Strategic Leadership|Strategies: Initiatives, Imperatives, Goals, and Actions

Throughout this inquiry, I have tried to show how a method of strategic

leadership functions within the decision-making world of higher education.

The time has come to examine the logic of the approach in designing

specific strategies and courses of action. The aim of this chapter is to indicate

how strategic leadership operates as a discipline of decision making by making

strategies understandable, persuasive, and actionable.

INTEGRATING LEADERSHIP AND THE STRATEGY PROCESS

Even as our point of view shifts to focus on some of the details of strategic

planning, we shall not lose sight of the differentiating aspects of leadership in its

applied form. We will expect the various levels of strategy to bear the authentic stamp of the organization's narratives of identity and aspiration. In terms of

leadership, they must be able to orient choice and motivate action, even if the

proposed strategies stir up some measure of conflict and require difficult decisions. Coping with conflict and change is always on the agenda of leadership.

To be effective in doing so, strategies have to be grounded in the institution's

story, mission, and vision as sources of inspiration and legitimacy and must be

able to anticipate the challenges to their enactment. At whatever point one taps

into the strategy process, its different aspects should reflect that they are part of

an integrated effort. The vision can be read in the goals, which in turn give the

vision a purchase on reality. Since a vision reflects both limits and possibilities, it

portrays goals as indicators of deeper commitments and perspectives. In the work

of strategic leadership, the vision and goals are transparent to one another though

the sense-making and sense-giving power of the narrative that frames them.

180 Strategic Leadership

As strategies of integrative leadership, the strategies cannot merely be suspended in midair for all to admire and promptly forget. The ultimate goal of

strategy is to capture the best thinking of an academic community and to enlist

its members in a serious pursuit of shared aspirations. Agreement and enthusiasm

are not required, but a critical mass of the organization must find itself influenced

and even moved by the strategy. The community and the smaller communities

within it have to own the most important strategic directions and share a commitment to enact them.

Anticipating a subsequent chapter on the implementation of strategy, I want to

emphasize that leadership as an applied discipline has to be integrally oriented

toward action. The conditions for successful implementation must be woven

into the strategies and goals themselves. The very act of choosing strategic priorities requires an integrative understanding of the total circumstances of the

institution. To launch a strategic initiative is already to have considered the

actual or potential conflict with judgments about the significance of other worthy possibilities, not all of which can be made priorities. As a discipline of action,

leadership anticipates the responsibilities and tensions of enactment. Since it is

rooted in narrative, it draws on this resource to resolve the drama of choice and

conflict in the strategies it chooses.

The Reciprocity of Leadership and Management

These thoughts and those that follow reveal another aspect of the relationship between strategic management and strategic leadership. Like all disciplines,

including those in applied fields, strategic management gravitates toward methods that are systematic and rational. Its aim is to find a logic of decision making

that can be used similarly in all situations. Its methods of design, description,

measurement, evaluation, and control tempt it to think of itself as a science of

management. In its drive toward a deductive pattern of reasoning, however, it

begins to lose intuitive touch with the ever-shifting complexity of the real world,

or it tends to become mechanistic and pointlessly elaborate, as we have found in

some of the proposed models for strategic planning in higher education.

Strategic leadership does not eliminate the systems and methods of strategic

planning and management but reorients their meaning. It places them in the

context of human agency rather than rational deduction, of narrative rather

than description, thereby creating a discipline of engagement whose intention

is ultimately to motivate commitments and actions to fulfill common purposes.

Strategic leadership depends on logic, rational decision making, and measurement

to provide evidence and establish good reasons for action, but the case it builds

is addressed simultaneously to humans as subjects and as responsible agents of

choice. As a discipline, it honors the norms of truth and seeks out what is right,

but it translates its findings into patterns of enacted sense making and responsibility, not just into decisions or propositions to which one might give just verbal

assent. The decisions that flow from strategic leadership follow a logical sequence, 

Strategies 181

but they must as well be adequate to change and unpredictability, to conflict and

challenge. They will be able to motivate others only if they relate to the story

and values through which individuals and organizations understand themselves

and fulfill their purposes.

As we have seen and will see again, although management and leadership are

different phenomena, they are intimately related. Management sets the conditions and provides the procedures without which strategic leadership could not

function. Yet through the context provided by the larger horizons of leadership,

management is able to find greater coherence and purposefulness for its own

processes. In the real world, the promptings of leadership usually migrate into

management to protect it from becoming deductive and mechanistic. Beyond that

implicit relationship, management needs leadership to deal with tasks that are

beyond it, including the capacity to motivate people to reach demanding goals.

