Strategic Thinking 0r Strategic Manegment In Universities

1,248 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,248
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
44
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • We all agree that change is faster now than it was 10 or 15 years ago. Does that mean you shouldn't have a directionToday Direction is more important than a Plan Pisapia (2006) suggests that failure in part is due to leader inadequacies such as: (a) they are trained in and rely upon a linear thinking mindset, which does not work in situations characterized by ambiguity and complexity; (b) they are unable to identify critical societal and institutional forces impacting their environment and thus do not connect their organizations to the major themes associated with success; (c) their concept of change is also linear and therefore they overuse quantifiable parameters in the change process and seek to rationally plan their way to success; and (d) they do not see their organizations as dependent upon the actions and views of other organizations and individuals, therefore, they do not connect with significant forces on their critical paths of success (p. 2). Kezar (n.d., p.6) adds that failure as seen from the research of Eckel and Kezar (2003), Gioia and Thomas (1996), Schön (1983), and Weick (1995) is also in part due to the fact that “people fundamentally do not understand the proposed change and need to undergo a learning process in order to successfully enact the change.”
  • Sources: M.E. Porter, ‘What is strategy?’, Harvard Business Review, 1966, November–December, p. 60; H. Mintzberg, Tracking Strategy: Toward a General Theory, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 3.Mintzberg says it can be a design, planning, positioning, cognitive entrepreneurial, cultural, environmental, power, configuration, or Learning processIn the best of times it results in a strategy focused organizationStrategy is the practice of figuring out the best way to get from here to there.A method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem.Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/strategy.html#ixzz2fTeyd7CmA method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem.Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/strategy.html#ixzz2fTeyd7Cmn November 1996, the most prominent strategy academic, Michael Porter of Harvard, published a Harvard Business Review article grandly entitled “What is strategy?” (Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1996).This was followed only a few months later by another famous academic, Gary Hamel of London Business School, with an equally impressively titled article, “The search for strategy”(London Business School working paper, 1997). That after 40 years of academic research on the subject, two of the most prominent academics in the field felt the need to go out of their way and start searching for strategy goes to show how much confusion we have managed to create regarding such a crucial business decision.A company has to decide on three main issues:who will be its targeted customers and who it willnot target; what products or services it will offerits chosen customers and what it will not offerthem; and how it will go about achieving all this– what activities it will perform and whatactivities it will not performStrategy is all about combining these choicesinto a system that creates the requisite fitbetween what the environment needs and whatthe company does. IBy environment, I mean four elements: anorganisation’s culture; its incentives; itsstructure; and its people. (What I call here“environment” is what is widely known as the 7Sframework developed by McKinsey and Co. The7S are: style, strategy, structure, systems, skills,staff and superordinate goals.)A company that wants to put into action a certainstrategy must first ask the question: “what kindof culture, incentives, structure and people dowe need to implement the strategy?”In other words, to create a superior strategy, acompany must think beyond customers, productsand activities. It must also decide what underlyingenvironment to create and how exactly to create itso as to facilitate the implementation of its strategy
  • What we need is a method to achieve Tight Coupling between the Why – What - How – WhenStrategic ThinkingUnderstand the WhyDevelop the WhatStrategic ExecutionDevelop the HowDevelop the When
  • The new science requires the ability to think through synthesis as well as analysis; Nonlinearly as well as Linearly; implicitly as well as explicitly.You can strengthen your ability to think strategically by acquiring cognitive skills that enable you to collect, interpret, generate, and evaluate information and ideas that shape the ends you seek, and the strategies and tactics you use to achieve your ends.Strengthen Through Self-Evaluation - To help develop your skills in strategic thinking, you can review the results of the STQ to evaluate your current level of such skills, specifically the more qualitative elements. 3 qualitative processes – Systems Thinking – Framing and reframing, and Reflection - contribute to strategic thinking.
  • Uncertainty is a barrier to predictability which leaders must overcome.Predictability is good. - Marx and Weber say, it makes up an important part of our need for safety and security (Maslow 1943). It has survival value; provides control, frees us from fear and anxiety; and, allows us to plan and budget for the future. It times of predictability we have control. The ability to use analytical thinking is apparent.Prediction is good but not available in times of uncertainty. Complexity and uncertainty bring unknown outcomes, unknown probabilities which lead to an inability to predict the success of actions. In times of uncertainty we lack control and make decisions using two types of information: vicarious descriptions and personal experience. The ability to think strategically is needed.SL Takeaway -. A core attribute of strategic leaders is the possession of a strategic mindset which enables them to learn, to change, and develop wisdom. It enables leaders to understand prevailing worldviews driving their context. It allows them to deal with uncertainty and an emerging future.
