To adapt and improve, organizations began using experiences and processes from other industries. The word "strategy" is one of them.
Originally minted by the military and adopted by businesses, the use of the term strategy is both overused in some circles –mistaking it for a tactic or an individual action – but also frowned upon in its tone. For some, it looks too much like a for-profit corporation. This thinking sets people aside from participation in a strategic process.
John C. Knapp and David J. Siegel, authors of the book "The Business of Higher Education”, have addressed the lack of work about management and strategy for the higher education sector. They say that “it is ironic that there is so little management research in the applied context where the scholars themselves are employed. Business research has focused almost exclusively on the for-profit sector, though there is a growing niche in the non-profit or “social enterprise” (…). This void in the curriculum limits the development of future managers and leaders for the field.
Michele Girotto, Joan Mundet and Xavier Llinàs, from the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, are concerned by the confusion between strategic management and “managerialism", a term linked to marketization of knowledge and competition. However, it's an integrated framework of management and control, with a rigorous accountability process and follow-up, but it tends to be more linked with economic interests than a public commitment.
In 1999, Alexandra L. Lerner, then a Research Associate at the College of Business Administration and Economics from California State University, wrote about what sets business and education aside.
In a conventional business world, a planning model timeframe is from 2 to 3 years. In Latin America, some undergraduate degrees take up to 7 years for completion and the change in management models can set a chain reaction from undergraduate education, to graduate school, into research and development. At universities, timeframes can take up to 5 or more years, and the implementation process can be lengthy.
Although business strategy has begun shifting to a more participatory model, with internal participation in decision making, it has been a traditional top-down approach.
Higher education has shared governance in its management. “Faculty’s involvement is key and building consensus right from the beginning becomes essential for university-based strategic planning," according to Ms. Learner.
Faculties cannot be directed with commands, because the central power of a university is weak and is distributed to teachers, deans, departments and the student community. One may set learning outcomes for a given faculty, but teachers are free to use the method they consider necessary to present their class (academic freedom).
As we spoke earlier, academic freedom is given as a right, and strategic decisions need to address and leverage both the right to choose how a Ph.D. runs a given class or runs research, with a set of common institutional learning outcomes, regardless of the teacher.
Lerner states that “finding a mechanism to get faculty involvement at every stage and particularly at the implementation stage, becomes essential to success; faculty can’t be “commanded,” but have to be willing to voluntarily participate."
Giroto, Mundet and Linas quote Roger Buckland, an emeritus professor of the University of Aberdeen. He states that universities work as cells, and the strategy needs to develop through groups or individuals in the middle, who can design, innovate, apply and experiment with the success of strategic failure without a cohesion with the other units or the institutions. According to these authors, universities can have ambiguous objectives, a diversity of interests’ which can influence how specific tools are used to develop a strategy.
Others, such as D. M. Norries and N.L. Poulton, call colleges “organized anarchies” with
That is why Karen Hinton, from the Society for College and University Planning, oversees problems in "defining goals, measuring progress, and working with organization members who need to be dedicated to a planning process", where commitment is of the essence. She concludes that the “college or university planner must be able to understand and work within the campus culture.”
Around Latin America, there has been a proliferation of student movements calling for more internal democracy. A common phrase is "this is not a corporation and we are not customers".
The use of the language and approach is of the essence. Universities don’t have a clearly defined target group of beneficiary: they can be students, employers, the community or the state. Likewise, corporations have ended speaking about stockholders and began denominating the network of direct and indirect beneficiaries or impacted communities from their operations, as stakeholders.
Hence, the set of goals needed to engage, attract, recruit and delight higher education’s target groups must address this paradigm.
Higher education faces a conundrum between promoting change and innovation and preserving knowledge and values. The communication with the faculty and staff is of the utmost importance, but officials mistake "strategic thinking" with the long-term process and the product ends up being secondary.
Lerner quotes Barry Munitz, former CSU Chancellor, stating that universities need to establish where their strategic competitive advantage is. “As you begin your own strategic planning effort, be thoughtful and concise and specific about where you want to make this campus’ mark. What do you do well, what do you do differently, and what do you do better than most others. Those things that you care less about and you do less well should disappear”.
Corporate teams get bonuses on sales, speed, delivery, etc. In higher education, the awards are divided into research and teaching. However, both areas fail to address thoroughly the range of issues that a university strategy development needs to address, such as commitment, integration to the labor market and skills.
On the other hand, a corporation normally has goals set for one industry and sets of capacities: either be the best smartphone manufacturer of the country or have the most responsive delivery of goods. Although there are institutions specialized in different areas of knowledge, a university has been traditionally a repository where different disciplines and frameworks meet. Therefore, a common goal based agenda has to address this diversity.
Learner tries to convey that "universities within the system support strategic goals of the larger system and that the units within the university support campus goals. Colleges and deans could define their ways to establish goals and choose what is important to them within the framework of the university-wide strategic planning process.”
This would foster a feeling of ownership to the process and permit contribution, allowing for differences between the university level, or faculty level, customized to the college environment and addressing the heterogeneity of student population.
In Latin American universities, even though the design of organizational structures for corporations face several criteria, in higher education this comes from the institution’s mission and then builds upon an academic structure, structuring the positions in disciplines or professions, as well as developing the administrative area to support academia.
Given these issues, it is now clear that strategic planning is not a copy and paste process, but in higher education requires assessment, participation, alignment, long term focus and – last but not least – patience and an accurate language.
Where else do you think higher education’s planning stands apart from a corporation or a government?