strategic planning: 5 tough questions, 5 proven …

ACADEMIC IMPRESSIONS: HIGHER ED IMPACT

Author: Dr. Pat SanaghanPresident of The Sanaghan Group

Monograph

STRATEGIC PLANNING:

5 TOUGH QUESTIONS,

5 PROVEN ANSWERS

ABOUT ACADEMIC IMPRESSIONSWe are an organization that exclusively serves higher education professionals. We offer focused and intentionally crafted learning experiences to help you address your most pressing challenges.

Our work addresses a range of issues related to student recruitment and retention, faculty support and development, alumni engagement and development, and increasing organizational productivity.

Learn more at www.academicimpressions.com.

Copyright © 2011 CR Mrig Company. All Rights Reserved. | 4643 S. Ulster St, Ste. 350, Denver, CO 80237

HIGHER ED IMPACTDelivered free to your inbox, Higher Ed Impact provides you with a full tool kit to help you monitor and assess the trends and strategic challenges likely to have an impact on your institution’s health and competitiveness.

DAILYPULSEScan current events, timely research, and notable practices at other institutions.

WEEKLYSCANReview the week’s most significant events and the most timely research in higher education, with key takeaways suggested by higher education’s leading experts.

MONTHLYDIAGNOSTICGet an enterprise-wide and in-depth look at a current, strategic challenge; identify steps to take and critical questions to address.

Learn more or sign up to receive Higher Ed Impact at: http://www.academicimpressions.com/news_signup.php

2

ABOUT THIS MONOGRAPH

Over the past two years, Academic Impressions has collaborated with Pat Sanaghan from the Sanaghan Group and Larry Goldstein from Campus Strategies, LLC to design a strategic planning program that tackles the difficult questions around strategic planning and resource allocation. The program, which has reached a diverse group of more than 200 senior leaders, helps participants conduct a highly participative planning process on their campuses — and shares practical models for allocating resources in ways that are thoughtful, disciplined, and transparent.

As part of that program, we have asked participants to share with us the really tough questions they have about strategic planning.

We were looking for the kinds of challenges that don’t get discussed in conferences and don’t get written about because they deal with the truly sticky issues — campus politics, trust issues, the complexities of defining the president’s and board’s role in the process, unions, and campuses that have a poor track record with planning and execution.

In this monograph, author Pat Sanaghan (president of The Sanaghan Group) will share five of these difficult questions and present real-life, practical solutions that have actually worked at real institutions. The five questions that we’ll cover are:

• How do you conduct strategic planning in a low-trust environment?

• How do you conduct strategic planning in a difficult, union environment?

• What do you do with a president who has way too many ideas and initiatives that he or she

wants to accomplish?

• How do you deal with a “hands-on” or “micro-managing” board who wants to be intimately

involved in the planning process?

• How can you ensure effective implementation of the strategic plan when you don’t have a good

track record of executing past plans?

The recommendations that you’ll see in this monograph are largely based on a five-phase collaborative planning process that author Pat Sanaghan developed. Over the past 15 years, dozens of diverse institutions have adopted and adapted this process with great success — including DePaul University, the University of the West Indies, Eastern Illinois University, Saint Joseph’s University, Central Community College, Ohio Dominican University, Bismarck State College, Saint Mary’s University, and the University of the Virgin Islands.

To address the five tough questions that college and university leaders identified, it’s going to be critical to rethink the process of strategic planning. This monograph will offer a quick overview of what managing a truly collaborative planning process would look like — an overview that will inform our answers to the five questions.

Read on for:

A rethinking of the process of strategic planningFive tough but effective answers to the five tough questionsA slew of supplemental resources and exercises that will help you apply Pat Sanaghan’s advice to action at your own institution

3

AUTHOR: Dr. Pat Sanaghan

STRATEGIC PLANNING: 5 TOUGH QUESTIONS, 5 PROVEN ANSWERS

4

Academic Impressions | Strategic Planning: 5 Tough Questions, 5 Proven Answers | Pat Sanaghan

TABLE OF CONTENTS/ JUNE 2012The Necessary Groundwork: A Collaborative and Transparent Process 7

Phase 1: The Planning Task Force 9

Phase 2: Gathering the Input You Need 11

Phase 3: Making Sense of the Data 12

Phase 4: Setting the Vision 13

5 Tough Questions 14

1. How do you conduct strategic

planning in a low-trust environment? 15

2. How do you conduct planning in a tough,

union environment? 18

3. What do you do with a president who has

never seen an idea they did not like? 20

4. How do you deal with a “hands-on” board

that tends to micromanage? 22

5. “We don’t have a good track record with

implementing things on our campus. How

do we ensure the actual execution of

our strategic plan?” 26

5


TABLE OF CONTENTS/ JUNE 2012Resources: Meeting Designs and Other Tools 32

RESOURCE A: PRE-MORTEM ANALYSIS 33

THE FUTURE TIMELINE DESIGN 38

RESOURCE C: CAROUSEL DESIGN (SWOT’S) 41

RESOURCE D: OPPORTUNITY MAPPING 45

RESOURCE E: CHEWS AND CHATS 48

RESOURCE F: PLANNINGASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENT 49

RESOURCE G: SAMPLE CONCEPT PAPERS 51

SUGGESTED READING 62

6


THE NECESSARY GROUNDWORK: A COLLABORATIVE

AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS

Strategic planning at a college or university is difficult work. Academic institutions are large, complex, and highly decentralized environments. Most institutions tackle strategic planning reluctantly and without seeking meaningful input and commitment from key stakeholders. Unfortunately, this approach leads to a disconnect between plans and budgets, and creates plans that don’t get implemented.

In a recent Academic Impressions survey of CFOs, planning specialists, and senior academic administrators, only 33 percent of respondents expressed confidence that their current strategic plan would be implemented.

When asked to describe their institution’s approach to strategic planning, less than half indicated a broadly participative process. The others indicated:

• A top-down process (26 percent)

• An effort led and managed by “the usual suspects” (23 percent)

• A closed process known only to a few (5 percent)

When the process is broken, the outcome won’t be successful.

On a day-to-day basis, hundreds of faculty, staff, and administrators make decisions that impact the success of the institution. If these decision makers don’t believe in the plan or aren’t committed to it, the institution won’t move forward in a unified direction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS/ JUNE 2012

7


We Need More Perspectives, Not Fewer

The forces shaping higher education are well-known: shifting demographics, increased competition, technologies that are rapidly changing instructional delivery, rising costs, increased speculation about the value of higher education, and increased demands and expectations from a variety of stakeholders.

To navigate this increasingly complex environment, more ideas, perspectives, and participation are needed, not less. Can the leaders of our institutions alone be expected to have all the answers? If not, then it is an especially sobering fact that more than half of the institutions surveyed are relying on relatively few people to chart the school’s course into the future.

Before taking a close look at the five tough challenges identified by institutional leaders, let’s take a few pages to rethink the process of strategic planning. An aggressive reimagining of the critical steps to this process will give you the context needed to address the tough challenges in ways that are credible and effective.

The Core Tenets of the Process

This planning process has evolved over many years and at many different kinds of organizations — across K-12 and postsecondary institutions, as well as the organizations in the corporate and general nonprofit sectors. It’s a process that works because it focuses on the meaningful participation of a broad set of stakeholders.

The process is based on these ideas:

• The senior leaders of an organization don’t necessarily have all of the answers because events and

forces impacting and influencing higher education are too complex.

• If people have a chance to influence the outcome, they’ll be more likely to buy into it.

• Sometimes the smartest people in our organizations don’t have a seat at the table.

• Transparency helps build trust.

• Diversity of ideas, perspectives, and experiences can be an asset.

• Most of all, a strategic plan has to be worthy of people’s aspirations and commitment.

Here are the phases:

8


Phase 1: The Planning Task Force

Credibility comes from the planning task force you choose. When you announce

the names on that task force, everyone will make a quick but long-lasting judgment

about the potential success of the planning process — based on who is stewarding

that process. Choose wisely.

The composition of the planning task force (PTF) will make or break the planning process, and establishing a highly credible PTF is the single most important prerequisite for the success of your strategic planning process. We cannot emphasize this too strongly. Selecting the members of the PTF is the first strategic thing the president does, and these choices will communicate volumes about the importance of the planning process to the entire institution.