  • n 1979, Harvard Business Review published “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy” by a young economist and associate professor, Michael E. Porter. It was his first HBR article, and it started a revolution in the strategy field. In subsequent decades, Porter has brought his signature economic rigor to the study of competitive strategy http://www.isc.hbs.edu/firm-competitve.htmmanagers have embraced tools such as TQM, benchmarking, and reengineering. Dramatic operational improvements have resulted, but rarely have these gains translated into sustainable profitability. And gradually, the tools have taken the place of strategy.Mintzberg (1990), argued that “strategy making must above all take the form of a process of learning over time . . . The learning proceeds in emergent fashion through behavior that stimulates thinking retrospectively, so that sense is made of action” (p. 154). It was not expressly intended in original planning. Competitive advantage transient = learning what works in practice and adjustLBS. It was a world of strategy planning weekends at posh hotels in the English countryside, where we sat in rooms discussing the 5 Forces in ourparticular industry and what would we change in the model if we had a fairy’s magic wand. The output was 3 ring binders in North America and 2 ringbinders in Europe. The world has gone nuts We cannot control the variables that factor into business decisions ‘Porter’s ideas are still useful but in a much smaller measure According to Mintzberg,This whole planning exercise . . . was programmed in great detail: the delineation of steps, the application of checklists and techniques to each of these, the scheduling of this whole thing, everything nicely accounted for. Except for one minor detail: strategy formulation itself. Nowhere was anyone told how to create strategy. How to collect information, yes. How to evaluate strategy, yes. How to implement it, for sure. But not how to create it in the first place. (p. 66)Bonn, (2001), Graetz (2002), Liedtka (1998), and Mintzberg (1994), are among many who draw a clear distinction between the systematic nature of pre-identified strategies called strategic planning and the more integrated perspective of strategic thinking. which a group of "planners" articulates a mission statement, sets goals and objectives, audits the organization for internal strengths and weaknesses, assesses the external environment for opportunities and threats, evaluates strategic options, and then selects and operationalizes an organizational strategy. The basic aim of strategic planning is to link daily organizational decisions with a vision of where the organization wants to be at some point in the future, usually five years hence.standardized, Mintzberg argues, the act of creating strategy is an extremely complex process demanding sophisticated cognitive and social skills that researchers have only begun to understand; strategy-making certainly cannot be formally programmed by organizational theorists.Predict and control the FutureFocuses on formulation and leaves success to people who had nothing to do with creating those plans.HM – Analysis is not Synthesis – Strategic planning is not strategy formulation – strategy requires creative synthesis to combine Emergent Strategy comes from a series of unanticipated and unplanned events converging over time into a recognizable pattern.HM -
  • Source: Liedtka, 1998.Source; Pisapia2013Analysis is the hallmark of planning involves a need for logic, reasoning, linear and rational thinking. It involves being able to manipulate words and numbers. Strategic thinking, on the other hand, places a premium on synthesis and integration and requires the ability to examine new possibilities dealing with large chunks of information, and the ability to pull pieces together into a big picture. It involves being able to recognize patterns and visual images. In strategic thinking not only are the data sources different but the analysis of the data is different than strategic planning.Planning is a process in which long term goals are transformed into short term tasks and objectives. The planning process seeks to answer four familiar questions: What do we do? Where do we stand? Where do we want to go? How do we get there? In traditional strategic planning, answering these questions is heavily dependent on data, data analysis and operations research techniques such as SWOT analysis and scenario planning. It’s a process that inventories, sorts, analyzes and assesses substantial amounts of data. It relies on long-term planning, linearity and rationality. The process results in a strategic plan which many times displays hierarchies of goals that cascade throughout the organization all tied to the central plan
  • Source:Liedtka, 1998.Source; Pisapia2013As the leadership research indicates the leading people in vertical relationships [e.g., leader – follower – common goals] where command, control and persuasion tactics are the levers of change are less effective in times of complexity such as those found in most modern universities. In such times it is thought that leading people and groups inhorizontal relationships where collaboration, co-creation, coordination, minimum specifications, chunking change, and generative processes are the levers of change (Drath, 2008; Pisapia, 2009) is likely to be more productive.
  • Source: Liedtka, 1998.Source; Pisapia2013
  • Strategy has suffered for three reasons. First, in the 1970s and 1980s, people tried strategy, and they had problems with it. It was difficult. It seemed an artificial exercise. Second, and at the same time, the ascendance of Japan really riveted attention on implementation. People argued that strategy wasn't what was really important -- you just had to produce a higher-quality product than your rival, at a lower cost, and then improve that product relentlessly.The third reason was the emergence of the notion that in a world of change, you really shouldn't have a strategy. There was a real drumbeat that business was about change and speed and being dynamic and reinventing yourself, that things were moving so fast, you couldn't afford to pause. If you had a strategy, it was rigid and inflexible. And it was outdated by the time you produced it. They argue that strategy is only useful when outcomes are predictable. So unless you have a crystal ball, tactics are more useful in the real world and that's all about purposeful experimentation and
  • SLers know that close scrutiny helps in the beginning, but constrains in the long term.The organizations ability to change is dependent on the peoples ability and willingness to change
  • SLers know that in every organization there is a WE-THEYLINE - the line where people above it say WE DID IT and people below it say THEY DID IT. SLers create a shared reality and then a shared direction to get more people above the WE-THEY LINE where vision and aspirations are
  • “people response to their perception of reality, not what the reality isin actual” (Kurt Lewin’s, 1936). seek and foster collective wisdomStrategic Leaders:  Sense change in the environment,Gather and interpret relevant information about the change,Suggest significant changes which the organization must address,Call on parts of the organization to act upon the suggestions,Introduce new processes and services which are more in line with the perceived changes in the environment, and Monitor internal changes and the impact of those changes.
  • Storey (2005) urges executive leaders to “allow and encourage appropriate debate about priorities, organizational arrangements and methods. Few executive leaders know how to orchestrate such debates (pg. 96).The one I recommend you use with your team – organization – school etcThe Navigating Team is the processing UnitOrganizations are products of the ways their participants think, feel, value, and interactTo evolve an organization, people must have opportunities to change their attributesCharismatic leaders, increased training, and top-down commands are all ineffectiveA cultural process of experimentation and reflection is the best method for continuous evolution -- individual and collectiveNavigating Team is the processing UnitKey FeaturesFoster Collective Wisdom & Shared Context.Guided by a Team of Opinion Leaders.Essence is developing understanding by all membersTransparency - All members get the same information.Strategic ListeningStrategic ConversationsProduct is Statement of Strategic Intent Quality TeamDesign/Action TeamsStrategic thinking is intent focused. It is centered on ends, strategies, and tactics. Strategic thinking is a synthesizing process that employs creativity and intuition that results in an integrated view of what the organization stands for and hopes to become. Organizations are products of the ways their participants think, feel, value, and interactTo evolve an organization, people must have opportunities to change their attributesCharismatic leaders, increased training, and top-down commands are all ineffectiveA cultural process of experimentation and reflection is the best method for continuous evolution -- individual and collectiveNavigating Team is the processing UnitKey FeaturesFoster Collective Wisdom & Shared Context.Guided by a Team of Opinion Leaders.Essence is developing understanding by all membersTransparency - All members get the same information.Strategic ListeningStrategic ConversationsProduct is Statement of Strategic Intent Quality TeamDesign/Action TeamsStrategic thinking results in a statement of intent that describes your mission, your values and your aspiration for your company, team, organization, life, family or career. It identifies the strategies and tactics which guide the organization in putting its Intent into practice. It requires open minds and people who are comfortable working with ambiguity. Navigating Team is the processing UnitKey FeaturesFoster Collective Wisdom & Shared Context.Guided by a Team of Opinion Leaders.Essence is developing understanding by all membersTransparency - All members get the same information.Strategic ListeningStrategicConversationsProduct is Statement of Strategic Intent Quality TeamDesign/Action TeamsThe essence of this type of activity is understanding WHICH LEADS to:acquiring shared experiencesdeveloping shared languagesurfacing background informationThey do not have to agree with EACH OTHERS perspective, but they do have to understand it..
  • There is growing agreement that strategic thinking and strategic planning are interrelated and both are necessary for effective change to occur (Heracleos, 1998; Hussey, 2001; Liedtka, 1998). The fault line is drawn by seeing the purpose of strategic thinking as envisioning potential futures, discovering innovative strategies to move to the future state, and internally creating horizontal alignment. The purpose of strategic planning in this union is to operationalize the strategies and initiatives developed through strategic thinking. Thus organizations first engage strategic thinking which creates a common direction and a broad set of initiatives to move to a future state, and then strategic planning is put into place to develop the details. “Thus what is being proposed in large measure . . . is a dialectical framework within which strategic planning and strategic thinking work in tandem, rather than one in which strategic planning impedes the flourishing of strategic thinking.” (Lawrence, 1999, p.13) Keep people informed. Effective strategy requires information shared across boundaries; cross-functional teams can work on strategic organizational issues, and the results of their thinking and efforts should be published and shared throughout the organization.  Encourage employees to hold regularly scheduled meetings to assess plans, coordinate efforts, and share information that should be incorporated into strategies
  • Birnbaum (1991) and Kezar (2001) point to distinctive organizational features found in universities - goals which are difficult to quantify - relative independence from environmental influences - anarchical decision-making - voluntary collaboration - multiple power and authority structures - image as opposed to bottom line performance measures - which make them difficult to change.Sir John Daniel, former Chancellor of the Open University, argues that to main tain current level of access 1 new institutions would have to be added each week for next 30 years Traditional Universities are opening access points – extending boundaries for profits – mega universities strategic consortia and alliances are emerginging
  • \organizational learning was enabled through a process of convergence, emergence and co-creation. Committee and community work plansThrough our “insider-outsider” approach we attempted to give a balanced voice about the ability of strategic thinking to alter attitudes and beliefs as well activities of faculty, staff and administratorsThe protocol resulted in a framework that is facilitating the department’s adaptation to a rapidly changing environment and is helping to guide the choices that leaders are making to determine the direction of the department. Kohles, (2000; Meindle, 1998: Senge (1990), It creates a sense of cohesion to a group; an identity with that group. So it creates something bigger than just a goal; more than just a value. It develops cohesion. D1 described the creation of value and resulting alignment of the group.I think it’s true that the process of really talking about who we are and what our values are, that you create more than just a value. You create a sense of cohesion to a group; an identity with that group. So it creates something better than just a value itself….an opportunity to when we are making decisions at the department level to talk about them. To reference back to what our values are. So it really is a good source for us to live it in other words. We have been taking our values that we all collectively approve and we devote about half an hour to each meeting, just to talk about what this does mean….We have a discussion about it. So we are not letting those values leave the room.While a clear majority of participants attributed a value adding element, others perceived the real value should be in the implementation of the plan not the process. As one participant said, “I think the process itself is helpful, but the process itself has no more value than the institution’s willingness to address the results” (C5). Others, like C5, would give it a more qualified vote of confidence. Not all minds were changed. Participants put it this way: “We have to see what happens. How it evolves. I mean it’s in people’s minds (D4). “I think . . . it depends on how you measure success … (D3)
  • The results indicate that strategic thinking, through its structural and process components, enabled organizational learning to occur through a process of convergence, emergence and co-creation. Plan integration was achieved into the attitudes and beliefs of most faculty and staff. Plan integration into the work activities of faculty and staff is an ongoing process with strong beginnings seen in the department case. Finally, strategic thinking can be an effective change model for higher education institutions and other organizations where members are proactive rather than passive.In the two cases examined, learning was transferred in a social cognitive process and was codified in the statement of intent.Learning was enhanced by sharing information throughout the organization and processing it through strategic listening and strategic conversations. The strategic thinking protocol facilitated an organizational dialogue on a small scale, as in the department, and on a large scale, as in the college which led to a high level of cohesionStasser and his colleagues suggest information that is shared it more likely to be discussed whereas information that is withheld can bias the outcome of group judgment. Although the amount of information shared was large for the college group only one participant needed to remember a piece of information in order to have it discussed by the group in their strategic conversations. Gigone & Hastie’s (1993:959) inquiry concluded that influence of information is directly related to the number of group members with knowledge of it prior to group discussion. Information, they said, has more influence when a larger numbers of individuals have it and understand it. Our findings support their claims. Learning was enhanced by sharing information throughout the organization and processing it through strategic listening and strategic conversations (Simon,1991).The strategic conversations also promoted information sharing which served as common reference point for group members in their discussions (Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989), (Gigone & Hastie, 1993)The amount of information shared requires further investigation. Simon (1991) The strategic thinking protocol has a way of putting individual attitudes, sentiments and opinions into perspective and reduces but does not negate the impact of forceful members. (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002; Judge, Bono, Illies & Gerhardt, 2002; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). Strategic thinking, from a literature perspective, incorporates systems thinking, creativity and vision (Bonn, 2005: Liedtka, 1998: Pisapia, 2009; Senge, 1990; Heracleous, 2003; Scharmer, 2009), as well as an emphasis on synthesis, and a committed style of management to develop the plan (Mintzberg, 1994). The strategic thinking protocol reinforced convergenceConvergence was seen in shifts from individual committee members processing information independently – to the committee, where shared and similar understandings guided collective information processing (Dionne, Sayama, Hao, & Bush, 2010The protocol took faculty and staff through a journey of understanding the need for change, and the changes being suggested and drew them out of their disciplinary silos. In particular, strategic thinking was able to overcome perceived gap between the department and college and their environments which were questioning their legitimacy (Boyer, 1994; Ghosal, Bartlett, & Morgan, 1999; Magrath, 1996) through strategic listening and strategic conversationsThese processing elements of strategic thinking led faculty and staff to recognize the interdependencies of the college and department, and their environments and resulted in a statement of intent that serves as a platform to allocate resources and judge organizational activity. participants see the planning process itself as having value versus the focus being solely on the creation of the planning addition to the process itself having value, the process creates a self-reference point in the minds of the participants, where the strategic planning model uses measurement to control and coordinate activity. The analysis indicates that the strategic thinking process created a successful model of change as perceived by the participants in the process. A participant described it this way. “I think what faculty is doing is whatever they were doing before this planning process, but they are finding a way to link it what they have been doing with this process” (D3). Another participant put it this way. “What is did for me was it gave me – because the process was so participatory – the ability to see the thinking of individual people. And I was impressed. I walked away from the table saying, how lucky I am to be sitting at the table with such talented people” (D5). The bottom line is that if you asked members of the college or department if the process was successful you would get an 80% response – “extremely” or as the department chair said, “powerful!” Others would say it was a healthy process but withhold judgment as to its ability to impact the activities of faculty. For example, one faculty member said, “this has been kind of fun, kind of interesting and certainly educational for me in the sense of the process. …I would go in the direction of still already worthwhile. Even if it doesn’t accomplish anything organizationally” (D2). What we found that is easier to develop a shared reality than it is a share direction but a working consensus was achieved in both cases. Developing a shared reality means that faculty and staff have to accept their interdependency with the environment. At times this acceptance of interdependency is threatening,Strategic thinking through its strategic listening and strategic conversation components fit the academic culture better than traditional models of strategic planning. These generative processes created a moment in time when faculty and staff moved their thinking up a notch from their unique disciplinary perspectives. Strategic thinking takes longer, involves more people and at times is messy because faculty and staff are asked to think together about their future.
  • The strategic thinking protocol has a way of putting individual attitudes, sentiments and opinions into perspective and reduces but does not negate the impact of forceful members. (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Ashton, Lee, & Paunonen, 2002; Judge, Bono, Illies & Gerhardt, 2002; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). Strategic thinking, from a literature perspective, incorporates systems thinking, creativity and vision (Bonn, 2005: Liedtka, 1998: Pisapia, 2009; Senge, 1990; Heracleous, 2003; Scharmer, 2009), as well as an emphasis on synthesis, and a committed style of management to develop the plan (Mintzberg, 1994). The strategic thinking protocol reinforced convergenceConvergence was seen in shifts from individual committee members processing information independently – to the committee, where shared and similar understandings guided collective information processing (Dionne, Sayama, Hao, & Bush, 2010The protocol took faculty and staff through a journey of understanding the need for change, and the changes being suggested and drew them out of their disciplinary silos. In particular, strategic thinking was able to overcome perceived gap between the department and college and their environments which were questioning their legitimacy (Boyer, 1994; Ghosal, Bartlett, & Morgan, 1999; Magrath, 1996) through strategic listening and strategic conversationsThese processing elements of strategic thinking led faculty and staff to recognize the interdependencies of the college and department, and their environments and resulted in a statement of intent that serves as a platform to allocate resources and judge organizational activity. participants see the planning process itself as having value versus the focus being solely on the creation of the planning addition to the process itself having value, the process creates a self-reference point in the minds of the participants, where the strategic planning model uses measurement to control and coordinate activity. The analysis indicates that the strategic thinking process created a successful model of change as perceived by the participants in the process. A participant described it this way. “I think what faculty is doing is whatever they were doing before this planning process, but they are finding a way to link it what they have been doing with this process” (D3). Another participant put it this way. “What is did for me was it gave me – because the process was so participatory – the ability to see the thinking of individual people. And I was impressed. I walked away from the table saying, how lucky I am to be sitting at the table with such talented people” (D5). The bottom line is that if you asked members of the college or department if the process was successful you would get an 80% response – “extremely” or as the department chair said, “powerful!” Others would say it was a healthy process but withhold judgment as to its ability to impact the activities of faculty. For example, one faculty member said, “this has been kind of fun, kind of interesting and certainly educational for me in the sense of the process. …I would go in the direction of still already worthwhile. Even if it doesn’t accomplish anything organizationally” (D2). What we found that is easier to develop a shared reality than it is a share direction but a working consensus was achieved in both cases. Developing a shared reality means that faculty and staff have to accept their interdependency with the environment. At times this acceptance of interdependency is threatening,Strategic thinking through its strategic listening and strategic conversation components fit the academic culture better than traditional models of strategic planning. These generative processes created a moment in time when faculty and staff moved their thinking up a notch from their unique disciplinary perspectives. Strategic thinking takes longer, involves more people and at times is messy because faculty and staff are asked to think together about their future.
  • Pisapia, Townsend, Razzaq, 2913
  • Strategic Thinking 0r Strategic Manegment In Universities

    1. 1. Transforming the Academy: Strategic Thinking, Strategic Planning, and Vision Integration na XVI. znanstveni kolokvij Sveučilišta u Rijeci John Pisapia Florida Atlantic University September 23, 2013
    2. 2. Themes for the Day Target #1: Develop an understanding of the nature of change, strategic planning vs strategic thinking, and its application to the University setting. Theme 1: The Strategies of Change Theme 2 Strategic Thinking vs Strategic Planning Theme 3: Which model suits Universities? Theme 4: What Research available and what is needed? The Strategic Leader Network 29/23/2013
    3. 3. Strategy An Introduction
    4. 4. What we agree on  Change is inevitable, but success is no  The object of planning is change  The idea of strategic planning is good  It doesn’t work - It does has been estimated that between 70-90% of all change efforts fail (Axelrod, Axelrod, Jacobs, Beedon, 2006; Covey, 2004; Kaplan & Norton, 2004; Sirkin, Keenan, Jackson, Kotter, Beer, Nohria, & Duck, 2005). Pisapia (2012) 4
    5. 5. What we don’t agree on MyStrategyLab Strategy is a long term direction – snježana jurišić · of the Croatian Economic Association says, ‘Strategy is the way we decided to achieve our goal “The essence of “…strategy is Choosing what not to do. ” A pattern in a stream of decisions
    6. 6. The Strategic Leader 6 Pisapia’s Perspective Most agree Strategy a process that results in a dominant logic that guides leader and organization actions for a period of time Strategy A plan of action designed to achieve a major or overall aim. Strategic Planning and Strategic Thinking Methods in which we identify the destination and ways to get there
    7. 7. The Power of the Curve Strategic Change
    8. 8. How would you explain these facts? • 1 • On June 28, 2007, Nokia was the top selling mobile-phone company in the world, people stopped working when they left their computers, Android phones didn't exist, and executives of all echelons were thumbing on their BlackBerrys. • The next day, Apple's first iPhone went on sale. • On April 19, 2012, Nokia reported 1.7 billion dollar loss in the first quarter. • On July 1, 2012 - BlackBerry maker Research in Motion announced it was laying off 5,000 people -- and reported a first- quarter loss of $518 million. Sales were down 40% from the previous year. 9/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network 8
    9. 9. A T h e o r y o f S t r a t e g i c C h a n g e ! The Power of the Curve 99/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network
    10. 10. The History of the Cell Phone 9/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network 10
    11. 11. A T h e o r y o f S t r a t e g i c C h a n g e ! The Power of the Curve 119/23/2013 Disruptive Innovation The Strategic Leader Network Synthesis & Analytic Uncertainty
    12. 12. What Science underpins your Worldviews? Old Science - New Science • Organizations tend to be: – Built on predictability and Rationality. – Rigid and conforming – In a steady state. – Have problems which are amenable to solution. – Independent of environment • Change must be managed not led. – Leaders need to predict, direct, manage and control change in their organizations. – Develop and follow detailed maps. – Focus on clarity of purpose, command structures, and control processes. – Command and control structures are used to create predictability of results. • Organizations tend to be: – Built on unpredictability and complexity. – In disarray and disorder. – In a state of becoming – Have some problems which not amenable to solution in current form, – Interdependent with environment • Change must be led, not managed. – Leaders need to discover the route and the destination through a journey. – Focus on becoming more adaptable in order to survive. – Maintain a constancy of purpose. – Begin with a small working system, have multiple goals, strive to make good enough choices, and grow by chunking. – Turn whatever happens to your advantage. Pisapia, J. (2009). The Strategic Leader. Charlotte: NC: IAP 12
    13. 13. 9/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network 13 The Lessons of the Curve
    14. 14. The Lessons of the Curve 9/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network 14 The Philosophy Lesson The Leadership Lesson Command and Control Command and Coordination Coordination and Collaboration. New Times Require New Science Tactics The Change Lesson The Thinking Lesson Analytical --AND--Synthetic Critical ---AND ----Creative
    15. 15. Strategic Thinking vs. Strategic Planning Core Differences
    16. 16. Whose View of Strategy Is the Most Relevant Today? Michael Porter • The Future can be predicted through analysis of 5 Forces and Data • Plans will succeed • Boundaries are fixed • Focus on competition to create value • Pre identified strategies can be systematically programmed. • Competitive advantage is sustainable • Created by detached group of experts Henry Mintzberg • The Future Emerges as intentions meet changing reality • Pre identified Plans fail • Boundaries are fluid • Focus on innovation and new futures • Strategy emerges as intentions collide with and accommodate a changing reality. • Competitive advantage transient • Emphasis on learning and the political dimension 9/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network 16
    17. 17. Strategic Thinking Strategic Planning Vision of the Future Only the shape of the future can be predicted. Direction is more important than detailed Plan The future is predictable and can be specifiable in detail Strategy Making • Premium is on synthetic and integration of ideas • Strategy and change are inescapably linked. • Focused on finding new strategic options and executing them successfully • Analysis is the hallmark of planning • Need for logic and rational Thinking • Strategy and change are separated • Focused on Threats Process and Outcome The planning process itself as a critical value-adding element. Focus is on the creation of the plan as the ultimate objective9/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network 17
    18. 18. Strategic Thinking Strategic Planning Strategic Formulation and Execution Formulation and Execution are interactive rather than sequential and discrete. Formulation and Execution can be neatly divided. Managerial Role in Strategy Making Lower-level managers have a voice in strategy-making, as well as greater latitude to respond opportunistically to developing conditions. Senior executives obtain the needed information from lower-level managers, and then use it to create a plan which is, in turn, disseminated to managers for Execution. Managerial Role in Execution All managers understand the larger system, the connection between their roles and the functioning of that system, as well as the interdependence between Lower-level managers need only know his or her own role well and can be expected to defend only his or her own turf 9/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network 18
    19. 19. Strategic Thinking Strategic Planning Control Relies on self-reference – a sense of strategic intent embedded in the minds of all managers that guides their choices on a daily basis in a process that is often difficult to measure and monitor from above. Asserts control through measurement systems, assuming that can be measured and monitored accurately and quickly. 9/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network 19
    20. 20. Key Elements Strategic Thinking Strategic Planning Change Model Social, Cognitive, Political and cultural Control Information Needed Data and Narrative driven Data Driven Value Proposition Strong –uses values to control and coordinate activity Not strong – Uses measurement to control and coordinate activity Strategic Listening Strong – people on cutting edge of industry - Moderate – listens to data and reports not to new ideas Strategic Conversations Strong – develops understanding of larger system and how they connect to it Not used – Needed information is obtained, plan is crafted and disseminated for implementation Minimum Specifications Minimum specifications Maximum specification Strategic Fitness Fit to external and internal environment – process adds value Fit to to external environment – plan is ultimate objective Chunking Change Small initiatives building on each other Large stand alone initiatives 20
    21. 21. Strategic Thinking
    22. 22. Research Streams 1. Thinking Skills of Leaders –Argyris and Schön,1978; Baron ,1994; Bolman and Deal ,1994; Cohen, et al. ,2000; Daghir & Zaydi, 2005; Dewey , 1933 Halpren,1996; Morgan,2006; Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra & Coukos-Semmel,2005; Schön, 1983; Senge ,1990). 2. Strategic Thinking as a way of thinking about strategic issues.- (Ginsberg, 1994; Goia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Hansen, 1991; Hax & Majluf, 1991; Porter, 1980; Mintzberg ,1994; Raimond, 1996; Tregoe & Zimmerman, 1980 ) 3. Strategic thinking as a way of overcoming the limitations of planning models (Bonn, 2001, 2005; Graetz, 2002; Heracleous, 1998; Laurence ,1999; Liedtka ,1998; O'Shannassy, 2003; Mintzberg, 1994). Pisapia (2012) 22
    23. 23. Strategic Thinking Is a process we use to define the destination and the way to get there
    24. 24. The Philosophy Principle #1 • SLers know that that their ability to create and execute is dependent on people embracing solutions and acting upon them; not technical tools. • Takeaway - The quality of my leadership is found not in my actions, but in those of my followers. 9/23/2013 Pisapia, J. (2009). The Strategic Leader. Charlotte, NC: IAP 24
    25. 25. The WE-THEY Line Decide How Deep you want to go?(c)Pisapia08 25 Philosophy - Principle #2 SLers create a shared reality, and then a shared direction to get more people above the WE-THEY LINE where vision and aspirations live.
    26. 26. The Philosophy Principle #3 The goal of the Strategic Protocol is to establish conversations, focused on differing viewpoints and data, that generate a coherent statement of strategic intent to lead the organization to the future. The outcome is a shared reality that is neither too rigid nor too chaotic; doesn’t over-control the organization or allow it to fall apart. Pisapia, J. (2009). The Strategic Leader. Charlotte, NC: IAP 9/23/2013 26 How much do I share? CREATE SHARED REALITY AND DIRECTION
    27. 27. P r i n c i p l e # 4 S L e r s S l e r s A c t a s G a r d e n e r s Senge (1999) “Treating organizations like machines keeps them from changing, or makes changing them more difficult. We keep bringing in mechanics – when what we need are gardeners.” “We Keep trying to drive change when what we need to do is cultivate it.”
    28. 28. 9/23/2013 Pisapia, J. (2009) The Strategic Leader. 28 A Summary Strategic Thinking Is intent focused. It is centered on ends, strategies, and tactics. is a synthesizing process that employs creativity and intuition that results in an integrated view of what the organization stands for and hopes to become. Requires open minds and people who are comfortable working with ambiguity. Results in a statement of intent that describes your mission, your values and your aspiration for your company, team, organization, life, family or career. It identifies the strategies and tactics which guide the organization in putting its Intent into practice.9/23/2013 28The Strategic Leader Network (SLN)
    29. 29. 9/23/2013 29The Strategic Leader Network (SLN) You need a method! How do you do iT?t?
    30. 30. Picture This The Strategic Leader Netowork (SLN) 30
    31. 31. 31 The Strategic Thinking Protocol Goal #3 Learn: Synthesize - Filter out the NoiseThe Strategic Thinking Method Learn: Filter out the Noise –Synthesize - Create Statement - Use the Input Tools Situational Analysis Look Outside – Strategic Listening Look Inside – Determine Readiness The Navigating Team A shared statement of intent forms a psychological contract with members and guides the leader’s and organization member actions. Use the Decision Tools Strategic Conversations Strategy Canvas iSWOT Analysis Action Framework Synthesizersinputs Statement of Intent Pisapia (2012)
    32. 32. Picture This The Strategic Leader Netowork (SLN) 32
    33. 33. The SL Method Find the Future Strategic Thinking Create a Clear, Concrete Target Anticipate Articulate LOOK LISTEN LEARN SET DIRECTION STATEMENT OF INTENT LEAD Make it Happen Strategic Doing Bond, Bridge, Barter Align Connect with people Build a big tent and fill it Create the Conditions for High Performance Teach Org’s Point of View Make Learning a Priority Empower Pisapia, J. (2009). The Strategic Leader. Charlotte, NC: IAP 33 Assure Establish Discipline Identify Specific Initiatives Align Structures & Processes Track Results Hire for Cultural & Ability fit Tie Rewards to Results & Growth Keep Making it Happen Strategic Execution Institution/Performance Building
    34. 34. jpisapia@fau.edu 34 Strategic Intent Effective Ineffective Execution Excellent Poor Long Term Success Maybe successful For a while Long Term Success Unlikely Failure T h e E x p e c t e d O u t c o m e o f u s i n g t h e S t r a t e g i c T h i n k i n g M e t h o d Transformation Isolated Change Sporadic Change
    35. 35. Which Model best serves Universities?
    36. 36. The University’s Problem Pisapia (2012) 36 Universities have distinctive organizational features which prevent them from moving from inward looking silo’s to outward looking collaborative Colleges and Departments (Birnbaum (1991); Kezar (2001) • Inward looking silo’s • Values Image rather than bottom line performance measures • Multiple Goals • Fluid Power and authority structures In this setting change is inevitable but success is not. Clearly the challenge concerns organizational change that alters attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors of the institution, and its employees.
    37. 37. Which model – is best suited for Higher Education Pisapia (2012) 37 Is your University • Still Relevant? • Relatively independent from environmental influences? • Resource deprived? Does your University • Have Fluid Power and Authority Structures? • Value image as opposed to bottom line performance measures? • Have diffuse goals which are hard to measure? • Stress standardization rather than customization? In your University - Can hard choices be made ----that will stick?
    38. 38. What does the research say? 4 Case Studies – cross case analysis of using traditional planning model and strategic thinking models in Universities
    39. 39. The So What The Outcomes of Strategic Thinking in Universities Integration into Attitudes • Plan integration was achieved into the attitudes and beliefs of most, but not all, participants. • Participants understood the larger system of the college, university, external environment and how they connect to that system. • Strategic thinking through application of the ST Protocol added value beyond plan development Integration into Work Activities • Plan integration into the work activities of faculty and staff is an ongoing process . • Faculty members voluntarily joined action teams charged with addressing the priorities established. • Integrated core values into course syllabi and qualifying exams, • Produced action plans to guide implementation of their priorities for research, and alliances / partnerships. Pisapia (2012) 39
    40. 40. Conclusion #1 Strategic thinking • Put Dominant voices into context by using generative tools Transparency - Strategic Listening – Strategic Conversations • Enabled Organizational Learning - through Convergence, emergence, and co-creation. Simon’s (1991:125) notion that “all learning takes place inside individual human heads; an organization learns in only two ways: (a) by the learning of its members, or (b) by ingesting new members who have knowledge the organization didn't previously have” was supported Pisapia (2012) 40
    41. 41. Conclusion #2 • Strategic thinking can be effective change model in organizations where members are proactive not passive and leaders set direction using minimum rather than maximum standards, and develop a community of leaders. • In organizations where members are more passive than proactive a more forceful style and accommodating approach may be more beneficial. 41Pisapia (2012)
    42. 42. Conclusion # 3  At the center of success was three variables identified by Pisapia (2009) that worked against or for change – culture - communication – commitment.  When leaders worked in coordination and collaboration roles culture, communications, and commitment worked for change.  It was less evident when leaders worked in a command and control fashion  The leaders emphasis should move from working with things to working with people (culture – communications – commitment) and engaging academic staff in the work Pisapia (2012) 42
    43. 43. Conclusion # 4 The audience for the use of a strategic thinking process are the professors who make their programs, research and students the foci of their work. The Strategic Thinking process turned into owners of the reforms The outcome of the traditional strategic planning process was irrelevant to the daily work of agnostics’ who protected their time and often justified their work (research, teaching, and service) in terms of academic freedom and social responsibility (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). Pisapia (2012) 43
    44. 44. The Strategic Leader 44 “We’ll create world leading, multi-disciplinary research institutes that meet our funders’ strategic needs.” . The narrative used, and the way leaders framed their messages was important and can lead to coalescence or devolution. For example, The attempt to clarify that the target audience was to be funder turned off many faculty. They clearly said that trying to motivate them toward interdisciplinary research because funders will fund it is the wrong message for them, even if it was the right message for the university. Conclusion # 5 With this gallant statement of intent the university moved boldly to put it in place and ran into dissent
    45. 45. THE STORY OF THE WALL . . • ... if you look at the wall, when you walk into the department . . . you see the end products of the strategic plan with signatures like the declaration of independence. You actually see people walk by it, the signers as well as the staff and students in the department. The smile on their faces across the board point to the success of that aspect of the process that is it created a document. It created a living document. It created a tangible living document. That’s a success (D5). Pisapia (2012) 45
    46. 46. Your Turn… • What is it? • Why is it important to you? • How will it affect your organizational?
    47. 47. Want More? jpisapia@fau.edu • Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic Leader: New tactics for a globalizing world. Charlotte: NC. Information Age Publishing • Join one of SLN's Global Learning Communities! 9/23/2013 The Strategic Leader Network 47

    ×