The Choice of Strategies

From a purely theoretical point of view, there is no reason for a strategic plan

not to cover every office and program in a college or university. To develop fullblown strategies for each of a dozen or more major spheres of activity (see "Framework for an Integrative Strategy Process" in chapter 4) and then do the same for

five to ten major subcategories in each area is logical but not possible. The results

would be a largely unusable catalog of staggering size and complexity that could

never be implemented.

Ideally, the selection and development of strategic priorities is a highly disciplined, not expedient, process. This is true both in terms of the rigor and coherence of strategic thinking and the more practical considerations of the form of

the final planning document. Colleges and universities have to follow the law of

parsimony in developing their strategic initiatives. Time and attention are the

scarcest commodities on a campus, and there is no special "research and development" or "project engineering" department for the academic program, and, at best,

skeletal ones for the administration. Strategic initiatives often die a quick and

ignoble death from neglect because too much has been loaded onto an operational

system that is already fully charged. Those with the responsibility to implement

the strategies can only correlate, integrate, and control a limited number of priorities. Faculty members in particular are appointed to be teachers and scholars,

not strategists.

In describing the characteristics of the eight organizations (including one

university) that were recent Baldridge Award winners in the category of effective

planning, John Jasinski notes that they were able to "identify a manageable number

of strategic objectives (perhaps four to six), tied to inputs that systematically

address the challenges that they face" (2004, 29). To be sure, unusual circumstances and institutional variability in size and complexity make any hard-and-fast

rules about the number of strategic initiatives ill advised. Yet it is far better to

succeed on a small set of essential and manageable initiatives than to flounder 

182 Strategic Leadership

over an imaginative but impossible agenda. Thus, it is hard to imagine how most

colleges and universities could design and execute more than eight to ten major

institution-wide strategic initiatives at one time, assuming that each would contain two or three strategic projects and programs.

To help winnow down the list of potential strategic issues, it should be remembered that important problems that surface in strategy deliberations can be

handled through annual operating plans. Further, if the strategy process is continuous, then the annual planning cycle can modify strategies and revise goals to

address changing circumstances. If the cycle between intensive forms of planning

and reporting is relatively brief—not more than the typical five years—then the

campus has a sense that a new round of planning will begin in the foreseeable

future. Projects deferred in the past may prove to be top priorities in the next

planning cycle. Setting strategy in the context of leadership makes it not only

more integrated, but more flexible as well. When leadership is the goal, strategies

both individually and collectively require a focus that is logically related to the

institution's self-definition. As suggested in the preceding chapter, institutions

have to define their strategies around those critical success factors that will provide them with the greatest leverage in reaching the destinations that they have

charted for themselves.

LEVELS OF STRATEGY

The effort to develop a disciplined and persuasive set of strategies can be

strengthened through the creation of several levels of definition, starting with

broad themes, issues, and goals, and moving to specific plans and proposed actions.

A content analysis shows that in almost all cases, strategic plans are built explicitly or implicitly around three or four levels of argumentation and explication,

although the language used to describe them is very diverse. From the point of

view of both the methods of management and leadership, what matters most is the

effort to construct strategies through a coherent pattern and sequence of analysis

and argumentation. The persuasiveness of a strategy depends on presenting

evidence and ideas systematically to show their relationships with each other and

the institution's story, purposes, and goals. The force of reason and of information are joined to the resonance of the story and the vision (H. Gardner 2004).

Through such an approach, questions are answered before they are asked, tensions

are resolved through the dramatic resolution suggested in the narrative, and the

logic of the strategies builds on one another to make a persuasive case.

Lest one think that these ideas apply only in the world of higher education, let

us note that the planning model of the large industrial materials corporation 3M

is based on narrative strategy. 3M's strategic decision making relies on the central

business story and principles that differentiate its success, which becomes much

more persuasive when presented in narrative form, rather than in a set of bullet

points. The narrative form allows people to see themselves in the goals and actions

of the plan (Shaw, Brown, and Bromiley 2002).

Strategies 183

It is helpful to develop strategy at the four levels of (1) strategic initiatives,

(2) strategies, (3) goals, and (4) actions. The terminology used in the literature

and in the practice of strategic planning is widely variable and determined by

context, though there is almost always a set of terms that parallel the usages proposed here (cf. Bryson 1995; Cope 1985; Hunt, Oosting, Stevens, Loudon, and

Migliore 1997; Rowley, Lujan, and Dolence 1997; Ruben 2004b; Sevier 2000).