More than 50 percent of institutions responding to the Academic Impressions survey either skipped this step or chose “the usual suspects.”Here are a few considerations for selecting a strong PTF.

• Appoint two co-chairs. Preferably, you want to appoint a highly credible academic and

a cabinet-level administrator (such as the executive vice president or the chief business

officer). This combination expresses a commitment to a collaborative process and to

inviting stakeholders from both sides of the institution to work together in creating a

shared vision.

• Appoint PTF members who have stellar reputations. You want members who are credible

and who are known on campus. The selection of these individuals will signal to the

campus community that this planning effort will be different, and that the plan will have

integrity and will actually get implemented.

• Appoint 25-40 individuals, and ensure that faculty are well-represented. Ideally, the mix

on the PTF should be about 60 percent faculty and 40 percent administrators and staff.

Faculty buy-in is essential to the process and to the plan’s implementation; without their

real commitment, you will not have a workable strategic plan.

• Ensure that the PTF members are diverse demographically. This is more than just

diversity in race, gender, and experience. You want both formal and informal leaders. You

want to have some “young” members (25-30 years old), because these members will be

closer to the future than the more “mature” faculty and staff; their perspective will be

different and will add value. This can also serve as a critical developmental opportunity for

them, as they will be working with experienced leaders across campus.

• Make sure the cabinet or senior team is well represented. At a minimum, the PTF needs

9


to include the provost, the chief business officer, the vice president of student affairs, and any other

senior leaders who report directly to the president. At the end of the day, it is the cabinet or senior

team who will implement the strategic plan; their buy-in is essential.

The process of selecting PTF members needs to be thoughtful and intentional, and the selections should be made by the president in discussion with the cabinet and faculty leaders. At institutions with a large cabinet (15 members or more), the president will need to be judicious in selecting the right set of senior leaders to place on the PTF. (Remember, 60 percent of the PTF needs to be faculty.) You need to create a diverse and stellar list. There might be a need for the president to make several personal requests to highly credible faculty to ensure their participation.

The PTF’s first task is to create an institutional communication plan that will keep the entire campus well informed about the progress of the planning process. This communication plan should involve both high-tech (e.g. a web portal, email blasts, presidential newsletter) and high-touch (e.g. face-to-face meetings, town hall meetings) elements. The PTF needs to make an open commitment to the timely, transparent, and

relevant sharing of information throughout the planning effort.

10


Phase 2: Gathering the Input You Need

Real engagement is more than a survey. The key is to engage campus stakeholders in a series of face-to-face, interactive meetings that solicit their ideas, hopes, concerns, and aspirations for the institution. Surveys have their place, but face-to-face meetings enable the real-time discussion and debate that can lead to better outcomes.

If that sounds daunting, we will show you a few activities that your PTF can conduct to invite meaningful contribution from various stakeholder groups including the board, different faculty groups, administrators and staff, students, alumni and donors, and community and government leaders. In a relatively short period of time (6-8 weeks), hundreds of stakeholders can be meaningfully involved in the gathering of important and strategic information for their institution.

EETING DESIGNS

MEETING DESIGNS

See RESOURCES A, B, and C for in-depth directions for several innovative meeting designs,

including:

• Pre-mortem analysis

• Future timeline

• Carousel (SWOT analysis)

These designs have been tested at dozens of institutions of higher education. You can

also see these designs in action at Academic Impressions’ workshops on planning and

budgeting.

Store all the data gathered in a central web portal that everyone on campus has access to so that different stakeholders can see how others view the institution’s strengths, opportunities, institutional values, and challenges.

For many campuses, this will be the first time that stakeholders have been involved in thinking together about the future of their institution. When the data-gathering phase is handled with this degree of collective input and transparency, it can be a transformative opportunity to foster greater institutional trust.

11


Phase 3: Making Sense of the Data

After the PTF has conducted dozens of interactive planning meetings throughout the campus, considerable information will have been gathered. The PTF needs to devote a day to reviewing all the focus group data. The outcome of this day should be to agree on a small set (4-6) of strategic themes (e.g., academic excellence, diversity, globalization) on which the planning process will focus going forward.

These themes then become vehicles for further research and investigation by the PTF. The outcome of this phase is a set of “Concept Papers” (one for each strategic theme) that explain in meaningful detail what the selected themes mean for the future of the campus.

Use these guidelines to keep each Concept Paper focused, purposeful, and effective:

• Five pages in length

• Written for laypeople — the purpose is to

educate stakeholders about a particular

issue, not dazzle them with erudite

vocabulary or with complex explanations

• Provide historical context about the issue

• Identify regional, national, and (if

appropriate) international perspectives

about the issue

• Summarize how campus stakeholders see

the issue (based on the data the PTF has

gathered)

The Concept Papers are written by the PTF, but the PTF can certainly bring in other stakeholders to help write them. Ideally, you want a great deal of discussion and dialogue between PTF members as these papers are written. After the PTF has reviewed the Concept Papers, make the papers available to the community at large via the campus intranet.

For two sample concept papers, see Resource G.

Writing these Concept Papers allows the PTF to:

• Prioritize the most important issues that

need to be included in the institution’s

strategic plan (since not every issue can be

included in the plan — the plan has to be

kept manageable, actionable, and focused

on the highest priority challenges)

• Distill the information gathered during the

previous phase into “chewable chunks,” so

that stakeholders can be informed about

the issues without being deluged by an

avalanche of data

• Educate and prepare attendees for an

upcoming Vision Conference

12

Phase 4: Setting the Vision

To review the concept papers, brainstorm, and arrive at a collective and informed vision for the institution’s future, we recommend holding a Vision Conference. This is a highly interactive and inclusive, one-day meeting that involves 50-70 participants. Attendees should include:

• All PTF members

• Other internal stakeholders (faculty, students, and staff)

• External stakeholders (business and civic leaders, government

officials, and local clergy in the case of a religious-affiliated

institution)

Inviting external stakeholders ensures a holistic perspective as conference attendees think about the future. Aim for a mix of 70 percent internal and 30 percent external stakeholders. The intent of the Vision Conference is to review the concept papers together and work collaboratively to establish a set of clear pictures for the future of the institution, for the next five years.

THE 5-YEAR TIME FRAME

Five years is an optimal time frame for strategic planning.

Longer than five years, and many stakeholders will treat

the objectives discussed as examples of “blue sky thinking,”

not grounded in the realities of the present. Shorter than

five years, and you lose the opportunity to invite “informed

dreaming” from a variety of stakeholders. You want to arrive

at a plan that is responsive to the everyday realities your

institution faces (e.g., demographics, financials), yet also

envisions a better future for the institution.

Phase 5: Goals Conference Next, hold a “Goals Conference,” a one-day action planning meeting to identify specific, prioritized goals that will bring the institution towards its vision. This meeting involves all the members of the PTF, as well as other internal campus stakeholders who will be able to provide meaningful input as you identify resources, accountabilities, and meaningful measures for assessing the success of the operational plan.

When you understand the key tenets of the process, the solutions to the five tough questions become more apparent.

Let’s take a closer look at those five challenges — and how to address them.

THE PRESIDENT’S ROLE

The president’s role in the

strategic planning process

is critical to its success. The

president needs to own but

not control the planning

effort. When campus

stakeholders witness and

experience the president’s

authentic involvement and

ownership of the process,

the credibility of the

process is enhanced. Several

important presidential

responsibilities are:

• The creation of a highly

credible planning task force

(PTF) and the selection of

respected co-chairs

• Keeping the board fully

informed about the planning

process as well as creating

opportunities for the board

to inform the process

• Being present at significant

planning events (e.g. the PTF

training kick-off, the vision

and goals conference)

• Communicating to multiple

stakeholders how important

the planning process is to

the future of the institution

• Listening carefully to

stakeholder’s concerns and

aspirations

13


5 TOUGH QUESTIONS

When asked for their toughest questions and most anticipated obstacles to a successful strategic planning effort, institutional leaders attending Academic Impressions’ strategic planning program cited these as their top five:

• How do you conduct strategic planning in a low-trust environment?

• How do you conduct strategic planning in a difficult, union environment?

• What do you do with a president who has way too many ideas and initiatives that he or

she wants to accomplish?

• How do you deal with a “hands-on” or “micro-managing” board who wants to be

intimately involved in the planning process?

• How can you ensure effective implementation of the strategic plan when you don’t

have a good track record of executing past plans?

We’d like to offer our advice for addressing these challenges, based on decades of working with a wide variety of institutions of higher education.

14


1. HOW DO YOU CONDUCT STRATEGIC PLANNING

IN A LOW-TRUST ENVIRONMENT?

More than 75 percent of the participants at the planning programs communicated that low institutional trust was a significant issue on their campuses. This resonates with our consulting experience as well, but is an issue that rarely gets discussed in the research or with planning professionals.

The reason institutional trust is so very important is that without it, a president simply cannot lead. On campuses where there is low trust, every decision can become a debate. People tend to focus on the day-to-day events and issues rather than the future of the institution. The rumor mill is in high gear and is often the only trusted communication process throughout the campus.

We have found you can rebuild institutional trust with a collaborative, inclusive, and transparent planning process. It is not a panacea by any means but one powerful way to begin to build the relational capital necessary to actually implement ideas.

Trust is the most fragile and enduring element of organizational life. When you have it, you can do great things — even if your resources are limited. Without trust, even having ample resources usually won’t be enough.

We strongly suggest that the PTF create a handful of agreed-upon “guiding principles” for the planning process and communicate them widely throughout the institution. You should have no more than five guiding principles or they will become platitudes. In this case, more is not better. Pick the right ones and it will enhance the stature and meaning of the planning process.

Here are examples. These are guiding principles that we have used with great success on multiple campuses:

15

We are committed to make the meaningful engagement of institutional stakeholders the heart of the strategic planning process.

By “engagement,” we mean face-to-face interaction and the real discussion of important institutional issues. This interaction will not just happen by chance and needs to be carefully designed by the PTF to ensure quality discussions take place throughout the campus.

The primary purpose of these discussions should be to share information with multiple stakeholder groups and, more importantly, solicit their ideas and feedback about important institutional issues.

We are committed to transparency.

For a strategic planning process to have real resonance and integrity, the institutional leadership must be committed to share relevant information (especially financial information) with their stakeholders. Too often, financial information is shrouded in secrecy and complexity. The senior leadership must make the financial information and realities clearly understandable to stakeholders.

As a planning process progresses, hundreds of people will be sharing their hopes and aspirations as well as identifying institutional challenges. Some “difficult” information will emerge (e.g. negative relationships between stakeholder groups, evidence of wasted resources or redundant efforts, adjuncts who feel disconnected from the institution). These uncomfortable issues cannot be forced underground or whitewashed, or the planning process will lose credibility quickly.

It will take real courage to face longstanding issues and problems, but they need to see the light of day if they are to be resolved.

TRANSPARENCY AND RISK

We realize full transparency

is not without its risks. When

campus stakeholders are

given the opportunity to

identify both the strengths and

weaknesses of their institution,

some sensitive information

could be generated. If a

campus’s institutional culture

is one of low trust and a

poor history of collaboration

and transparency, negative

information, ideas, and

opinions will emerge.

It will take real courage on the

president’s part to adhere to

the guiding principle about

transparency. It isn’t a decision

to be made lightly. We have

found that it has always

been helpful (not easy) in

building the credibility of the

planning process and creating

the opportunity for a new

beginning.

Something to consider: there

are very few secrets on any

campus. Most people know

what the institutional flaws

are, and everyone talks about

them. Creating the space

for the “secrets” to be aired

enables a system to move

forward. If your planning

process is going to make a real

difference, have the courage

and discipline to ask the tough

questions. The answers will

create an engine for change.

Most campus stakeholders

want great things for their

institution. They won’t believe

that will happen if the tough

stuff doesn’t get dealt with

effectively.

16


TRANSPARENCY AND RISK

We realize full transparency

is not without its risks. When

campus stakeholders are

given the opportunity to

identify both the strengths and

weaknesses of their institution,

some sensitive information

could be generated. If a

campus’s institutional culture

is one of low trust and a

poor history of collaboration

and transparency, negative

information, ideas, and

opinions will emerge.

It will take real courage on the

president’s part to adhere to

the guiding principle about

transparency. It isn’t a decision

to be made lightly. We have

found that it has always

been helpful (not easy) in

building the credibility of the

planning process and creating

the opportunity for a new

beginning.

Something to consider: there

are very few secrets on any

campus. Most people know

what the institutional flaws

are, and everyone talks about

them. Creating the space

for the “secrets” to be aired

enables a system to move

forward. If your planning

process is going to make a real

difference, have the courage

and discipline to ask the tough

questions. The answers will

create an engine for change.

Most campus stakeholders

want great things for their

institution. They won’t believe

that will happen if the tough

stuff doesn’t get dealt with

effectively.

We will actively seek an external perspective.

It is important that institutional leaders avoid the

dilemma of “listening to themselves too much”

and getting trapped in a parochial way of thinking

about institutional issues. Many campuses have

a tendency to be too self-referential and are

unwilling to take an honest look at themselves

and the world they live in.

Campus stakeholders must understand the

bigger-picture issues, events, and trends that are

facing their institution and higher education in

general. Attention needs to be paid to regional

demographics, legislative issues, funding streams,

changes in government leadership, trends in

technology, student interests, international issues,

and human resource issues. Local businesses

and governments can also inform the thinking

of campus stakeholders and are often eager to

contribute.

It is essential that the planning process

help more people understand more about

the potential challenges facing their

institution.

Other campuses we have worked with have

brought in external “stargazers” who are well-

known thought leaders in higher education to

engage stakeholders in a robust conversation

about the issues facing higher education.

Still others have distributed the report “Disrupting

College” by Christensen, Horn, Caldera, and

Soares (2011) to stimulate debate and dialogue

about the fast-changing world of higher

education. This report is both enlightening and a

little frightening.

For the truly courageous, Christensen and Eyring’s

new book, The Innovative University (2011), is a

powerful resource for leaders who are interested

in the potential futures higher education faces.

Lastly, we would recommend Riptide: The New

Normal in Higher Education (2011) by Dan Angel

and Terry Connelly. It presents some important

and dramatic new ways of thinking about how we

run our institutions.

It is important that the PTF actively seeks a

diversity of ideas and a multiplicity of external

perspectives.

We are committed to dealing with the “tough” issues within our institution.

This is the most courageous principle of all and

must be chosen consciously and judiciously. Every

campus has institutional issues that everyone

knows about but few openly discuss. These issues

are usually longstanding and keep the institution

from reaching its potential.

If you create an engaged and transparent

planning process, these issues will surface. The

challenge will then be, “What do we do with

them?” Issues like poor campus climate, declining

academic excellence, negative town/gown

relationships, and fuzzy image or brand need to

be dealt with directly and will take real leadership

to resolve.

If the president doesn’t live these

principles after espousing them, they

will lose their credibility. But when these

principles are articulated and lived,

they can improve institutional trust

and organizational climate and help to

actually implement the plan.

17


2. HOW DO YOU CONDUCT PLANNING IN A

TOUGH, UNION ENVIRONMENT?

We have successfully dealt with this issue several times over the past decade. Currently we are involved in a collaborative strategic planning process in a state institution of about 15,000 students and hundreds of faculty and staff. They have several unions, and relationships are described as “frosty” between union leadership and the administration.

Specific factors complicating this issue are obviously specific to each institution, and so we can’t offer an easy or canned answer to this question. That said, here are some strategies we have used that have proven successful.

The most direct way to deal with this challenge is to appoint the union president as a co-chair of the planning task force. Remember that we recommend appointing two co-chairs. Usually, these two would be a highly respected academic and a senior level administrative leader. In this situation, however, we would appoint a third co-chair. This is not an “honorary” position, but a significant role in the leadership of the entire planning process. This is a courageous thing to do, but it can create an opportunity to form a different relationship between administration and the union. Note that:

• This move communicates to all campus stakeholders that the union has an essential role

in planning for the future of the institution.

• It meaningfully communicates that planning process will be a collaborative effort

between administration, staff, and faculty.

• It can potentially rebuild connections and relationships that may have been broken. We

don’t mean this to sound unrealistically optimistic; when there is a history of bad blood,

it is a difficult and long journey to repair relationships, build trust, and learn how to

work together in service of the institution. Does it work all the time? No. But placing a

union co-chair on the PTF does dramatically increase the odds of building an authentic

relational bridge between the administration and the union.

The president should also ensure the union is well represented among the faculty and staff appointments to the PTF.

In order for this move to succeed, the three co-chairs need to meet with the president and board chair before the planning process gets started and agree to several things:

• Some “working ground rules” between themselves — These ground rules should include

how they will communicate with each other (often, and face-to-face).

• The guiding principles for the planning process — If all three can commit to the agreed-

upon principles, it will create positive momentum for the process going forward.

• Complete transparency between all five parties — Meetings that exclude anyone should

not be held, and that also goes for information. There can be no secrets between these

five institutional leaders. If that happens, any trust will quickly disappear.

18


19

Finally, there should be monthly check-ins with the president and, if possible, the board chair. The co-chairs can use these monthly meetings keep the president and chair informed about progress, surface any tensions that might exist, and continue to build relational capital.

Transparency around this process will have enormous value. Everyone on campus should know that the three co-chairs meet periodically with the president and board chair, and that they have agreed to the guiding principles for the planning process and to ground rules for how they will work together. It’s important to signal to the rest of the campus community that the three co-chairs are working hard to maintain collegial and authentic relationships.

The three co-chairs should also be the ones to communicate any planning updates to the rest of the campus. United, they are the face of the planning effort and of the campus’ future.


3. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH A PRESIDENT WHO HAS

NEVER SEEN AN IDEA THEY DID NOT LIKE?

Many presidents are considered “visionaries” who see possibilities few of us recognize. Unfortunately, this can be a mixed blessing when possibility thinking clashes with the cold realities of implementation and execution. Assigning too many new projects and initiatives will consume enormous amounts of people’s time, attention, and energy. Chasing too many goals is also a sure path to mediocrity — even the wealthiest institutions have to make choices about what’s most important because they simply don’t have the resources to pursue everything.

The following are a handful of critical questions senior leaders can ask their president in order to determine whether the new ideas are really worthwhile. This will take some real courage and discipline on the part of the senior leaders. That said, if you are not able to ask some of these questions and provide honest feedback to your president, you may have deeper issues that a planning process alone will not fix.

These are the questions you need to ask the president:

• Can we afford this project? What evidence do we have that demonstrates we have the financial

resources to do this well? (Keep in mind that visionaries will often tell you, “We’ll find the money,”

because they regard the new initiative as too important not to do.)

• How is this project/initiative aligned with our strategic plan and vision for the future? What will we

tell our stakeholders if they ask how this fits with where we’ve said we are going?

• What is our current capacity to do this new project well? Do you anticipate any big hurdles/

challenges if we pursue this initiative? (Be ready to share some of the hurdles you see because

visionaries frequently do not see the obstacles.)

• How much of senior management time and attention do you think it will take to do the thinking,

planning and execution of this initiative? Do you have a “champion” in mind to lead it?

• If we were to come back to this discussion one year from now, what is your picture of what would

have been put in place to help operationalize this proposed initiative? Where might we be in the

process? (e.g., completed the planning and research phase, seeing the first pilot project completed,

all the financial resources lined up and ready to go)

20


THE 30-DAY TIMELINE

Ask the president, “Can we have an open conversation about this new initiative in

30 days while we gather information for you and have a more in-depth conversation

about it?”

This approach usually slows the process down and provides time for a more well-

prepared and thoughtful discussion. Make sure to reach an agreement with the

president as to what essential information (e.g., financial data, legal information) is

needed in order to continue this discussion in a meaningful manner.

That said, don’t inundate visionary presidents with facts and figures — they won’t like

or appreciate it. It is rarely the volume of data that convinces them; it is the succinct

identification of one or more essential, legitimate obstacles that cannot be removed

or satisfactorily addressed.

Work with your president to reach a small set of tough, realistic questions that need to be answered favorably for any new proposed initiatives. This allows you build some rigor into the decision-making process and lays the groundwork for future discussions. After all, the new ideas aren’t going to stop coming — so you want to agree on a system for evaluating them as they do.

OPPORTUNITY MAPPING

You can also conduct an opportunity mapping exercise, sometimes called a

“solutions matrix.” This is a planning tool that we have utilized with campus leaders

to anonymously and objectively assess the potential benefits of a proposed idea. It

can be used to assess a potential initiative, a strategic partnership, or a new idea the

president really likes. Refer to Appendix D for a close look at this planning tool.

21

4. HOW DO YOU DEAL

WITH A “HANDS-ON”

BOARD THAT TENDS TO

MICROMANAGE?

We have found this to be a common occurrence on many campuses — especially at smaller and religious institutions. Over-involvement by the board is often well-intentioned but can be destructive. Many board members have a real affection for their institutions. Some were former students with fond memories of their campus experience; others are operational champions in their own organizations and know how to “get things done.” Still others are deeply committed to the mission and will help in any way they can to fulfill its promise.

Intentions aside, board over-involvement can be harmful to the planning process if it is not managed well. We have found that if the board starts to micromanage the planning process, this will create an abundance of problems.

When board members constantly ask for progress reports, ask lots of questions of the leaders involved in the planning effort, or provide strong and constant advice, these actions tend to stall the process and cause stress for those individuals involved in the planning effort. Leaders can become uncertain of their decision-making authority if the board repeatedly second-guesses them. The process will then move more slowly as the leaders worry over how the board might react.

The meaningful involvement of the board in strategic planning (or in other key planning processes on campus, such as master planning, campaign planning, and curriculum renewal) can be conveyed by the slogan NIFO: “Nose In, Fingers Out.” The PTF needs to keep the board informed throughout the process and actively solicit their perspectives, advice, and opinions — but the board needs to stay out of the operational details of the plan.

SCENARIOWe were recently contacted by the board chair

of a large university who was concerned that

several cabinet members and deans had left

his institution over the past couple of years.

Although leadership transitions come with the

territory, the best and brightest had left, and he

was greatly concerned. In addition, the HR office

had recently conducted a climate survey that

indicated there was low morale throughout the

institution and that it was a stressful workplace.

We then had a long conversation with the

president and board chair, and we wanted to

visit the campus. We conducted a series of

confidential interviews with senior leadership,

some deans, faculty, and selected staff. Our

biggest finding was the identification of more

than 30 “special initiatives” created by the

president over the past several years. None of

these initiatives were part of the institution’s

formal strategic plan. Campus leaders and

stakeholders were caught in a terrible bind

between trying to implement a strategic plan

they believed in and trying to serve these special

initiatives. There wasn’t enough time, energy,

people, or money to do both well, and people

were exhausted.

With this strong interview data and several

intense conversations with the president and

board chair, we were able to convince the

president not to create any more new initiatives

for several years.

We also helped create a process for assessing the

current initiatives to review their status, quality,

and outcomes. We then prioritized the more than

30 initiatives and were able to eliminate, reduce,

or realign at least one-third of them. This took

over a year, but freed up people’s time, energy,

and attention to actually execute the remaining

initiatives and focus on the strategic plan.

All these initiatives were great ideas and well-

intentioned endeavors by the president. He was

a visionary who wanted to make things happen

and improve the institution’s contributions

to the world. Unfortunately, he didn’t have

any boundaries or disciplined frameworks for

assessing the impact of these hungry initiatives

on campus operations or people’s lives.

22


Setting expectations early

First, the president and board chair must have a serious conversation about how the board will be involved. Once the president and the chair are on the same page — and ideally before the planning process begins — the president needs to have an open discussion with the board to set expectations about their role and contribution to the process. This discussion should include:

• What the planning process will look like as it unfolds

• The schedule of campus planning events and important milestones

• Opportunities for the board to inform the thinking about the future of the institution

• Opportunities for the board to offer input at key steps (e.g., data gathering, concept papers,

planning assumptions, vision statement, goals, and action plans)

This early discussion is a critical opportunity to establish some “operating ground rules” that clearly define the board’s level of involvement, communication protocols, and ways to keep the board fully informed throughout the process (e.g., meetings with the PTF co-chairs, executive summary). It’s also an opportunity to answer as many of the board’s questions as possible. If the institution is working with an external consultant, this consultant needs to be present (whether in person or on the phone) to answer specific and detailed questions.

Here are two examples of ground rules that will help to facilitate a smoother process:

• The board chair or his/her designee will interact only with the co-chairs of the PTF, and only

those two members of the PTF will interact directly with the board. This limits the number of

contacts and keeps the flow of information direct and uncluttered.

• PTF updates delivered to the board will be regular and scheduled. It’s important not to

entertain an endless flow of questions about the plan at every board meeting.

At the end of the day, the board members must approve the strategic plan — this is part of their governance responsibilities. Everyone on campus, especially faculty, needs to understand this. If the board does not like the plan and doesn’t believe it will help move the institution forward, the members will not approve it. Therefore, it is essential that the board be informed about the strategic planning process from the very beginning and meaningfully engaged throughout the process.

23


Dealing with a micro-managing board during the planning process

AN AD HOC PLANNING COMMITTEE

We are currently working with a

board that has deep micro-managing

tendencies. To address the situation,

we have created an ad hoc planning

committee of the board. This committee

consists of the board chair and three

other “interested” members, chosen by

the board chair. We have monthly phone

conferences with this committee and the

planning task force co-chairs. The call

lasts somewhere between 45 minutes to

an hour and reviews progress, discusses

next steps, and seeks the advice of the

committee members.

The ad hoc committee creates an

informal, one-page report for the entire

board after these phone conferences and

distributes this electronically to all board

members.

Use these strategies to manage board involvement effectively:

Reporting. As the planning process unfolds and the PTF gathers input from stakeholders, make sure the board receives an ongoing executive summary of the issues and ideas that are emerging. Avoid information overload and keep the summary succinct and informative. This report can be shared at regular board meetings or sent by the president’s office in electronic form. It is important to actively solicit the board members’ feedback and questions about the emerging data. You want to ensure their “fingerprints” are on the information flow as it moves forward. Any feedback from the board should be shared with the planning task force members.

Additionally, the co-chairs of the PTF can do an informative presentation at regular board meetings. This will give board members a chance to ask questions and provide advice to the co-chairs in a structured setting at multiple points during the process.

Involvement in planning activities. The board should be invited to any planning events or activities on campus. This participation will help you:

• Keep the board informed about how

stakeholders are experiencing the planning

process and what is important to them

• Give the board members an opportunity to

inform the planning process in a way that

contributes to the flow of information and

ideas rather than stalls it

• Exhibit the real participation and interest

of board members in the planning process

— when campus stakeholders witness

the involvement of board members in the

planning process, the credibility of the process

is increased

Conduct a Future Timeline exercise. This exercise invites stakeholders to anticipate the future events, trends, and issues that the institution faces; its goal is to create a shared context for campus stakeholders as they plan for the future of their institution. Boards tend to find this activity engaging and useful. The exercise creates a prioritized list of potential strategic issues (e.g., demographics, aging faculty, decreased state funding, technology in the classroom) that need to be managed effectively and strategically if the institution is to thrive in the future.

Refer to Appendix B for a detailed description of the exercise.

This can be a good way to invite board input. To get the maximum value out of the exercise, we recommend that the PTF conduct their own Future Timeline before they see the board’s data, and that they provide their list to the board for review and discussion. The comparison of the two different databases usually creates an opportunity for great discussion.

24


Review of planning materials. When the drafts of the Concept Papers are written, one of the first stakeholder groups that should review them is the board. This is the board’s opportunity to inform the planning papers going forward and it will help elevate the Concept Papers in important ways. Remember, the Concept Papers are meant to be user-friendly and about five pages long; therefore, invite board members to offer feedback and advice from a strategic perspective. Their role isn’t to introduce further ideas or make the papers longer and more complex. Ask the board:

• What “big questions” do they have? Focus on questions around the concepts and definitions, not

around small details. Is anything in the paper unclear from the board’s perspective? (For example,

perhaps the term “academic excellence” has been used frequently but without any parameters around

what it means.)

• Is there further input the board can offer based on its members’ areas of expertise?

• Are there any external trends (e.g., pending legislation, emerging careers, technological advances in

manufacturing that could impact jobs, where businesses are investing resources, etc.) that the board is

aware of and that the PTF needs to be mindful of?

Also, make sure the board is invited to the Vision Conference (at which both internal and external stakeholders work to create powerful, shared pictures of the future for the institution), and that the board is the first stakeholder group to review the draft of the strategic plan.

In short, the keys to managing board involvement and mitigating the risk of board micromanagement of the planning process are to agree early on ground rules, get them in the game offering input as early as possible, and then meaningfully engage them and keep them informed throughout every stage of the planning process.

25


5. “WE DON’T HAVE A GOOD TRACK RECORD WITH

IMPLEMENTING THINGS ON OUR CAMPUS. HOW DO WE

ENSURE THE ACTUAL EXECUTION OF OUR STRATEGIC

PLAN?”

This is one of the most pervasive challenges with strategic planning. Writing a great strategic plan is one thing, but despite the best intentions, the plan often falls apart during implementation.

Here are six practical strategies to consider as you prepare for implementation:

• Provide training and support throughout the campus

• Provide feedback on the operational action plans written at the department, division, or college level

• Plan for robust, ongoing engagement and communication about the plan’s implementation and

progress

• Understand and prepare for the first-year dilemma

• Identify an “owner” or steward for each strategic goal

• Use your PTF to support implementation

Provide training and support throughout the campus

First, don’t assume that everyone somehow knows how to do operational planning; this is a skill that needs to be developed. Training key people in the nuts and bolts of writing action plans and implementation plans is essential.

We advise:

• Establishing a basic format for action plans across campus; the format should be reasonable and

uncomplicated

• Provide training to show exactly what you are looking for

Here is a sample format for a department’s action plan that tends to work well on many campuses.

FORMAT FOR AN ACTION PLAN

A. What is the overarching goal?

B. What are three specific action steps or activities that will move us toward the goal?

C. What is the timeline for each step?

D. What resources (technology, budget, staff, space, attention from leadership) are

needed? (be specific)

E. Who will champion and steward the effort?

F. Who else needs to be involved? (you can’t involve everyone)

G. What will success look like, and how will we measure it? (measures need to be

specific and quantifiable)

H. What potential pitfalls should we be aware of going into the process?

26


We have found that a workshop approach to training works well. Coach people in the use of the format and invite them to actually write out a preliminary action plan while they are there in the room. After they write up this initial draft, facilitators, consultants, or institutional researchers can provide constructive feedback on their early thinking.

This approach sets people up to succeed in their initial attempts at implementation planning. Beginnings are important, and providing some quality training up front will make a real difference.

Provide feedback on the action plans

This may sound like a simple step, but it is frequently a missing step in the writing and implementation phase of the planning process. Often, the people involved see the writing of division and department goals as a “paper exercise” that they must simply get through so that they can return quickly to their “real work.”

If you can establish a mechanism where people can get constructive feedback about their written plans, you will see written plans that provide a much more effective guide for implementation.

Whenever we have provided constructive and specific feedback on written plans, two things generally happen:

• People are amazed that someone actually

reads their work and takes time to provide

them with feedback, and are appreciative of

the feedback, even when it might be critical

• They almost always incorporate the

feedback into a more specific and realistic

plan, and produce it quickly

Make sure the feedback offered is specific. For example:

• We think you will need more people for the

implementation of this project

• The dollar amount seems rather high to us,

how did you reach this number?

A feedback mechanism takes time, but the payback is worth it. Not only do you arrive at more realistic action plans; you also communicate the message that the process of action planning is important and that someone cares about these plans. These are important messages to convey.

Plan for robust, ongoing engagement and communication

It’s critical to keep people informed and engaged throughout the implementation phase. Previously, we mentioned some things the president can do to create real engagement (e.g., reviewing the plan at cabinet meetings; presidential electronic newsletter about the plan; yearly review of the plan). Here are some strategies that institutional leaders can use for the long haul:

Hold “chews and chats” across campus. These are informal meetings, usually at breakfast or lunch, where 40-60 campus stakeholders are convened to:

• Conduct informal scans of what has

changed in the external environment, and

the implications of those changes for the

strategic plan and the strategic priorities of

your institution

• Update each other on progress toward your

strategic objectives

• Share best practices

Concerning best practices, there are usually wonderful things happening on a campus; the problem is, most members of the campus community aren’t aware of them. If senior leaders can create the opportunity to get people together and have them share what is going well in their unit, division, or department, everyone gets a little smarter. See Appendix E for a description of an engaging, interactive activity that can share out knowledge about progress toward strategic goals across your campus and build enthusiasm.

27


Conduct regular exercises in horizon thinking. See Appendix B for a description of the “future timeline” meeting design. This is a simple yet effective way to get people thinking about the future events, trends, and issues that could impact or influence their institution over the next 5-10 years. It can be used with groups of 20-60 participants, is inclusive and participative in nature, and produces a prioritized list of the events, trends, and issues that need to be thought about, discussed, and planned for — and it only takes 1.5 hours to do it well. Make sure that all participants get a copy of the prioritized list of issues, events, and trends, and that you distribute the list widely across campus.

Convene a group of “informal” leaders. In every organization there is the formal organizational chart, then there is the “real” chart of leaders and individuals who actually get things done. These are the “go-to people” who have huge peer influence. Some of these individuals don’t even show up on the formal chart, but everyone knows who they are. They make positive contributions every day and tend to be very honest individuals. We call this group the “adhocracy” group, and it is essential that senior leaders know who these people are.

It will not prove difficult to identify the individuals in this group because they are well-known throughout the campus. Just ask for the names of people who have a positive reputation, a good work ethic, are known as good team players, and get stuff done. You will get plenty of names.

It’s a great idea to identify these individuals before we begin a strategic planning process

on a campus. We want to make sure we have some of these on the planning task force.

During implementation, convene this group with a trustworthy, credible senior leader who has some real facilitation skills.

Let’s say you have invited 20 of these individuals invited to a meeting for about an hour and a half. Divide them into small groups at round tables. Provide a welcome and introductions — many of these people will know each other, but some will not.

During the meeting, the senior leader can ask each group three questions:

28


29

Once this group is assembled, have them work in small groups of 5-6 people and answer 2-3 focus questions:

• What is going well with the implementation of the plan?

• What challenges are you encountering?

• What has changed in the environment that we need to be aware of?

Have them spend 20-30 minutes capturing their answers to the 3 focus questions and then have them report out to the whole group.

Take the time to build this network of contributors, because they will be able to cross institutional boundaries in service of the strategic plan.

In a relatively short period of time, you will have an amazing amount of strategic information that otherwise few leaders have access to.

By conducting chews and chats, a horizon thinking exercise, or an “adhocracy” group meeting, you will achieve two things:

• You will be smarter after the meetings because you will have strategic information.

• You’ll have communicated to campus stakeholders that you care about their ideas and value their input.

Conducting these meetings takes little time, produces helpful outcomes, and keeps the strategic planning process alive. Remember: the more people know, the smarter you will be. A strategic plan should not be a one-shot event conducted every 5-6 years, it should be an ongoing discussion, dialogue, and assessment about what is taking place throughout the campus, what is happening externally in the wider environment, and what it all means to stakeholders.

Understand and prepare for the first-year dilemma

After the strategic plan has been crafted and approved by the board, the real work of implementation

begins. There are two dynamics that institutional leaders need to be aware of if they are going to be

successful.

First, many institutions overload all the work of a five-year strategic plan into the first year. The intention

is to really get things moving and show progress. Unfortunately, our aspirations can get in the way of

implementation if we take on too much in the first year. Be conscious about what is realistic to accomplish

or your plan will get bogged down and never really lift off.

Second, other institutions run into the opposite dilemma. In this case, implementation is pursued too cautiously, and the first year is filled with research, data gathering, creating committees, analysis of data, etc. The plan gets bogged down with too much paper planning and nothing gets accomplished. In the first year, you have to make sure some things actually get done. This will give some real credibility, power, and resonance to the planning process. When people actually see and experience some successes, a natural momentum will be created. Avoid the “planning to plan” syndrome – it is death to many strategic planning processes.


30

Identify an “owner” for each strategic goal

Ideally, before the planning process begins, the president should communicate to the campus community that a high-level administrator (e.g., CFO, provost, executive vice president) will take responsibility for each strategic goal that emerges from the planning process.

Once identified, these “owners” are then responsible for the successful implementation of their specific goal. For example, the vice president of student affairs would own a strategic goal related to student life; the provost would take responsibility for the strategic goal of academic excellence; and the chief financial officer would be responsible for a goal related to financial sustainability.

While these senior leaders will need a great deal of support from others, they are publicly responsible for the successful implementation of their goal(s). This single point of accountability is essential to implementation.

A tip: create an easy-to-understand, visual chart that identifies all the institution’s strategic goals and the owner for each goal. Make this chart public by posting it on the campus intranet for review by stakeholders. Later, you can use this chart to mark progress towards the goals — make it a living document that gets updated periodically. This level of clarity and transparency will help improve the chances of the strategic plan being implemented.

Finally, each senior leader responsible for a strategic goal should provide the president with a summary of his or her current responsibilities and priorities (and the time allotted to each) along with a delegation plan for shifting some responsibilities to others in order to focus on implementing the part of the plan they will be responsible for.

This delegation plan will create the time and space for the senior leader to focus on implementation. The president cannot expect a leader to do their regular job in addition to the new and complex responsibilities involved with an important strategic goal.

This delegation process will show the president that the senior leader has developed the capacity of their direct reports to take on new and important work. These delegation plans need to be negotiated and sanctioned by the president and communicated to all cabinet members.

Use the PTF to support implementation

If the members of the PTF are stellar individuals, then you have created a built-in institutional mechanism that will support implementation. Because they have already put their hearts and minds into creating a highly collaborative, open and disciplined process, you have a built-in advocacy group for the implementation of the plan.

We would suggest that after the plan is written and before implementation really takes off, the president convene this group to review the strategic plan in some detail.

The PTF members know the institution well and most have real affection for the place; they will have plenty of ideas on how to implement the plan, manage expectations, and ensure effective communication processes, as well as how to measure success and how to make sure the plan is truly “lived” throughout the institution.


CONDUCT A PRE-MORTEM EXERCISE

PTF members could utilize the “pre-mortem” exercise to anticipate various issues that might

arise that would stall implementation — and to create effective strategies for dealing with

these anticipated challenges. See Appendix A for a description of this activity.

Reconvene the PTF yearly as part of the campus-wide review of the strategic plan. The planning task force should not be the only group that receives the review, but they should be among the first who do.

31


RESOURCES: MEETING DESIGNS AND OTHER TOOLS

We have collected a tool kit of well-tested meeting designs, exercises, and tools that will empower you to invite meaningful input from a broad set of campus stakeholders, evaluate strategic opportunities objectively, and engage stakeholders throughout the implementation of the strategic plan.

RESOURCE A: PRE-MORTEM ANALYSIS

RESOURCE B: FUTURE TIMELINE

RESOURCE C: CAROUSEL (SWOT ANALYSIS)

RESOURCE D: OPPORTUNITY MAPPING

RESOURCE E: CHEWS AND CHATS

RESOURCE F: PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENT

RESOURCE G: SAMPLE CONCEPT PAPERS

ADDITIONAL READING

32


RESOURCE A: PRE-MORTEM ANALYSIS

LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: MODERATE TO CHALLENGING DESIGNED BY PAT SANAGHAN, THE SANAGHAN GROUP

Background/ContextAfter the Goals Conference or other planning meetings where stakeholders create action plans to be

implemented, there is one strategic question that must be asked: “What could go wrong with this Action

Plan?” There is a natural tendency to avoid this kind of question, especially when people have worked hard

to create an action or implementation plan. They want to create some momentum by accomplishing some

things right away. The last thing they want to do is identify the hurdles or challenges to success. It feels

counter intuitive in many ways, but it is important to have the discipline to anticipate what could go wrong.

This design will help build strategic thinking and problem solving skills and increase the chances that you

will be successful with executing your strategic plans. We have found that it is best to utilize this design a

few days after a group has created an implementation or action plan. Some time is needed for a group to

digest their ideas and gain some psychological distance from their implementation plans. After a few days,

group members can be more objective about their ideas and more open to identifying the challenges they

might be facing. This design asks participants to anticipate potential hurdles and challenges by looking

forward then backward. It is a creative adaptation of “Monday morning quarterbacking “ where you give

flawless advice on how to win a game after it has been played. It also utilizes the highly interactive Carousel

Design to gather and prioritize the best ideas.

Logistics:Materials: Flipcharts, easels, enough magic markers for everyone, masking tape, timer, chimes, definitions

of terms, Carousel Design handout

Space Needs: Large, comfortable room where participants can move around easily and lots of usable wall

space

Time Frame: 2 hours

Number of Participants: 10-40

How to set up the design(We will use 30 participants as a model for this design)

The facilitator needs to setup six stations in the room that correspond to the six diagnostic elements.

33


The facilitator would create six mixed groups by asking participants to count off from one to six. This will give you six groups of five participants each. Make sure

everyone has a marker.

The facilitator’s directions to the participants

1. The facilitator would welcome participants and explain the purpose of the meeting; “Today we want to anticipate what could go wrong with our actions plans before we try to implement them”.

2. The facilitator would then communicate the following: “Imagine we are all back here one year from now. Although we have worked long and hard, we have failed to implement our proposed action plans. We are here today to diagnose what went wrong. We are going to look at six specific elements that blocked our successful implementation.

They are:

• Organizationalpolitics

• Organizationalculture

• Organizationalpriorities

• Resources(technology,money)

• People

• Communication

Organizational politics: This element deals with how decisions are made about what gets done in an organization. This is where who wants some things accomplished is more important than what needs to be done. It also deals with governance processes and what certain groups (e.g., faculty senate, trustees, cabinet) want or don’t want.

Organizational culture: This involves the organizational norms and values that influence behavior and decision making. It is “the way things get done around here” and is rarely explicit. Almost everyone clearly understands what gets rewarded and punished in their organization without openly discussing it.

Organizational priorities: These are the formal and informal goals and objectives of the institution. If an action plan is not aligned with where the organization wants to go, it will have many challenges. For example: if the trustees want to accomplish certain things that are in contrast to what the faculty or president thinks is possible or relevant, you have a problem. If the trustees want to have a national presence and the strategic goals are more regionally focused, there can be some friction.

Helpful Hint: The following definitions are common sense,informaldescriptions of the set of terms we want participants to understand. They might not meet your standardsand,inthatcase,pleasecome up with your own. Try not to get into making these terms too complicated. If you provide participants with a snapshot about what you mean,theywillbeable to create great information.

Station #1Organizational Politics

Station #2Organizational Culture

Station #3Organizational Priorities

Station #4Resources

Station #5People

Station #6Communication

34


Resources: These can be defined as money, technology, leadership attention, time, physical space. All the elements that are needed to support an action. It is important to think through what needs to be in place to successfully implement a plan.

People: This element has several strands: you have to have the right number of people necessary to implement an action plan. For example, if you are creating a new academic program, a certain number of faculty are needed to resource it; you also need the right kind of people to implement an action plan. Just having bodies isn’t enough. They have to be the right bodies. The People element also has to do with stakeholders (both internal and external) that can help or hurt the implementation of an action plan.

Communication: This element is the life blood of any organization. Without effective, efficient and robust information sharing, implementation will falter. Communication also has to be transparent and timely. People who don’t get information, don’t feel valued. They key to success is to create a variety of communication vehicles (face-to-face, internet, small and large group meetings, newsletters, etc.) that help keep people informed about what’s going on throughout an implementation process.

After the facilitator reviews the six elements, they should communicate the following:

“As you work in your groups, please think ahead one year from now and anticipate some of the reasons we were not successful. What blocks, challenges, or hurdles can you identify that might have gotten in our way?”

3. Instruct the group members to go to their assigned theme, with corresponding number and individually print their answers to their focus question. If someone agrees with someone else’ comments, they indicate this by checking off ( ) the statement. If they don’t agree, they put nothing down. This is not about group agreement; it is about individual data gathering.

After a few minutes, the facilitator rings the chimes and each group rotates clockwise to the next station. They read the information that has already been written down and individually check off all the ideas they agree with and add their own.

This process continues until each group has had the opportunity to provide their individual input for all six elements. This will only take about 20-30 minutes and will provide the entire group with a great deal of strategic information.

35


An example of the output from one of the pre-mortem elements might look like this:

Organizational Politics

• Weneveridentifiedthe“informal”leadersthatneededtobuyinto our implementation plan• Wenevergottherealbuy-infromthefacultyunion• We didn’t understand the complexity of the governance process• Thetrusteesweren’teducatedabouttheimplicationsofthestrategicplan• Competinginterestsonthecabinetstoppedanyrealprogress

4. At this stage, there are at least two options: 1) you can assign participants to a strategic element or 2) let them self-select an element they are interested in (our preference).

5. Inform each group that they have the following task: “In the next 30 minutes we would like you to come up with some strong recommendations that would effectively deal with the identified challenges for your element. Please use the information we have created to inform your thinking”.

6. After the 30 minutes, each group would make a presentation of their strong recommendations to the larger group for their review and feedback. The Organizational Politics presentation might look like this:

A. We never identified the informal leaders that needed to buy into our implementation plan• UsethePTFmemberstoidentifythelistof“informal”leadersthatwillbeessentialto

helping us be successful with implementing our action plan.• Invitetheseinformalleaderstoareviewmeetingaboutourproposedactionplanand

actively solicit feedback from them. The PTF co-chairs should host and facilitate this meeting.

• Askthemhowwecanbestkeeptheminformedaboutourprogressthroughouttheimplementation process.

• Provide opportunities throughout the implementation process to solicit their ideasand feedback, so this is not a one-shot deal.

B. We never got the real buy-in from the faculty union• TheimplementationteamfortheAcademicExcellenceactionplanneedstositdownwith

the president of the faculty senate and discuss how they can work together to facilitate the Academic Excellence goals.

• Eachmemberoftheimplementationteamneedstogeteducatedaboutthegovernanceprocess on this campus.

• Weneedtoscheduleregularupdatesatthemonthlyfacultysenateabouttheprogressof the action plan.

36


After all presentations have been completed, the key question to still be answered is who is going to do what. Just having a lot of good ideas isn’t enough. People have to commit to implementing them. Each diagnostic element needs an “owner” who will take the recommendations and move them forward. This does not mean they have to do everything that was recommended but they need to identify key people who could help implement the best ideas.

It is always a good idea to convene the same group 2-3 weeks later and report out the progress of the recommendations. This will do several things: communicate some successful efforts, build a sense of accountability that recommended actions will be paid attention to and develop the strategic notion that anticipating problems before they occur is a very smart thing to do.

ScheduleFacilitator welcomes participants, shares

purposes, and reviews definition of terms 10 minutes

Facilitator utilizes a counting-off method to

create six randomly mixed groups 5 minutes

The six groups rotate to all six stations and write

down their individual answers for each

diagnostic element 25 - 30 minutes

Groups self-select the diagnostic element they

are most interested in and create some

strong recommendations 30 minutes

Each group makes a presentation of their ideas

to the large group 20 - 25 minutes

Open discussion about who will follow through

with the recommendations 15 - 30 minutes

TOTAL TIME: APPROXIMATELY 2 HOURS

37


THE FUTURE TIMELINE DESIGN

LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: EASY TO MODERATEDESIGNED BY PAT SANAGHAN, THE SANAGHAN GROUP

Background/ContextThis meeting design enables small (10 people) and large (100+ people) groups to engage in “horizon thinking” to anticipate the future events, trends, and issues that could potentially impact or influence the institution over the next 5-10 years. It is a highly interactive, interesting, and informative design that makes everyone smarter about their institution’s future.

The primary goal of this design is to create a powerful database for strategic planning. It will help create snapshots of the future that can give leaders and stakeholders information on possible future scenarios.

One of the disciplines of strategic planning is to consistently look outward toward the external world. The more stakeholders understand the external realities, the more proactive they can be. Collaborative planning assumes that stakeholders throughout the institution, not just senior leadership, should engage in Horizon Thinking on a regular basis.

LogisticsMaterials: Post-its™, flipchart paper, magic markers and masking tape

Space needs: Large, comfortable room with usable (50 feet per timeline) of wall space

Time frame: 1.5 hours

How to set up the design(We will use 48 participants as a model for this design)The facilitator would have 10 sheets of flipchart paper taped to a wall in the room. The facilitator should make sure that each participant is given 10 Post-its™.

10 Post-its™per participant

38


Facilitator’s directions to the PTF“Please think about the future events, issues and trends that could impact or influence (either positively or negatively) the way Incredible University provides its services, conducts its business or how it operates over the next 10 years.” It is helpful to provide some definitions either on a flipchart or a hand-out. For example:

An event is a single occurrence (e.g., passage of a piece of legislation, retirement of a president or chancellor, election of a new mayor or governor

An issue is an important theme that has substantial power and influence to impact an institution (e.g., faculty compensation, student access, equity, use of adjunct faculty, technology in the classroom)

A trend is an ongoing set of circumstances that has consistency and momentum (e.g., student demographics, aging faculty, increased competition from non-profits, slowing down of the regional economy

The facilitator should briefly walk participants through the definitions and check for understanding. Then the facilitator should communicate the following:

• Please put down one event, trend or issues per Post-it™

• Please indicate if a trend or issue will last for awhile

• Legibility is important! Because we will review the Post-its™ in a few minutes

• When you are ready, please go to the Future Timeline and “populate” it. Put your

events, trends and issues in the year you believe they will occur

• If you come to the Timeline and see a Post-it™ that is similar to yours, please

check ( ) off the Post-it™ to indicate agreement and tear yours up. This way we

avoid redundant Post-its™ clogging up the Timeline. Make sure you check off the

appropriate Post-it™ so we capture your data.

Give participants about 15 minutes to think, write on their Post-its™ and populate the Timeline. At this time, you will have a tremendous amount of information that needs to be distilled and understood by everyone.

At this stage of the design, the facilitator would ask participants to create small, mixed groups of four people. You can have participants self-organize or use a counting-off method of one to 12 which will give you 12 groups of four participants each. (You have 48 participants)

The facilitator should give the following instructions:Please work with your group of four and review the Post-its™ on the Timeline. Your goal in the next 20 minutes is to search through all the information and “generally agree” on the three most important issues, events, or trends (three for each, three total) that Incredible University must manage effectively if it is to thrive in the future.

39


After the small groups have reviewed the Timeline and agreed on their top three issues, events and trends, the facilitator needs to create a master list on flipchart paper in full view of everyone. Once again, take one idea from each group using the round robin approach until all the ideas are captured. Check off similar ideas to begin to prioritize the list. Your list might look like this:

1. There will be a dramatic decrease in available students throughout the region

2. Technology costs will only increase due to the strong demand by students for cutting edge

technology

3. Our dependence on state funding is erratic

4. Student housing needs great improvement

5. Teaching in the classroom will be even more technology-based

6. Competition from non-profits (University of Phoenix, Laureate, Apollo) will greatly increase

7. Competition for top academic students will increase dramatically

8. Many of our current faculty will retire over the next decade

9. Deferred maintenance will get very expensive

10. President Seitz is planning to retire in two years

Even though you have 48 participants in this design, your master list will be around 10-15 prioritized themes. If you have a large group (e.g., 100 people) to work with, use two Future Timelines and two facilitators.

ScheduleFacilitator welcomes participants and explains the

purpose and directions for the design 10 minutes

Participants think about the events, trends and issues

that could impact the institution; write them on

Post-its™ and populate the Timeline 15 minutes

Participants self-organize or the facilitator uses a

counting-off method and puts people into working

groups of four participants 5 minutes

Small groups review the Timeline and generally agree

on top three issues/events/trends 20 minutes

Facilitator creates prioritized master list using a round

robin approach 15 minutes

TOTAL TIME: APPROXIMATELY 1-1 ¼ HOURS

40


RESOURCE C: CAROUSEL DESIGN (SWOT)

LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: EASY Background/ContextThis collaborative meeting design has been around for a long time and is one of the most effective and engaging designs we know. It is highly interactive and can be utilized for a variety of purposes to gather information about key questions (e.g. campus climate, ways to improve institutional communication, generate ideas about improving something). What makes it most valuable is that it is completely transparent. All ideas are shared openly and no one can control the outcome.

We will use the Carousel to conduct a S.W.O.T. analysis for Incredible University.

LogisticsMaterials: flipcharts, easels, magic markers for all participants (everyone needs to have

one), masking tape, timer and chimes or a bell

Space needs: large, comfortable room where participants can move around easily and

lots of usable wall space

Time frame: 45-60 minutes

Number of participants: 10-40

How to set up the design(We will use 40 participants as a model for this design)The facilitator would create four mixed groups of participants by having people count off from one to four. This will give you four groups of 10 participants each. It is important to make sure that every participant has a magic marker.

The facilitator would have the four focus questions clearly labeled on four different flipcharts stated around the room:

• What are the Strengths of our university?• What are the Weaknesses of our university/institution?• What are some of Opportunities you see that we should be taking advantage of?• What are some Threats we should be aware of?

Helpful Hint: For alargegroupof40,it would be helpful to have several flipcharts at each station so people are not waiting for others to finish writing their ideas. You can also use the wall space by taping some extra flipchart paper on the walls near the station. This will enable several people to write simultaneously.

41


The facilitator’s directions to the PTF

1. The goal for each group is to read their focus question at the top of their assigned flip chart and individually record their responses to the question directly on the flipchart. This is not about group agreement. We want individual responses. (This is why everyone has a magic marker)

If participants agree with another person’s ideas, they can indicate their agreement by checking off ( ) the idea.

2. Each group will have 4-5 minutes to read the focus question and, individually, record responses.

3. At the end of the allotted time, the facilitator should use a bell or chimes to signal to each group that they should move clockwise to the next station. Make sure everyone stays with their group while the rotation occurs.

4. Each group then reads the input from the previous group and individually checks off the ideas with which they agree and adds their own ideas to the list.

5. This process continues until all four groups have rotated to all four questions and individually recorder their responses.

6. Once all the questions have been answered, have each group return to the question where they first started. There will be a lot of new information added to their original question. Give them several minutes to read the new information and indicate their agreement by checking off the answers they agree with.

7. The last step in this design is to have each original group report out the top for or five answers for their focus question. These will be easily recognized by their check marks. Keep the report outs to 1-2 minutes.

8. Let participants know that all the information they created in the S.W.O.T. analysis will be captured in electronic form and that they will all receive a copy.

Helpful Hint: The facilitator needs to pay attention to all four groups and make sure people don’t start talking and agreeing or disagreeing about an idea getting put on the flipchart. You want to encourage individual responses as much as possible.

Helpful Hint: You do not have each group go back and do a complete second round and review all the answers to the focus questions. The activity will lose energy quickly (you want to avoid this) and participants will experience information overload. If participants ask why they don’t do a complete second round (thishappensrarely),providethem with the information above. It should suffice.

Helpful Hint: Any time you gather information from people you should always share the outcome with them. This is not only courteous but a guiding principle in collaborative planning. Transparencyofinformation,evendifficultinformation,is essential. There can be no secrets with this kind of planning.

All the data should be available to everyone on the Planning Task Force via their intranet web page.

42


The Planning Task Force’s actual S.W.O.T. analysis for Incredible University might look like this:

STRENGTHS

• Highqualityfaculty

• Agreatregionalreputation

• High-functioningcabinet

• Welovethestudents

• Greatfacilities

• Academicexcellence

• Commitmenttoaccess

• Commitmenttolifelonglearning

• Highcaliberboard

WEAKNESSES

• Studentlifeonweekendsisboring

• EnrollmentisweakintheCollegeofAlliedHealth

• Technologyisbecomingoutdated

• Lackofdiversityinfaculty

• Ourendowmentistoosmall

• Ourreputationisonlyregional

• Transferstudentsdon’tmakeithere

OPPORTUNITIES

• Localandregionalbusinessesneedjobtraininginareasweexcel

• Partnerwithanonline,forprofiteducationcompanytoputmanyof

our courses online

• UseourMBAstudentstocreateamassivemarketingprogramfor

Incredible

• Rateofcareerchangesinalifelineareincreasing,peoplewillneed

more education

• Adultstudentpopulationisincreasingdramatically

43


Schedule1. Facilitator welcomes participants, shares purpose and directions for activity 7 - 10 minutes

2. