leadership strategy and it can play an important role in meeting critical resource needs, thereby addressing two of the most pressing problems which contemporary college and university presidents face. APPENDICES APPENDIX A FIELD TEST COVER LETTER June 1, 1994 Dr. Xxxxxx Yyyyyy, President Zzzzzzzzz College Your Road Collegetown, Ohio 43300 Dear Dr. Yyyyyyy: Thank you for agreeing to participate in the pilot test of the enclosed survey instrument for my study of strategic planning at small, private, liberal arts colleges. This study has been designed to investigate the reasons there seems to be a discrepancy between claims about the importance of strategic planning and reports about the actual practice of planning on college campuses. I am very aware of the busy schedules which college presidents have, and so I am particularly grateful for your assistance. Ultimately, this survey will be mailed to 200 presidents of small, private, egalitarian liberal arts colleges in the United States, drawn randomly from the entire universe. A shortened version (pages 2,3,4 only) will also be sent to the chief academic officers and board chairs of these same institutions in the actual research, though not for this pilot study. Of course, all results will be treated with strict confidence and the subjects will remain anonymous in any report of research findings. We will not be reporting results for any individual respondents or institutions. If you desire to receive a copy of the results of this research, please indicate that request. Please note the instructions on the enclosed sheet which are complete and also provide space for your Observations and suggestions for improvement. The two most important instructions are these: first, complete the questionnaire, noting the time it takes you to do so; then, please photocopy your completed questionnaire and return it to me in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope as quickly as possible. You may choose whether you prefer to also complete the Observation page in writing and return it or to wait until I receive your completed questionnaire, at which time I’ll call you to debrief the instrument verbally. Either way is fine with me. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (517) 750-6397 daytime or (517) 750-2861 evening. Thank you again for your help! Sincerely, Neil E. Veydt 103 APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FIELD TEST QUESTIONNAIRE Instructions for doing the pilot: 1. Please complete the survey instrument, just as if you were participating in the actual research, taking care to note exactly how long it takes you to complete the entire questionnaire. 2. Then, please complete the observations/suggestions form included below as part of this page and return both the completed forms to me in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Option: If you prefer to debrief the instrument by-telephone, simply make a photocopy of the completed questionnaire and return it to me. When I receive it, I will then place a phone call to you and we can discuss the questionnaire. Either method of review is fine with me, so it ’s according to your preference. Observations and Suggestions Please review the instrument and think about your thought processes as you answered each section and answer the following questions, as appropriate: I. How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire? 2. How comfortable were you with the length of time it took to complete the questionnaire? 3. Do you think other respondents will find it takes too long to complete and, therefore, be unlikely to persevere to the end? 4. Are there any items or instructions in which the wording or meaning is difficult to understand? If so, do you have any suggestions for improving these items/sections? more on the back of this page 104 105 5. Are any of the sections of the questionnaire especially interesting or especially dull and tedious to complete? If so, do you have any suggestions for improving these sections? 6. Is the flow of the questionnaire logical, or is it confusing? Do any questions seem out of order? 7. Are there any other subjects related to strategic planning which should be included in the survey? Are there any items you would like to see included or excluded? 8. Are there any other observations or suggestions you have? THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE! APPENDIX C FIELD TEST QUESTIONNAIRE You will indicate your voluntary willingness to participate in this survey by completing and raurning this quesflotlnalre. Please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree (SD). Disagree(D). are Neutral(N). Agree(A). or Strongly Agree(SA) with each of the following statements. Your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement: Strategic planning is one of a college president’s most important responsibilites. “Long-range planning” and “strategic planning” are terms which can be used interchangeably Reviewing the institutional profile is an essential aspect of strategic planning. It is possible for successful strategic planning to take place without including a process for matching external opportunities and threats with internal strengths and weaknesses. The president needs to be knowledgeable of strategic plarming thwy and processes. It is important to have computer-based expert decisionomaking systems in place as an aid to the strategic planning process. For the following items. please indicate your opinion of the importance of each process as it relates to the ability to do strategic planning efl'ectivelyfor a college as: Unimportant (U). Little Importance (LI). Neutral (N). Some Importance (SI). or Very Important (VI). ULINSIVI Your opinion of the importance of: Presidential leadership in initiating strategic planning. Presidential visibility in championing the strategic planning process. Reviewing the institutional mission statement. Conducting an external analysis of direct and indirect forces which may impinge upon the institution. Creating strategic alternatives prior to selecting specific strategic goals. Selecting specific strategic goals and producing a formal written plan. Developing strategic plans for each operational and academic unit which support the overall institutional strategic plan. Involving board members in the creation of strategic plans. 106 107 Please assess your institution ’s current prualce of conducting each of the following strategic planning processes as: Poor (P), Fair (F ), Average (.4). Good (G). or Excellent (E). If you don 't do a pco'ticular process at all, leave the item blank P F A G B Your assessment of your institution’s current practice of: Defining a desired “position” for your institution Ascertaining environmental opportunities and threats Defining institutional strengths and weaknesses Making strategic decisions based upon internal and external analyses Creating strategic plans for all functional areas of the institution Channeling plans through the budgeting process Channeling plans through governance structures Assessing progress toward attainment of strategic goals F or the following items, please indicate your level of Marlon with each element as it cumtly exist at your institution as: Very Dissatisfied (VD). Somewhat Dissatisfied (SD). Neutral (N). Somewhat Satisfied (SS). or Very Satisfied (VS) VD SD N SS VS Your level of satisfaction with current practice at your college: The overall practice of strategic planning The organizational planning structures Planning support systems at your college _____ Key persons’ skills in planning processes The statement of the mission of the institution Delineation of the educational values of your institution Clarity of definition of the institution’s “position” in the market The effectiveness of put planning processes at your institution Board members‘ level of involvement in strategic planning 108 For the items below, please assess your institution ’s current practice of analyzing each of the following factors for input into strategic planning: Poor (P). F air (F ), Average (A), Good (G). or Excellent (E). If your college doesn‘t currently practice analyzing a particular factor at all, just leave the item blank. PFAGE External—Pastors; Please assess your institution’s current practice of analyzing: Market needs and demands. Regulatory and accrediting agencies. Economic factors Church constituency (where applicable) Other community constituencies (e.g., schools, business, gov’t) Demographic trends Technological trends Opportunities and threats Please assess your institution’s current practice of analyzing: Academic program Administrative support Organizational culture Financial resources Buildings and equipment Institutional values Strengths and weaknesses Human resources Of the external factors listed above, in your opinion, which two have the greatest potential impact on the future of 2 your institution? 1. Of the internal factors listed above, in your opinion. which two are most important to your institution‘s future success? I. 2. 109 Please rank the following items from l-IO. with I bdng the most video! and I 0 being the least critical in terms of the degree to which each is an M to eflective strategic planning at your institution. The pace of change in the external environment __ Inadequate planning structures __ Inadequate data retrieval capabilities Lack of clarity in the institutional mission statanent Lack of expertise in planning among key personnel Inability to assess external opportunities and threats President’s travel schedule Inability to raise adequate funds to capitalize plans Limited institutional endowment Time-consuming nature of strategic planning processes Please list any other significantfactors. not listed above, which tend to impede efl‘ective planning at your institution: The following is a list of some of the duties performed by presidents of colleges and universities. Please rank the responsiblitiesfi-om l-9 according to their relative importance with I being the most important of the list and 9 being the least important of this list. Leader Scholar Manager Fund Raiser Spokesperson Planner Negotiator Visionary Lobbyist 110 Is there currently a formal strategic pinning process in place in your institution? yes _ no _ Is there currently a strategic planning committee in place at your institution? yes _ no _ If you answered “ Yes " to the preceding question please indicate which positions are represented on your planning committee. magma: _ president _ chief academic officer _ chief business officer __ chief development officer _ director of admissions _ director of financial aid _ registrar _ staff representative(s) _ trustee representative(s) _ student representative(s) _ alumni representative(s) _ community representative(s) _ church representative(s) _ others: In developing a strategic plan, how many years into the future do you project? How many times a year does the strategic planning committee meet to monitor and assess progress toward achieving planning initiatives once a strategic plan is in place? How many times during your tenure as president has a new strategic planning process been initiated? In your experience to date, which areas of your institution have been affected favorably as a result of your practice of strategic planning? gimme: _ academic programs __ admissions practices __ business office functions _ student services _ fund raising __ registrar functions _ physical plant _ continuing education __ relations with various constituencies other: 111 Occasionally, unusual events, such as natural disasters. unexpected enrollment changes. unexpected loss of major funding sources. etc. occur in the life of an institution which affects its immediate and long-term well-being. Please describe any such event(s) at your institution, and the date(s) which it/they occurred. Demographics: Prior to this position, were you employed by your current institution? yes _ no _ How long have you served as president of any college, including this one? How long have you been at your present position? In what year was your institution founded? How my presidents have served this institution during the past 20 years? What was the head-com! enrollment at your institution in the fall of l993? What is the current market value of the endowment of your institution? 3 How much was your institution‘s annual operating budget for fiscal year 19923-94? S Approximately how much of your operating budget is derived from gifls and grants? % What was the total amount received from gifts and grants in l993-94 for operating budget, restricted purposes, and capital purposes combined? S THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! Please return to: Neil E. Veydt Spring Arbor College Spring Arbor, MI 49283 (517) 750-6397 APPENDIX D SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LEI'I'ER July 15, 1994 Dear Dr. Yyyyyy: In his new book, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Dr. Henry Mintzberg says that strategic planning has failed. According to this noted scholar and author, that failure is due to the manner in which strategic planning is conceived and practiced. He argues that an organization cannnot realize the integration of its systems and goals from a process which is inherently decompositional in nature. In light of his criticisms and because of the ambiguities surrounding the practice of strategic planning in higher education, we are conducting research to investigate current perceptions of strategic planning. Presidents, chief academic officers and board chairs of small colleges are being asked about their perceptions of strategic planning at their institutions. It is important to the design of this study for each of these persons to respond. This is a national study which focuses on small, private, liberal arts colleges. Your institution was selected for inclusion by means of a random sample of all such colleges in the United States, therefore your participation is vital to the reliability of the data. Of course, such participation is strictly voluntary, and you will indicate your voltmtary agreement to participate by completing and returning the questionnaire. We respectfully request your cooperation and urge you to complete and return the enclosed questionnaire by July 30, I994. The survey should require only 20-25 minutes of your time. The short answer items on the questionnaire request information you probably know off the top of your head or have right at your fingertips. The remaining items request your opinion, so the time estimated for completion is real. All results will be treated with strict confidence and the subjects will remain anonymous in any report of research findings. On request, and within these restrictions, results are available. If you wish to receive a copy of the results, please indicate that request, and we will send them to you at the completion of the study. If you have any questions or concerns regarding participation in this study, please feel free to contact me at (517)750-6397 daytime or (517)750-2861 evening. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, Neil E. Veydt Doctoral Candidate Michigan State University P.S. I know these surveys are an intrusion into your already busy schedule, but your participation is important and we will be very grateful for your help. 112 APPENDIX E PRESIDENT’S VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE STRATEGIC PLANNING ASSESSMENT SURVEY You indicate your voluntary willingness to participate in this survey by completing and naming this questionnaire. Qualifying Questions ITEM Or 1 I. Is there currently a strategic planning process in place at your institution? yes_ no_ 2 2. If not, has the institution ever utilized strategic planning? yes_ no_ If your answer to either question is ya, please complete the remainder of the survey. If your answers to both questions are no, please complete pages 2, 5, and 6. 3 If die initiation of the process is still so recent as to inhibit evaluation, please check this box D and complete as much of the survey as possible. 4 If there is a strategic planning committee in place at your institution, please indicate which positions are represented on the committee. [3ng; gheck all that my: president chief academic officer chief business officer chief development officer director of admissions _ registrar _ faculty representative(s) staff representative(s) trustee representative(s) student representative(s) __ alumni representative(s) _ community representative(s) _ church representative(s) others: 5 In developing a strategic plan, how many years into the future do you project? 6 How many times a year does the strategic planning committee meet to monitor and assess progress toward achieving planning initiatives once a strategic plan is in place? 7 How many times during your tenure as president has a new strategic planning process been initiated? _ In your experience to date, which areas of your institution have been aflected favorably as a result of the practice of strategic planning? I he k l : _ academic programs admissions practices business office functions student services fund raising registrar functions physical plant continuing education relations with various constituencies other: 1 Please continue on back of thls page 113 10 11 12 13 14 15 1B 17 18 19 20 21 22 114 Please indicate whether you Strongly Disagree (SD). DLsagree(D), are Neutral(N), Agree(A), or Swngly Agree(SA) with each of the following statements. SD D N A SA Your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement: Strategic planning is one of a college president’s most important responsibilites. “Long-range planning" and “strategic planning” are terms which can be used interchangeably Reviewing the institutional profile (ie. programs, personnel, student demographics, etc.) is ml essential spect of strategic planning. It is possible for successful strategic planning to take place without including a process for matching external opportunities and threats with internal strengths and weaknesses. The president needs to be knowledgeable of strategic planning theory and processes. It is important to have computer-based expat decision-making systems in place as an aid to the strategic planning process. For the following items. please indicate your opinion of the importance of each process as it relates to the ability to do strategic planning eflectively for a college: Unimportant (U), Little Importance (LI), Neutral (N). Some Importance (SI), or Very Important (W). Li VI Your opinion of the importance of: Presidential leadership in initiating strategic planning. Presidential visibility in championing the strategic planning process. Reviewing the institutional mission statement. Conducting an external analysis of direct and indirect forces which may impinge upon the institution. Creating strategic alternatives prior to selecting specific strategic goals. Selecting specific strategic goals and producing a formal written plan. Developing strategic plans for each operational and academic unit which support the overall institutional strategic plan. Involving board members in the creation of strategic plans. '8 26 27 838 8838 115 Please assess your institution's curratt praafce of conducting each of the following strategic planning pro- cesses: Poor (P). Fair (F). Average (A). Good (0). or Excellent (E). If you don ’t perform a particular process. just leave the item blank. PFAGE Your assessment of your institution’s current practice of: Defining a desired “position" for your institution Ascertaining environmental opportunities and threats Defining institutional strengths and weaknesses Making strategic decisions based upon internal and external analyses Creating strategic plans for all functional areas of the institution Channeling plans through the budgeting process Channeling plans through governance structures Assessing progress toward attainment of strategic goals For the following items, please indicate your level of satisfaction with each one as it atrrattly exist at your institution: Very Dissatisfied (VD), Somewhat Dissatisfied (SD), Neutral (N). Somewhat Satisfied (SS). or Very Satisfied (VS) VDSDNSS VS Your level of satisfaction with current practice at your college: The overall practice of strategic planning The organizational planning structures Planning support systems at your college Key persons’ skills in planning processes The statement of the mission of the institution Delineation of the educational values of your institution Clarity of definition of the institution’s “position” in the market The effectiveness of past planning processes at your institution Board mernbers’ level of involvement in strategic planning Continue on next page please ‘8 1 388:33 116 For the items below, please assess your institution '3 current praflce of analyzing each of the following factors for input into strategic planning: Poor (P). Fair (F ), Average (A). Good (G). or Excellent (E). If you don’t currently analyze a particular factor, just leave the item blank. PFAGEEstemaLEms; Please assess your institution’s current practice of analyzing: Market needs and demands. Regulatory and accrediting agencies. Economic factors Church constituency (where applicable) Other community constituencies (e.g., schools, business, gov’t) Demographic trends Technological trends _ _ _ _ _ Opportunitiesandthreats War institution’s current practice of analyzing: Academic programs Administrative support Organizational culture Financial resources Buildings and equipment Institutional values Institutional strengths and weaknesses Human resources Of the external factors listed above, in your opinion, which two have the greatest potential impact on the future of your institution? 1. 56 2. 57 Of the internal factors listed above, in your opinion, which two are most important to your institution’s futuresuccess? l. 58 2.59 38328828 70 117 Please rank the following items fiom l -10 in terms of the degree to which each is an impediment to effective strategic planning at your institution, with I being the greatest and I0 being the least impediment. The pace of change in the external environment Inadequate planning structures Inadequate data ren'ieval capabilities Lack of clarity in the institutional mission statement Lack of expertise in planning among key personnel Inability to assess external opportunities and threats President’s travel schedule Inability to raise adequate fluids to capitalize plans Limited institutional endowment Time-consuming nature of strategic planning processes Please list any other significant factors. not listed above. which tend to impede eflective planning at your institution: The following is a list of some of the duties performed by presidents of colleges and universities. Please rank the responsiblities from l-9 according to their relative importance, in your opinion, with I being the most important of the list and 9 being me least important of this list. Leader Scholar Manager Fund Raiser Spokesperson Planner Negotiator Visionary Lobbyist Please continue on back of this page N .a 888388288 118 Occasionally. unusual events. such as natural disasters. unexpected enrollment changes. unexpected loss of major fimding sources. etc. occur in the life of an institution which aflects its immediate and long-term well-being. Please describe any such event(s) at your institution. and the date(s) which it/ they occurred. Demographics: Prior to this position, were you employed by your current institution? yes _ no _ How long have you served as president of any college, including this one? How long have you been at yorn' present position? In what year was your institution founded? How many presidents have served this institution during the past 20 years? What was the head-count enrollment at yorn' institution in the fall of 1993? What is the current market value of the endowment of your institution? 5 How much was your institution’s annual operating budget for fiscal year I993-94? 3 Approximately how much of your operating budget is derived from gifts and grants? $__ or _% What was the total amount received from gifts and grants in l993-94 for operating budget, restricted purposes, and capital purposes combined? S THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! Please return to: Neil E. Veydt Spring Arbor College Spring Arbor, MI 49283 (517) 750-6397 6 APPENDIX F CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER’S VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE STRATEGIC PLANNING ASSESSMENT SURVEY You indicate your voluntary willingness to participate in this survey by completing and returning this questionnaire. Qualifying Questions I. Is there currently a strategic planning process in place at your institution? yes_ no_ 2. If not, has the institution ever utilized strategic planning? yes_ no_ unsure_ 3. Have you been personally involved in a strategic planning process at this institution? yes_ no_ If your answa to any question is ya, please complete as mudr of the survey as possible. If your was to questions I and 2 are no, or I is no and 2 is unsure, please complete page 4. If your answer to quadon 3 is no, or the initiation of the process is still so recent as to inhibit evaluation, please check this box Band complete as much of the survey as possible. If there is a strategic planning committee in place at your institution, please indicate which positions are represented on the committee. Plege ghggk gll that apply: president chief academic officer chief business officer chief development officer director of admissions registrar _ faculty representative(s) staff representative(s) trustee representative(s) student representative(s) alumni representative(s) _ community representative(s) __ church representative(s) others: In your experience to date. which areas of your institution have been aflected favorably as a result of the practice of strategic Planning? WWI academic programs admissions practices business office functions student services fund raising registrar functions physical plant continuing education relations with various constituencies other: Please continue on back of this page I 119 120 Please assess your institution ’s current practice of conducting each of the following strategic planning processes: Poor (P). Fair (F). Average (A), Good (G). or Excdlatt (E). If you don 't perform a particular process. just leave the item blank PFAGE Your assessment of your institution’s current practice of: Defining a desired “position” for your institution Ascertaining environmental opportunities and threats Defining institutional strengths and weaknesses Making strategic decisions based upon internal and external analyses Creating strategic plans for all functional areas of the institution Channeling plans through the budgeting process Channeling plans through governance structures Assessing progress toward attainment of strategic goals For the following items, please indicate your level of sadsfaction with each element as it currently exists at your instiardon as: Very Dissatisfied (VD). Somewhat Disatisfled (SD). Neuaul (N). Somewhat Satisfied (SS). or Very Satisfied (VS) VDSDNSS VS Your level of satisfaction with current practice at your college: The overall practice of strategic planning The organizational planning structures Planning support systems at your college Key persons’ skills in planning processes The statement of the mission of the institution Delineation of the educational values of your institution Clarity of definition of the institution’s “position” in the market The effectiveness of past planning processes at your institution Board members’ level of involvement in strategic planning 121 For the items below. please assess your institution 's current practice of analyzing each of the following factors for input into strategic planning: Poor (P), Fair (F). Average (A), Good (G). or Excellent (E). If you don't currently analyze a particular factor, just leave the item blank. P F A G E . Please assess your institution’s current practice of analyzing: Market needs and demands. Regulatory and accrediting agencies. Economic factors Church constituency (where applicable) Other community constituencies (e.g., schools, business, gov’t) _ _ _ _ _ Demographic trends Technological trends _ _ _ _ __ Oppornmitiesandthreats Please assess your institution’s current practice of analyzing: _ _ _ _ _ Academic programs Administrative support _ _ _ _ _ Organizational culture Financial resources _ _ _ __ _ Buildings and equipment Institutional values Institutional strengths and weaknesses Human resources Of the external factors listed above, in yom opinion, which two have the greatest potential impact on the future of your institution? 1. 2. 0f the internal factors listed above. in your opinion, which two are most important to your institution's future success? 1. 2. Please continue on back of this page 122 Please rank the following items fiom l -10 in terms of the degree to which each is an impediment to eflectWe strategic planning at your institution. with I being the greatat and 10 being the least impediment. The pace of change in the external environment Inadequate planning structures Inadequate data retrieval capabilities Lack of clarity in the institutional mission statement Lack of expertise in planning among key personnel Inability to assess external opportunities and threats President‘s travel schedule Inability to raise adequate funds to capitalize plans Limited institutional endowment __ Time-consuming nature of strategic planning processes Please list any other significant factors. not listed above. which tend to impede eflective planning at your institution: The following is a list of some of the duties performed by presidents of colleges and universities. Please rank the responsiblities from l-9 according to their relative importance. in your opinion. with I being the most important of the list and 9 being the least important of this list. Leader Scholar __ Manager Fund Raiser _ Spokesperson Planner Negotiator __ Visionary Lobbyist I THANK you VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! I Please return to: Neil E. Veydt Spring Arbor College Spring Arbor. MI 49283 (517) 750-6397 APPENDIX G BOARD CHAIR’S VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE STRATEGIC PLANNING ASSESSMENT SURVEY You will indicate your voluntary willingness to participate in this survey by completing and returning this questionnaire. Qualifying Questions I. Is there currently a strategic planning process in place at your institution? yes_ no_ 2. If not, has the institution ever utilized strategic planning? yes_ no_ unsure_ 3. Have you been personally involved in a strategic planning process at this institution? yes_ no_ if your answer to any question is yes, please complete as much of the survey as possible. If your answers to nations 1 and 2 are no, or I is no and 2 is unsure, please complete page 4. lfyouranswerto question 3 is no, ortheinitiation ofnheprocess isstillso recent as to inhibit evaluadon, please check this box Dani! complete as much of the survey as possible. In your experience to date. which areas of your institution have been affected favorably as a result of the practice of strategic planning? ease h ck ll that : _ academic programs admissions practices business office ftmctions student services fund raising registrar functions physical plant continuing education relations with various constituencies other: Please continue on back of this page 123 124 Please assess your institution 's current practice of conducting each of the following strategic planning processes: Poor (P). Fair (F ). Average (A). Good (G), or Excellatt (E). if you don 't perform a particular process. just leave the item blank. PFA G E Your assessment of your institution’s current practice of: Defining a desired “position” for your institution Ascertaining environmental opporttmities and threats Defining institutional strengths and weaknesses Making strategic decisions based upon internal and external analyses Creating strategic plans for all functional areas of the institution Channeling plans through the budgeting process Channeling plans through governance structures Assessing progress toward attainment of strategic goals For the following items. please indicate your level of satisfacdon with each element as it currently exist at your institution as: Very Dissadsfled (VD). Somewhat Disadsfled (SD). Nartral (N). Somewhat Satisfied (SS). or Very Satisfied (VS) VDSDNSS VS Your level of satisfaction with current practice at your college: The overall practice of strategic planning The organizational planning structures Planning support systems at your college Key persons’ skills in planning processes The statement of the mission of the institution Delineation of the educational values of your institution Clarity of definition of the institution’s “position" in the market The efi‘ectiveness of pat planning processes at your institution Board members’ level of involvement in strategic planning 125 For the items below. please assess your institution 's current praaice of analyzing each of the following factors for input into strategic planning: Poor (P). Fair (F). Average (A). Good (G). or Excellent (E). If you don't currently analyze a particular factor. just leave the item blank. P F A G E x ct Please assess your institution’s current practice of analyzing: Market needs and demands. Regulatory and accrediting agencies. Economic factors Church constituency (where applicable) Other community constituencies (e.g., schools, business. gov’t) Demographic trends Technological trends Opporumities and threats W Please assess your institution’s current practice of analyzing: Academic programs Administrative support Organizational culture Financial resources Buildings and equipment Institutional values Institutional strengths and weaknesses Human resources Of the external factors listed above, in your opinion. which two have the greatest potential impact on the future of your institution? I. 2. Of the internal factors listed above. in your opinion, which two are most important to your institution’s future success? I. 2. Please continue on back of this page 126 Please rank the following items fiom l -10 in terms of the degree to which each is an impedimart to effective strategic planning at your institution. with I being the greath and 10 being the least impediment. The pace of change in the external environment _ Inadequate planning structures __ Inadequate data retrieval capabilities Lack of clarity in the institutional mission statement Lack of expertise in planning among key personnel Inability to assess external opportunities and threats President‘s travel schedule Inability to raise adequate ftmds to capitalize plans Limited institutional endowment Time-consinning nature of strategic pluming processes Please list any other significant factors. not listed above. which tend to impede eflective planning at your institution: The following is a list of some of the duties performed by presidents of colleges and universities. Please rank the responsiblities from l-9 according to their relative importance. in your opinion. with i being the most important of the list and 9 being we least important of this list. Leader Schqu Manager Fund Raiser Spokesperson Plumer Negotiator Visionary Lobbyist rTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! I Please return to: Neil E. Veydt Spring Arbor College Spring Arbor. MI 49283 (517) 750-6397 APPENDIX H POST CARD SURVEY RETRIEVAL REMINDER Mr. Neil E. Veydt Vice President for Planning and Advancement Spring Arbor College Spring Arbor, Michigan 49283 Dr. XXXXX XXXXXXX, President YYYYYYYYY College 1234 Your Street Anywhere, ST 99999 Thiscolorfulpostcardisaentasacordialreminder. 'Ofwhatamltobereminded,‘ younnyask. And,ofcourse, Iamdelightedtotellyou. On or about July 15, you should have received one of those wonderfully exciting questionnaires which frequent your desk with perplexing regularity. I know you are always excited to receive these instruments in the mail. I know because I, too. Often havethejoyofcompletingthem, solknowfirsthandhowtheycan makeaperson’s day. Seriously, dear colleague, I am dependent upon your help asil complete my research to assess the status Of strategic planning at small, private liberal arts colleges. Wouldyoubekindenoughtocarve20minutesoutyourscheduletocompleteand return the questionnaire? I’ll be eternally gratefill...OK, I’ll be grateful for as long as I Iive...oh, all right. would you believe until my research is done? Please send your completed form back to me quickly. It is very important to the success Of this research. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE! Neil E. Veydt ~ Spring Arbor College ~ Spring Arbor, MI 49283 ~ (517) 750-6397 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY W San Franciscoz lossey-Bass, 1990. Aggarwal, Raj. "Systematic Strategic Planning at a State University: A Case Study Of Adapting Corporate Flaming Techniques.” W110) (Spring-Summer 1987): 123-35. Alexander Ernest R W W New York: Gordon and Branch Science Publishers,1986. Bailey, Anne Lowrey. "The Competitive Edge: A Top Academic Planner Talks About How Strategic Flaming Can Keep Your Institution Vital. " W 9( 10) (N member-December 1983):12-15. Balderston, Frederick E. ”Dynamics Of Planning. Strategic Approaches and Higher Education" MW 9(3) (September 1981): 51-61. Barton, Allan. "The Financial Aspects of Strategic Planning for Universities.” 10(1) (May 1988):51-62. Bower-Mike. Marina. We Washington, D.C.: Higher Education Strategic Planning Institute, 1985. Bennis, Warren. W. San Francisco: Josscy- Bass, 1990. Bok, Derek. HigthLgaming. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. 128 129 Bozeman, William C. and Schmelzer, Sue. "Strategic Planning. Applications in Business and Education. W 15(1) (Spring 1984): 35-49. Branch. Melville C W maples. Pergamon Publishers, 1983. Branch, Melville C. W New York: Praeger, 1990. Branch, Melville C. W New York: Wiley, 1966. Broome, Benjamin J. and Others. ”Long-Range Planning in a University Setting: A Case Study." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (75th, San Francisco, CA, November, 18-21, 1989). Cameron, Kim. ”Strategic Responses to Conditions of Decline. Higher Education and the Private Sector." MW 54 (July-August 1983): 359-380. Carlisle, E. Fred. ”Long-Range and Strategic Planning at Michigan State." W 19(12) (June 1986):30-34. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. Ihm W. San Fancisco: Jossey- Bass Pub., (1980). Cateota, Philip R. W 8th ed., Boston: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., (1993). Clavel. Pierre. WWW Ithaca. NY: Dept. of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University, 1980. Coleman, Jack W. "Planning and Resource Allocation Management." Wm 14(3) (Fall 1986) 53-61 130 Collier. James R. W Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Cope, Robert G. ”A Contextual Model to Encompass the Strategic Planning Concept. Introducing a Newer Paradigm." Blanmngjg; Won 13(3) (Spring 1985):13-20 Cope, Robert G. ”Strategic Planning, Management, and Decision Making” WW 9 (1981):1-58. Copeland Beverly (1985) WWW _ U I’- I I. I 0 I ' -. II I J Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, D. C. Corson. John Jay. Wm New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Davidoff, Paul and Reiner, Thomas A. ”A Choice Theory of Planning" in mm Fahldi Andreas ed. Oxford. Pergamon Press, 1973. Dickmeyer, Nathan. “Financial Management and Strategic Planning." Won 10(2) (June 1982): 51-60 Dixit Avinash K W Wk. New York: Norton.1991 Dixon Paul H (1986) W ° I I010 I I“: {III' Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Ohio. Evans, Nancy Dee. (1987).Ana1x515_of_81m1eeiLElannine_Eraetic_e5_of W51. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. 131 Ewing, David W. W New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Filella, J. "Institutional Planning” WW 5 (January/March 1975): 42. Fisher, James L. W. American Council on Education. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1991. Forester. John. W Emieal, Ithaca, NY: Dept. of City and Regional Planning in Conjunction with the Program in Urban and Regional Studies, Cornell University, 1979. Goodale, Toni. ”The Ongoing Capital Campaign. " W Management 20(7) (September 1989):72-73. Gray, Daniel H. ”Uses and Misuses of Strategic Planning. flamed W 64(1) (J anuary-February 1986). 89-97. Guertin J A Riehard (1987) W 9‘ Hm I II -I' 1.an 'II'.‘ WWW Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Gup, Benton E. Wag, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990. Hamermesh, R. G. (1983). WEI—MEW- New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hayes, Robert H. "Strategic Planning-Forward in Reverse." Hm W 63(6) (November-December 1985): 111-119. 132 Hayward. Beresford. WW Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1974. Heiberger, Michael H. "The Current State of Planning Activities at Schools and Colleges of Optometry." W Edneatlen 12(4) (Spring 1987): 125-30. WW. Falls Church, VA: Higher Education Publishers, Inc., 1994. Hesse, Martha Lide Robertson. (1985). W B 15 'El . Edi I 211' Unimsity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Heydinger, Richard B. and Zentner, Rene D. "Multiple Scenario Analysis: Introducing Uncertainty into the Planning Process." WW 10(3) (September 1983): 5 1-68. Hogan, Stephen D Waltz: PresidenLLQuide, Arlington, VA. Thomsbury Bailey & Brown, 1987. Holdaway, Edward A. and Meekison, J. Peter. "Strategic Planning at a Canadian University. " Lengjnngeflnnnlng 23(4) (August 1990): 104-1 13. Humanflannlngfleeesses, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp., 1980. Humble. Thomas N. W Ceneepmalm Austin, Texas: Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas, 1966. 133 Hurley, John J. P. "Organizational Development in Universities. " WW 5(1) (1990):17-22. Huse, Edgar F. and Bowditch, James L. Benaxienjnflrganizafiens; WW Reading. MA Addison- Wesley 1973. laeeers. Charles Richard III (1985) W W Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. Johnson, George W. "The President’s Game. W W 16(1) (Spring 1983): 65-70 Kauffman, Joseph F. "Profile of the Presidency in the Next Decade. " EdmtionaLRecntd 65(2) (Spring 1984): 6-10 Keller, George. Aeademiefinategx, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Kelly, Noel H. and Shaw, Robin N. "Strategic Planning by Academic Institutions—Following the Corporate Path?" HigheLEslneatien 16(3) (1987): 319-36. Kerr, Clark & Gade, Marian. (1981). Current and Emerging Issues Facing American Higher Education. In P. G. Altbach, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds ). WWW (pp 129- 147). Buffalo, New York. Prometheus Books. Kerr, Clark. "Presidents Make a Difference: Strengthening Leadership in Colleges and Universities." Carnegie Commission Report, 1984. Klosterman Richard B W W Chicago: CPL Bibliographies, 1980. 134 Kotler, Philip. W]; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1984. Kotler. Philip. W Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975. Kotler, Philip, and Murphy, Patrick. "Strategic Planning for Higher Education" MW!) 52(5) (1981): 470-89 Krontseng, Marsha V. ed. "Opportunity from Strength. Strategic Planning Clarified with Case Examples." Elanm'nngLHighfl. Edneatien 17(3) (1988-89): 59-61. Landes, Jennifer. "Occidental Life of N.C. Offers New College Planning Service." Natienal Underwriter. (Li'erHealmlEm' aneial Semiees) 93(25) (June 19, 1989):21, 24. Lieberman, David A. "University of Miami: A Novel Approach to Strategic Planning." Busineseflffiee: 19(8)(February 1986):22-24. Lindstrom, Caj Gunnar. "Planning for Higher Education." Higher W 9(1) (January-March 1984):25-28. Martin Marc Jeffrey (1992) W tIII‘ ' \‘h'I I I. I.” I' I Weapon Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio. Mayhew, Lewis B. W. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, ' 1982. Mazur Denise Anne (1991) WWW We. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 135 McKenna, David L. "The Board’s Role in Strategic Planning." fl Remus 30(3) (May-June 1988):6-8. Merson, J. C. "Management Techniques for Small and Specialized _ Institutions. Strategic and Financial Planning." W W, 42 (June 1983): 5- 10. Merson John C and Qualls Robert L WW :II I ‘II .550 I0' III .II {‘0 Allmatien. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1979. Miller. Ernest Charles. Adeaneedleehninnesfnnfimeeieflannine. New York: American Management Association, 1971 . Mintzberg. Henry. IheRi5e_and_Ea11_Qf_Strateeie_Elannine New York: The Free Press, 1994. Morrison, James L. "Establishing an Environmental Scanning/Forecasting System to Augment College and University Planning"£1annine_tor HieheLEdueatien 15(1) (1986-87): 7-22 Morrison, James L. "Using Futures Research in College and University Planning. A Handbook for Planners in Higher Education. " Paper presented at a Conference of the North Carolina Association for Institutional Research (Little Switzerland, NC, August 2-3, 1990). Morrison, James L. "The Alternative Futures Approach to Planning: Implications for Institutional Research Offices. " Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the European Association for Institutional Research (Trier, West Germany, August 27-30, 1989). Moskow, Michael H. Stuteeieflanninejnjusinesundflexernment. New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1978. Nagy, T., Gault, D., and Nagy, M. Culver City, CA: Ashton-Tate, 1985. 136 National Survey on Planning in Higher Education Report, National Center for Strategic Planning and Resource Development, The Quehl Group, Lafayette, CA. 1993. Norris, Donald M. and Poulton, Nick L. "A Guide for New Planners, 1987 Edition." Society for College and University Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Nwagbaraocha, Joel. W. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 4. San Francisco: J ossey -Bass, (1979): 29-43. Pailthorp, Keith G. "Examples of Strategic Planning at Several Levels." NeLDiLeetienefQLlnstimtienaLReseaLeh 8(4) (Winter 1986): 77-85 Parson. Mary Jean. BaekJLBasiesPlannine. New York: Facts on File, 1985. Wm New York: Harper Business, c1990. Peseau, Bruce A. "Strategic Planning or Technological Forecasting? There’s A Difference!" (1987). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Institutional Research/Society for College and University Planning. (New Orleans, LA, October 29, 1987). Petrello, George J. "An Analysis of Formal Long-Range and Strategic Planning as a Guide for Effective Leadership. " Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Educators and Scholars (Louisville, KY, October 10-11, 1986). "R3: The Refocusing, Rebalancing, and Refining of Michigan State University. " Internal Discussion Paper. Document Version 2.0, 1989. 137 Reeves. John P. (1988). W E . I C] . . I I . I I l I Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. Ryan. Cynthia C. W gnawetamflihhegmphy. Metuchen, NJ. Scarecrow Press, 1986. Saaty, Thomas L. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1985. Scheaffer, Richard L., Mendenhall, William, and Ott, Lyman. ElemenmSmeyjemnling, Fourth Edition. Boston: MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company, 1990. Schmidtlein, Frank and Milton, Toby. "College and University Planning Perspectives from a Nation-wide Study." Elam HieheLEdneatien 17 (3) (1988-89): 5-6 Schwendiman, John Snow. Winn. New York: Praeger 1973 Shirley, Robert C. "Identifying the Levels of Strategy for a College or University." Manning 16 (1983): 92-98. Sibley, William M. "Strategic Planning and Management for Change." CmadiaLMmaLQLHieherEdneatien 16(2) (1986): 81- 102. Sillince, John. WEE. Aldershot, Hampshire, England, 1986. WWW Reston, VA: National Education Association, c1990. 138 Sumner, Bob. "The Process of Developing a College Plan for an Institution of Higher Education." W W 11(1) (May 1989): 95-101. Tan, David L. "Strategic Planning in Higher Education: Varying Definitions, Key Characteristics, Benefits, Pitfalls, and Good Approaches. " Paper presented at the Southwest Society for College and University Planning (Tucson, AZ, March 1, 1990). Walker. Joseph Randall. Jr. (1987). W 'I.II‘;.‘III. II I OI I W. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia University. Ward, Edward Peter. W Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1970. Whiteley, Meredith A. and Others. "Developing Scenarios: Linking Environmental Scanning and Strategic Planning. Elann'mgjer When 18(4) (1989-90): 47-60. Willis, Raymond E. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987. Wilson, Donald W. and Taylor, James S. ."The Pittsburgh State University Strategic Planning Model. " Pittsburgh State University, Kansas. Winstead, Philip C. and Ruff, Dan G. "The Evolution of Institutional Planning Models in Higher Education. " Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research (26th, Orlando, FL, June 22-25, 1986). nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 11111111111111111111 “ll“ 1111111 llll WI 31293014172229