Based on context and usage, it becomes clear that one plan's "strategic initiatives"

are another's "strategies," "directions," "themes," "issues," or "goals." What some

documents designate simply "strategies," we are differentiating here as "strategic

initiatives," and strategic projects and programs as "strategies." In some plans,

strategies are designated as "goals" or even "objectives." We, and many others,

reserve the word "goal" for a specific and measurable target of opportunity, but the

word frequently used for this is "objective." We call the fourth and most specific

level "actions," which is the predominant usage, though it is also common to refer

to this stage of strategy as "tactics." And so it goes in the terminology of strategy,

making it impossible to establish definitive terms of art or usage. The least one can

expect, however, is a definition and justification for the terms chosen, as well as a

sense of the levels and forms of strategic thinking as a pattern of argumentation.

Table 9.1

STRATEGIC

INITIATIVE

A theme that describes one of the major issues, priorities, or

aspirations in the strategic plan, consisting of one or more

strategies, each of which is defined by goals

Situation Analysis A rationale that gives the evidence and reasons for the

significance of the strategic initiative in terms of the institution's

identity, mission, vision, and position

STRATEGIES A strategic initiative usually has several strategic projects or

programs within it. They each define a discrete activity with one

or more goals that address one aspect of the larger theme. Each

strategy has a rationale and a definable pattern of accountability

with measurable goals, designated responsibilities, deadlines, and

actions.

GOALS An aim to achieve results that do not currently exist

Measurement Goals are determinable and should be subject to various forms of

measurement.

Accountability The achievement of a goal should be assigned explicitly to groups

or individuals who are responsible to attain it.

Timeline The achievement of goals should have milestones and deadlines.

ACTIONS The specific actions that are required to achieve the goal

184 Strategic Leadership

An analytical chart (table 9.1) will help to clarify terms and display the relationship of terms, and each will be discussed in the text.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVES AND IMPERATIVES

Strategic initiatives are central strategic themes or issues. They consist of one or

several strategies that define projects and programs that are of high priority, both

in solving problems and in seizing opportunities. Strategic plans often involve

themes like enhancing student engagement in learning, expanding funded

research, or internationalizing the curriculum, as strategic initiatives or directions. Each strategic initiative provides a clear rationale or situation analysis that

explains the significance of the theme. In effect, each strategic initiative translates

identity, mission, vision, and position into a set of several identifiable strategies,

which in turn should include measurable goals and specific actions. The realization of the institution's strategic vision is closely tied to the achievement of the

goals. Taken together, the strategic initiatives form a coherent set of priorities and

designs for the future that have been selected through the various steps and stages

of the strategy process.

Why use the word "initiative"? Indeed, many other terms are possible, including, as we shall see, the word "imperative." The use of the word "initiative" accomplishes several things. First, it places a strong emphasis on action since it suggests

the self-motivated and intentional exercise of will, effort, and energy. Further,

the phrase "strategic initiative" suggests several forms of closely related strategic

activities to address an important strategic issue.

A number of institutions have found the expression "strategic imperative" to be

especially effective in defining the major priorities in a strategic plan (cf. Baylor

University 2002; Bridgewater College 2002; Rhodes College 2003). At one level,

it is interchangeable with strategic initiative since it refers to the same type of

broad strategic theme and issue. The advantage of the word "imperative" is that

it communicates a sense of urgency. It gets and holds people's attention because

the language is clear, evocative, and uncompromising. It defines issues that must

be addressed if the institution is to fulfill its vision.

This perspective accords well with the motivational intent of strategic leadership, so the term has clear advantages. At the same time, there is danger in

over-dramatizing every strategic problem or opportunity. Emotional energy can

be spent quickly if everything is always and equally urgent. When used prudently

to ignite a sense of authentic concern, the word "imperative" clearly has a place

in the lexicon of strategic leadership.

Generally it is best not to define a strategic initiative or imperative by generic

areas such as "academic affairs," "the curriculum," "student life," or "finances,"

unless the term calls to mind a set of activities and priorities that people can easily

identify in specific terms. Strategic initiatives are thematic issues that crystallize

priorities through careful explanations and arguments as the institution's story,

values, and vision are passed through the analysis of its position.

Strategies 185

Strategic Initiatives at Brown University

Brown University's "Plan for Academic Enrichment" (2004) discusses ten

themes, called "areas of strategic focus," that can serve to illustrate our understanding of strategic initiatives.

• Enhancing undergraduate education

• Excellence in graduate education

• Faculty excellence in teaching and research

• Leadership in biology, medicine, and public health

• Fostering multidisciplinary initiatives

• Enhancing excellence through diversity

• Building a shared sense of community

• Diversifying and expanding the university's sources of revenue

• Collaborating with the local community on Iissues of mutual interest and

benefit

• Enhancing the quality of our facilities, infrastructure, and administrative

support

In Brown's lexicon, each of these initiatives is translated into a set of "specific

objectives" (we would call these strategies or goals), which is followed by a set

of illustrative "Proposals" that represent, to us, a mixture of goals and actions.

The different levels in the presentation succeed on the whole in communicating

several differentiated stages of definition, assisting Brown to articulate a clear and

ambitious direction for the future. Yet, because so many of the "proposals" are actually goals ("ensure competitive staff salaries and benefits," "enhance and expand

research facilities,") that are not accompanied by measurable indicators, the plan

loses some of its focus, sense of actionable sequence, and persuasiveness.

It is clear, however, that Brown's ten areas of strategic focus are intended to play

the critical role of translating the university's story, mission, and vision into a set

of priorities that define specific strategies, plans, and needs. Brown's vision is to

maintain and to strengthen its preeminent position among American universities

in fulfillment of its mission as a university-college, and its strategic initiatives play

the pivotal role in giving definition to that ambition (Brown University 2004).

Levels of Strategy at Monnet University

To examine more of the dynamics of strategic thinking in a leadership context,

it will be helpful to look at examples of the way that it can orient decision making

at all four levels of strategic definition, starting with a situation analysis of a given

issue. Then, at appropriate places later in the text, we will examine other illustrations of ways to craft strategic goals and actions. We will use Monnet University,

a hypothetical institution that reflects real-world characteristics and has chosen

to focus on international education as one of its strategic priorities. (This example 

186 Strategic Leadership

is drawn from my personal involvement in international education in several

institutions and in study abroad, and influenced in a general way by two excellent

reports (Jenkins 2002; National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant

Colleges 2004).

Position Statement

Monnet University is a small private university in a coastal city in the Northwest of the United States that enrolls 3,500 undergraduate and 500 graduate

students. It sees itself as carrying a legacy of regional leadership and educational

innovation based on a strong sense of collegial decision making. With excellent

resources and a strong admissions profile, it has developed high aspirations for its

future. During the early stages of a new planning cycle, it has tentatively decided

that one of its six strategic initiatives will be international education. Reflecting

views that are widely shared on campus, it has included the development of student

global awareness and competency as an explicit aspect of it educational mission.

Strategic Initiative

As the plan begins to take shape, the SPC decides that it will take a distinctly

strategic approach to defining its ambitions in international education. Its SWOT

analysis has developed evidence to show that the quality and scope of its work

in international education make it a distinguishing capability of the institution

and a competitive advantage. After inviting response to the idea with several

faculty audiences and the administration, the SPC concludes that it will propose

that Monnet should develop international education as one of its defining core

competencies, and that it should seek to gain national recognition for the quality

and scope of its programs and capabilities.

Situation Analysis

Based on the work of its task force on international education, the SPC provides a brief rationale for the strategic initiative and the goal that it recommends.

It places its thinking squarely in the context of the university's identity, mission, and vision and demonstrates the appropriateness of the commitment to

develop students who will be able to think coherently and act responsibly in a

global context. The situation analysis characterizes the strengths of the existing

international programs and notes that the faculty and staff no longer think of

international education as the responsibility of only two or three departments.

The university's success is also traced to the ways that both academic and administrative programs have developed formal as well as informal procedures and practices to create a system and a culture that integrates international students and

faculty members into campus life. The SPC emphasizes that Monnet can create a

core competency precisely because it has shown a distinctive ability to deploy its

resources and mobilize its abilities to integrate an international orientation into

all its educational programs. The SPC's report is itself an effort to present a systematic and integrative argument that is supported by the organizational story, factual 

Strategies 187

evidence, demonstrable university capacities and commitments, and documented

challenges and opportunities.

Strategies: Programs and Projects

The SPC's report presents eight strategies for the development of international

education into a core competency: (1) a continuing program of faculty development that provides the opportunity to study foreign languages and cultures and

to participate in annual travel seminars sponsored by Monnet and its consortium; (2) the establishment of a much-enlarged interdisciplinary international

studies major with several new area concentrations and international themes,

replacing the single-track concentration currently in place; (3) the appointment

of a new dean of global studies; (4) the expanded study of five additional foreign

languages both abroad and through the use of Web sites, audiovisual study materials, and tutors on campus; (5) the enlargement of the undergraduate enrollment of international students, including both exchange students and degree

candidates, to 15 percent of the student body; (6) an increase in study abroad

participation by Monnet students to 80 percent of the student body in programs

of eight weeks or longer; (7) a plan to add both continuing faculty members

and visiting faculty members who have international backgrounds or have been

trained in other countries, so that every large program or department has at least

one such an appointment; and (8) a plan to integrate an international focus into

campus events, lectures, and arts programs through the establishment of a new

Institute of Global Studies that will also have the authority to appoint visiting

international faculty and artists.

Goals and Actions

Through carefully defined goals, measures, deadlines, accountabilities, and proposed actions (several of which will be illustrated below) for each of these strategies, the strategic initiative in international education develops a comprehensive

set of dimensions.

The Monnet case describes an ambitious strategic initiative that touches many

facets of the university's academic and administrative life, and that has important implications for the way it will use its resources. Several characteristics of

strategic thinking and leadership are in evidence. The proposed improvements

to the program are built on the passion and commitment of many members of the

university community. They take root in an authentic set of beliefs and values

about how the university can excel, based on a narrative of accomplishments in

which people take legitimate pride. The conditions are in place to build motivation

for the initiative based on a strong strategic foundation. The leadership task of

inspiring new levels of attainment is enabled by integrative and systemic patterns of thought and argumentation, which are supported by the different types

of evidence that are presented in the narrative of the strategic initiative. The

argumentation becomes even more pointed and persuasive when translated into

goals, actions, and accountabilities.

188 Strategic Leadership

STRATEGIC GOALS

As we consider the place of strategic goals within strategies, we have to reckon

with the fact that many campus strategic plans are light on measurable goals. Goals

are often expressed in general terms unaccompanied by any form of measurement,

milestones, or deadlines. Sometimes a set of more determinable goals can be found

in accompanying reports or in documents that do not circulate widely, but they

are not usually commanding features of collegiate plans.

The resistance to define strategies by measurable goals is understandable in

many contexts but remains a significant strategic weakness. It also defies the

advice of those who study and write about the best practices of strategic planning in higher education (Coleman 2004; Hunt, Oosting, Stevens, Loudon,

and Migliore 1997; Rowley, Lujan, and Dolence 1997; Ruben 2004b; Sevier

2000). The flaw surely reflects some of the characteristics of collegiate culture

and governance that we have examined from several angles, including the lack

of top-down authority, the uncertainty of resources, political infighting over

priorities, and the inability or the unwillingness to take responsibility for the

organization's future.

Whatever the explanation, much of the influence of the strategy process,

especially as a tool of leadership, is lost if systematic vagueness characterizes its

goals, understood here as specifiable objectives. An effective strategy process

should challenge this conventional practice by differentiating and clarifying the

issues. Correctly defined, strategic goals motivate people to achieve them, especially if they incorporate central aspects of the vision of the institution and are

understood to be testable hypotheses, not rigid formulae. They can function as

powerful tools of continuous leadership and management, of motivation and

accountability, and of learning and self-discovery.

Characteristics of Goals

Whatever else they do, goals announce an intention to achieve desirable results

or create positive conditions that do not currently exist. What we set as a goal

cannot be reached by the normal course of events, or the continuation of regular

operational decisions, but requires a special set of initiatives, choices, actions, and

efforts. Goals are by nature aspirational and uncertain. Included in the very idea

of a goal is an element of risk that we might not achieve the desired results.

As most commentators suggest, goals should represent a challenge, but one

that is attainable (Sevier 2000). To propose too lofty an ambition is to create frustration that leads to cynicism about the process or the institution. To

create goals that do not require people to stretch realistically is to fall short of

the institution's best possibilities. Once again, goals embody the institution's

story and the vision and share in the tension between aspiration and reality,

between dreams and their fulfillment. They embody both leadership and management in everyday decisions.

Strategies 189

The Measurement of Goals

Setting a goal carries with it a need to know whether or not progress is being

made or success has been achieved in reaching it. The measurement of what we

intend to achieve is a given condition of its being meaningful as a goal. Absent

some form of determination, the mind boggles over the very meaning of the term.

Perhaps the measurement is difficult or complex or depends on a series of indirect

indicators, but without it, the word "goal" does not seem to be the right one to

describe that to which we aspire. Our movement toward the future through goaldirected behavior has its own forms of intelligibility, among which is that goals

are determinable.

To suggest that strategic goals must be measurable does not mean that they are

all quantifiable, or if quantifiable, that results are equivalent to objective scientific facts. If, for example, a college intends to develop a program to heighten its

students' commitment to democratic citizenship, it cannot measure the influence of its efforts by the strictest canons of scientific cause and effect. Rather, it

will do well to establish a series of indicators, such as involvement in volunteer

service or participation in the political process, that serve as proxies for its goals.

Although interviews and questionnaires are always limited by their subjective

nature, a systematic use of student self-assessments can provide reliable information about experiences related to civic values and responsibilities. As we shall see

in a subsequent chapter, the ability to implement strategic goals depends heavily

on their being subject to assessment.

Nor does the measurement of goals suggest that they must be mechanistic and

inflexible. In the context of strategic leadership, they reflect the larger possibilities

of the organization and connect to the drama of its story. Goals represent ways

of testing the validity of the strategy they are intended to enact. If problems are

found in reaching goals, there is much to be learned from the failure and the

frustration of the effort. The problems may lie in tactics that can be changed or

adjusted, or the difficulties may be deeper and reveal weaknesses in the strategy

itself. Perhaps the goal was poorly crafted, and its intent is being fulfilled in other

ways. Whatever the problem, the measurement of goals produces invaluable forms

of learning for the ongoing work of strategy.

Effective Goal Setting

Even when goals are easily and relevantly quantifiable, many institutions do

not seize the opportunity to develop effective measures. One often encounters

vague goals in planning documents, such as this one from a small southern college: "Increase the proportion of alumni participation in the annual fund." After

careful study and definition of the strategic intent of the goal and the operational issues it involves have been conducted, it makes eminent sense to define a

specific level of alumni participation as a goal. In doing so, the organization benefits in a number of ways. It is forced to examine the strengths and weaknesses 

190 Strategic Leadership

of its fund-raising operations and to explore alumni attitudes as a critical part of

its narrative of identity. When a goal has been properly crafted, an organization

can confidently put itself on public record with what it intends to accomplish.

A goal that captures the institution's authentic possibilities provides a powerful

form of motivation that operates continuously to shape people's imaginations

and daily choices. It builds a sense of individual and collective leadership and

accountability, which are critical components of the total strategic leadership

process.

The creation of effective goals to serve the ends of leadership is a demanding task. Even quantifiable goals can be subject to manipulation, so they require

careful and thoughtful definition. A steel factory, for example, may successfully

meet its goal to reduce scrap, only to find that its percentage of on-time deliveries

declines as workers take longer to complete each order. Or the college that defines

50 percent as a goal for alumni giving may find itself flooded by $10 contributions. Without careful consideration of the goal, staff time can be drawn away

from attending to gifts from larger donors, so as participation rates climb, total

giving could drop.

These eventualities suggest that effective goal setting requires disciplined

analysis. The place to begin is always with the strategic intent of the goal as

defined in the rationale for the strategic initiative or project of which it is a part.

As a consequence, it may be helpful to use a series of quantifiable measures to

avoid distortion of the goal. So, for example, the goal to raise alumni giving to

50 percent should be one of a series of interrelated goals that might include the

overall totals of cash gifts and contributions from major donors, and the size of the

median gift from individuals. People working in the trenches need to understand

the strategic intent of the goals they are responsible for fulfilling. When they do,

and as measurements match intent, goals are far less likely to be distorted and

more likely to become a source of motivation.

Accountability for Goals

Another crucial part of any strategy is the establishment of accountability

and deadlines for the achievement of goals. These elements are often omitted

in collegiate strategy reports and documents. With the omission, there is a loss

of the focus, motivation, and expectation that can come from a public definition of responsibility. Once a person or a team has accepted responsibility for

a goal, a new dynamic takes hold. In a healthy organizational culture, people feel

intensely responsible to one another and depend on each other to reach common objectives. Having responsibility for a goal releases energy and commitment,

born of both the satisfaction that comes from achievement and the fulfillment of

sharing in a common enterprise. On the side of negative motivation, the desire to

avoid looking bad to one's colleagues and to stakeholders is not unimportant. The

willingness and capacity to take initiative and responsibility is one of the defining

elements at the core of a reciprocal and dispersed process of leadership.

Strategies 191

Strategic Accountability at Villanova University

Villanova University has shown its commitment to achieving its twelve

strategic goals (the equivalent of what we have named strategic initiatives) by

naming goal attainment teams to monitor progress in reaching each of them.

The teams include the faculty and staff members who are in the most logical

position to assess and influence the goals. One member of the team is also on the

university's primary planning body, which is comprised of academic deans and

senior administrators. The charge to the teams is "to concentrate on a specific

goal in order to monitor progress, facilitate and suggest strategies for actualizing

goals, and in other ways to enhance goal-driven strategic planning" (Kelley and

Trainer 2004, 99).

Goals and Deadlines

Nor can accountability function effectively without time-defined goals. Deadlines have a marvelous ability to focus the mind. Especially in academic communities, where strict deadlines for curricular projects are not customary, they

are essential ingredients in strategic thinking and planning. They build a sense

of urgency for both individuals and groups, especially committees. For groups in

particular, they create a sense of shared reality and motivation. Deadlines and

time lines also help to create a sense of systemic connection between and among

strategic initiatives and diverse goals. Projects lead logically from one to another,

from one initiative to the next. The connections between goals, the achievement

of which is facilitated by differential deadlines and timetables, become a crucial

dimension in the creation of strategic momentum.

Strategic Academic Goals

Students of strategic planning might logically suggest that measurable goals,

explicit accountabilities, and timetables make sense in the administrative, but

not the academic, sphere. Although there are major differences between the two

decision-making systems, explicit goals are relevant and important in both arenas.

The effectiveness of goals that relate to academic programs and to teaching and

learning depend on a variety of aspects of the strategy process that we have emphasized. An academic strategic initiative needs to be described carefully in terms of

the external or internal factors that are prompting a proposed change. The rationale for change sets the conditions that a new or revised program must meet in

order to satisfy broader strategic aspirations. The connection to other strategic

issues and opportunities should be made explicit. As we saw in the example of

Monnet University, if international studies is to become an extensive new major,

the goals of the undertaking need to be explicitly tied to the environmental scan,

the capacities and interests of students and faculty, the availability of learning

resources, and the ways other academic and university programs will contribute

to it and be strengthened by it.

192 Strategic Leadership

As we have suggested above and in our earlier description of the role of the

SPC, recommendations for academic programs that emerge from the strategy

process will eventually have to be shaped, considered, and approved by the appropriate faculty committees and decision-making bodies in order to be implemented.

In this case, its consideration will have the benefit of the analysis to which it

has been subjected in the planning process. The recommendation comes to the

academic decision-making body accompanied by a clear strategic rationale, with

many of the essential issues already addressed. By returning to the example of

Monnet University, we can expand on the case in terms of the way the creation

of an enlarged interdisciplinary major in international studies would be appropriately fashioned.

After the governing board endorses the strategic plan, the president asks the

provost to send the recommendation to the Monnet University curriculum committee, along with the report of the SPC task force on international education.

The provost calls the committee's attention to the strategic initiative on international education, and in particular to the rationale and the goal related to the

proposed new multi-track interdisciplinary major. Since the curriculum committee

has been involved in deliberations about the strategic plan and is considering

other interdisciplinary programs based on it, it is well versed in the general issues.

The strategic plan's goal concerning the proposed major reads as follows: "The

curriculum committee should develop the requirements for an enlarged and reformulated interdisciplinary program major in international studies that will include

six new concentrations. In collaboration with the interdisciplinary international

studies faculty group and the dean of global studies, it should consider the rationale

and characteristics described in the enclosed report. The proposal is expected to

be ready for final action by the end of the current academic year, at which time

the curriculum committee and the dean of global studies will present the recommendations to the faculty."

In some colleges and universities, the statement of a goal in this way would be

novel since it involves a formal authoritative recommendation on a curricular

question initially coming to, rather than from, a faculty committee. Moreover,

it establishes explicit accountabilities and deadlines for a faculty committee and

for named academic officers. Although these steps may not appear customary, in

point of fact, administrative and faculty leaders often use parallel but less formal

methods of leadership, consensus building, problem solving, and political influence

to move issues onto the agendas of academic decision-making bodies.

As a method of strategic leadership, the approach is appropriate and responsible.

It sets an agenda through a legitimate strategy process that is part of the total

governance system. It defines goals to be achieved within a given time frame and

holds specified groups and individuals responsible to do so. As a consequence,

it builds a sense of focus and urgency. Yet it does so in ways that respect shared

governance and the professional judgment of the members of the curriculum

committee. Professional responsibility is a powerful resource that can be elicited

and given coherence by strategic leadership, or it can work in fits and starts as 

Strategies 193

part of a fragmented decision-making process. Alternatively, as often happens it

can be alienated by real or perceived administrative arbitrariness or bureaucratic

controls. Goals that define academic issues in time-wise strategic terms with designated accountability can create a sense of purposefulness and responsibility that

may otherwise be difficult to achieve.

Change in the academic sphere is the test case for the effectiveness of strategic

leadership, and the issues come into sharpest focus in initiatives that propose new

or revised programs of study or methods of teaching and learning. As has become

clear in this example, strategic decision making and leadership in the academic

sphere must reflect possibilities that are rooted in the actual or potential interests

and capabilities of the faculty. As Burton Clark suggests, the "viability [of

academic institutions] does not depend on the capacity of top-down commands to

integrate parts into an organizational whole," as it does in hierarchical organizations (1987, 268). Strategic leadership recognizes that academic change almost

invariably moves from the bottom up. The responsibility of leadership, whether

official or unofficial, is to define educational issues, to motivate, to challenge, to

support, and to integrate emergent academic possibilities into the institution's

strategic priorities.

ACTIONS

The fourth dimension of strategy is the development of a series of proposed

tactics or actions, often called action steps. Once again the language used in

strategic plans to differentiate "actions" from "goals" or "objectives" is not very

precise. One often finds that strategic plans do not differentiate effectively between

the terms,; long lists of purported goals or objectives often look more like specific

actions. To sort out the usage, it seems appropriate to call an action a specific

decision, choice, or specifiable activity undertaken to support the achievement

of a broader goal. In most cases an action also tends to fall within the authority

and available resources of an individual or group. There is less risk, constraint,

or uncertainty in achieving it than the more inclusive goal that it supports and

enacts. Besides defining a broader scope of accomplishment than actions, goals

are more transparently strategic, while actions are more operational. Clearly, there

is also a stronger volitional and broader motivational aspect to a goal than an

action step.

Using the example of alumni-giving rates, we can see some of the concrete

differences between goals and actions. The goal of raising alumni participation

depends on actions such as gathering more e-mail and residential addresses, finding

current phone numbers, installing up-to-date software, using the alumni Web page

creatively, organizing the staff, and creating better annual fund publications. In

many ways, the proposed actions test the validity of a goal and reveal the true

dimensions of its possibilities. Where suggested actions may encounter resistance

or require new resources, we quickly find ourselves dealing with the strategic

meaning of the broader goal. Alumni participation is related to the strategic effort 

194 Strategic Leadership

to build more resources for the long term, but also to other actions to enhance

the total alumni relations effort. It may require new initiatives to build alumni

involvement in career networks, student recruitment, social events, and continuing education and travel programs. Strategically, higher rates of alumni giving not

only provide more resources but may respond to expectations of potential major

donors such as foundations and enhance the institution's profile with the media

and in various rankings.

Testing Proposed Strategic Goals and Actions at Monnet

If we return to Monnet, we notice some other important aspects of actions and

goals that relate to the central question of resources and priorities. As we have

seen, as Monnet develops its goals on the enrollment of international students,

it sets a target of 15 percent, comprised of two-thirds degree candidates and onethird single-semester or year-long exchange students. Since Monnet does not offer

graduate programs in science, technology, or business, which generally attract the

largest proportion of international students, its goal—essentially to double the

international enrollment in five years—is a demanding one. The dean of admissions, the dean of global studies, and the provost are responsible for achieving

the goal.

During the development of the actions that will be required to reach the

goal, it becomes clear that the project will be expensive. The resource projections include $1.4 million for financial aid increases over four years. A new

position and additional travel expenses in admissions plus two new staff

members and program expenses in global studies will add $250,000 to the

budget. As the costs of these actions steps are defined, they are assessed within

the strategic plan's financial model and ideas are explored for their funding.

It is projected that the current operating budget can only absorb $750,000

of the costs over five years. The ability to support another $500,000 through

annual and endowment gifts is a stretch possibility, but a worthy target, since

the project will be attractive to many donors. It will be made a focus of the

proposed capital campaign. The remaining needs cannot be met, so a number

of the actions relating to staffing, financial aid strategies, and the geographic

mix of international students are redesigned to fit the projected resources of

$1.25 million that will be available incrementally over five years. The goal

remains in place.

Clearly, the differentiation of goals from actions is an important and useful

exercise in the total planning process, and a task that merits more careful thought

than it often receives. As suggested, it provides a way for the plausibility of goals

to be tested, especially concerning the resources that they will require. The

effectiveness of strategic planning as a discipline depends in good measure on the

precision, the coherence, and the integration of the various methods, insights,

and concepts that it uses.

Strategies 195

Presenting Actions in Reports

We should also keep in mind several cautions concerning the use of lists of action

steps in strategic plans. Sometimes one finds reports that are filled with a potpourri

of tactics and proposed actions, including everything from repainting the faculty

lounge to adding new part-time staff. The source of these loosely related proposed

actions is usually the reports of subcommittees or task forces and suggestions that

people have offered at some point during the group's deliberations. Committee

chairs are often reluctant to drop them for the sake of political goodwill, even

though they may represent the special interests of those who proposed them. The

SPC should carefully winnow down proposed lists of actions in any reports that

it intends to circulate widely, scrutinizing and systematizing but not eliminating

them. In doing so, its aim should be to find tactics and actions that test, illustrate,

and give concreteness to the main themes and content of the strategic vision and

of the plan's major initiatives. The reports that include detailed action steps can

be circulated among those who will be responsible for implementing the strategy,

for they are an important source of ideas at the operational level, and they are

a useful control mechanism.

If strategic initiatives and imperatives, strategies, goals, and actions are each

developed carefully and artfully, they provide reinforcement to one another. They

build a case for action through the construction of a disciplined and affecting

argument. Each of the facets of the strategy speaks to the mind's need and the

person's desire for direction, purpose, coherence, and definition. A good strategy

contains an inner logic of sense making and sense giving that draws its audience

of participants and interested parties into a coherent and intelligible pattern of

analysis, reflection, judgment, and choice. It communicates credibility and invites

commitment, and it does so through the ways its strategies, goals, and actions

convey a compelling narrative of challenge and opportunity