Strategic University Management

Future Proofing Your Institution

Loren Falkenberg, M. Elizabeth Cannon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000286823
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Strategy
• Index: Business

Universities are being buffeted by multiple disruptive trends, including increased competition for both funding and students, as well as from new institutions that are nimbler and more responsive to the external environment. To survive this reality, university leaders must engage in effective strategic planning that cascades from the president or vice-chancellor's office to individual faculty and staff. Outcomes of an effective institutional strategy are the alignment of resource allocation with strategic goals, and the facilitation of clear and transparent decision-making for new program development, research capacity growth, and infrastructure investment.

With increasing expectations for university leaders to engage in strategic planning, Strategic University Management: Future Proofing Your Institution provides a practical framework for managing the process and delivering results. This book illustrates that the inherent weaving of strategic planning and organizational culture through engaged consultation facilitates a culture of responsiveness, rather than complacency.

Providing an in depth overview of the value strategy can create in universities, it provides a framework for initiating, implementing and assessing strategic planning in a university setting that will make it valuable to researchers, academics, university leaders, and students in the fields of strategic planning, organizational studies, leadership, and higher education management.

1
Institutional Dynamics and the Role of Strategy

The once stable environment of higher education is shifting into a turbulent and increasingly competitive marketplace, where universities can no longer just graduate students or produce ground-breaking research; they now must also be “future ready” (EY, 2018). Two contrasting trends reflect the disruptions occurring in higher education. One is the growth in new universities and the “massification” of higher education in jurisdictions such as Asia (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2014), while in more developed economies there are cases of declining enrolments (NSC Research Center, 2019), and even mergers and closures of institutions. Uncertainty as to the future status of universities is growing with new technologies disrupting programme delivery, governments requiring more formal planning and accountability, university rankings influencing reputations, and a shift from public to alternative funding sources. This new reality has increased the need for university leaders to engage the whole campus in strategic planning and, equally as important, ensure that the strategy cascades from the president’s office to faculty, staff, and external stakeholders. The COVID pandemic has only increased the rate at which these disruptive forces are impacting university operations. Yet, more often than not, universities spend significant resources on strategic planning and then do nothing until the next round of planning (Pritchard, 2018; Robertson & Olds, 2018).

While the external environment has become turbulent, the internal dynamics of universities have been slow to change. Faculty members, and some staff, operate in the traditional silos of their departments or disciplines, focusing on remaining relevant with their research colleagues. They have little interest in campus-wide events and activities in other faculties, and minimal interest in the dynamics of the higher education sector. As long as individuals have the resources they need, there is little thought about institutional efficiency or overall effectiveness (Porck et al., 2018).

The traditional culture of faculty silos has led to a growing and significant gap between the external and internal realities of universities. This chapter explores this gap and the need for strategies that bridge it, without destroying the centuries-long mandate of universities: to push the boundaries of curiosity and thought leadership.

Internal Dynamics and External Disruptions

Universities are unique institutions. Unlike a corporation with specific products or services to sell, they are more akin to a city, encompassing a broad range of activities, and “have almost no internal agreement about what they are” (Usher, 2019a). Researchers have described universities as “organised chaos,” arising from the independence of faculty who are protected by academic freedom and tenure (Cohen & March, 1974; Leih & Teece, 2016). Others argue labelling the chaos “organised” is generous, given that academic leaders have significantly less control over faculty activities than corporate executives have over their employees’ work. Strategy development is influenced by the internal dynamics contributing to the chaos, as well as external disruptions that compound the tensions inside universities.

A critical factor influencing the development and execution of strategy is the external orientation of many faculty members. Research-oriented faculty are socialised, from the day they enter graduate school, to build an academic reputation through the external activities of publishing and conference presentations. As well, many are dependent on external research funding. Universities reinforce this outward focus by requiring external referees for tenure and promotion, and establishing merit-based external metrics (e.g., citations, recognition of critics). Although many argue this approach leads to independent thought in research and teaching materials, an external focus can sideline researchers’ commitment to their university, and hence support for a unifying institutional strategy (Pai, Yeh & Huang, 2012). And, part-time or sessional instructors often teach at more than one institution and focus on building a broad teaching portfolio with little interest in the strategic needs of a particular institution.

Most universities have mandates in three areas—or pillars—which are teaching and learning (“teaching”), research and scholarship (“research”), and community service (sometimes referred to as “community engagement”). An internal dynamic influencing an institution’s strategic goals is the systemic tension between the teaching and research pillars. Studies show that teaching and research are viewed as independent activities competing for financial resources, space, and qualified faculty (Hattie & Marsh, 1996), even when faculty believe they should be good at both (Brew, 2003; Webster, 1985). Adding to this tension are the global ranking systems which focus on research outcomes, with little consideration given to teaching effectiveness. This tension leads to reinforcement of existing beliefs as to which set of activities should be prioritised rather than flexibility in shifting priorities.

Within the research pillar, the perceived value of different types of research is continually questioned (Checkoway, 2001). Scholars in the sciences and social sciences/humanities are socialised to freely experiment with new ideas independent of immediate relevance (Grey, 2001; Heracleous, 2011); while those in professional schools value pragmatic or more immediately applicable knowledge (Grey, 2001; Heracleous, 2011; Kondrat, 1992; Nicolai, 2004; Simon, 1976; Tranfield & Starkey, 1998; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). Currently, many social science faculty are resisting the growing expectation that universities should be key contributors to innovation and the commercialisation of knowledge (Mowery & Sampat, 2005); they counterargue that many of the advances known today came from exploratory research on ideas that did not originally have a visible pragmatic outcome.

Within the teaching pillar, there is systemic tension between the traditional liberal arts education, which develops disciplinary knowledge and skills based on a student’s passion, and the professional schools, which build the knowledge and skills relevant to a specific career (Grey, 2001; Heracleous, 2011; Kondrat, 1992; Nicolai, 2004; Tranfield & Starkey, 1998; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). Both types of education are important to society. A liberal arts education leads to critical thinking and well-developed communication skills, as well as the ability to apply interdisciplinary knowledge when analysing problems (Zakaria, 2015). Many undergraduates are able to apply their interdisciplinary knowledge to complex societal problems. In contrast, a technical education is responsive to the economy’s need for skilled labour and applied research. The value of a narrower technical education is reflected in the success of universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Technical University of Munich (Altmann & Ebersberger, 2012; Youtie & Shapira, 2008). Again, these tensions often reinforce existing faculty silos rather than adopting a broader university perspective.

The higher education environment is experiencing increased turbulence from multiple disruptive technologies, particularly in the teaching pillar (De Boer et al., 2002). The impending disruption of technology platforms which effectively deliver course material into students’ own digital spaces is increasing the possibilities of learning from internationally recognised professors located anywhere in the world (Altbach, Reisberg & Rumbley, 2009), with COVID-19 rapidly accelerating the impact of these platforms. In parallel, non-academic organisations offering certificates through bundling skills via online learning are flourishing (Dusst & Winthrop, 2019). These organisations are nimble and responsive to student needs as they are not hampered by the bureaucracy systemic in established universities.

The hyper-expansion of expectations for universities, including democratisation, human rights, scientisation, and development planning (Schofer & Meyer, 2005) have created ambiguity as to their mandate (Youtie & Shapira, 2008). As noted by Morphew, Fumasoli and Stensaker (2016), “a recurring theme of higher education research is the blurring boundaries of functions, objectives, and scope of universities, due to the increased emphasis on relevance, service to society, and changes in the modes of knowledge production.” Part of this hyper-expansion is the expectation that universities will work with communities in finding solutions to local and global social problems (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Etzkowitz, 2003; Laredo, 2007; Usher, 2018a). They are expected to partner with business and not-for-profit organisations to fund innovation and social enterprises (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). This emerging threefold interaction among universities, government, and civil society has been labelled a triple helix and demonstrates the importance for academic institutions to consider other actors in the system when considering their own futures (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1999).

The global and national ranking of universities has created a system over which academic leaders have little control but must still monitor because where an institution places in the better-known ranking surveys has notable reputational and operational consequences (Tamburri, 2013). Although the ranking of universities has been around for decades, prior to 2003 it was dependent on self-completed surveys, which were difficult to collect and had minimal impact. In 2003 a Chinese scholar began gathering bibliometric measures of publications, citations, and major awards of universities around the globe (Usher, 2018b). This led to a rapid adoption of the methodology and an increase in the number of ranking organisations. The irony is that universities are unlikely to move more than one or two places in a given decade, and the top ten institutions will generally remain in the top ten (Usher, 2018c). However, administrators cannot ignore the rankings and must guide their institutions towards achieving metrics that keep them from losing ground in their placement.

Reputation is a criteria included in most of the rankings; and this is a strategic outcome that most universities can control. Reputation is built by providing valued and unique programmes and, when established, has greater influence with key stakeholders than rankings. Most universities should be more concerned about their reputation with their primary stakeholders than their exact placement in the rankings. However, without a strategy that is shared across the institution, it is difficult to coordinate the resources and activities needed to build or enhance a positive reputation.

In summary, the academy must now compete for students, operate with reduced funding, adjust to changing technologies and demographics, and respond to the growing complexity of societal problems. Each university must align and differentiate its programmes to the expectations of its stakeholders rather than adopt a universal approach (Strike, Hanlon & Foster, 2018). They must find the appropriate balance between building programmes that create value for identified stakeholders and creating knowledge for the sake of new knowledge (Shin, 2017; Yorke, 2004).

Strategy as a Bridge

Successful business leaders are constantly aware of their external environments and develop strategies to satisfy market demands. The importance of strategic planning in a market-based economy is reflected in the extensive research and popular literature on business strategies. Although universities and businesses have different mandates and operating contexts, this literature is still relevant to higher education. Universities are focused on producing a public good rather than maximizing profit; they have more time to respond to disruptions, and they apply a different set of metrics to measure success (Strike, 2018). However, as competition grows in the higher education sector there is an increasing need to adapt the findings in business strategy research to the new realities of higher education.

An effective institutional strategy explicitly states where the university should be in the future (usually five years), identifies the gaps that need to be bridged to achieve the goals, and guides decision-making throughout the organisation (Pritchard, 2018; Rumelt, 2012). It is different from the university’s mission (Collis & Rukstad, 2008). The mission identifies the contribution a university intends to make, through its education, and knowledge creation and dissemination. Universities share very similar missions; however, each university operates in a unique context, with differing combinations of strengths, weaknesses, and potential to respond to opportunities and reduce risks. A strategy is based on these unique combinations. It sets the priorities for difficult decisions on resource allocation and guides decisions as to what programmes the university will or will not support (Porter, 1996). It involves setting goals and identifying metrics to measure progress towards the goals.

An institutional strategy is not about operational effectiveness. Strategy involves developing new activities or performing similar activities in different ways. Operational effectiveness involves performing a specific activity in an efficient way (Porter, 1996). A future-proofed university makes strategic choices on the activities or combination of activities that need to be in place five to 10 years into the future, while ensuring operational effectiveness is monitored and enhanced.

In comparison to business organisations, universities are not nimble, as they cannot change direction over a short time frame. Universities are more like an urban community than a business organisation, with housing, recreational facilities, parking, public events, and academic faculties all operating as independent units. Within these units are expensive physical assets such as specialised laboratories, classrooms, and libraries which require constant maintenance. As well, the academic units have tenured faculty, whose careers with th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• 1 Institutional Dynamics and the Role of Strategy
• 2 Setting the Stage
• 3 Informed Engagement
• 4 Creating the Strategy
• 5 Executing the Strategy
• 6 Future-Proofing
• Appendix: University of Calgary Case Study
• References
• Index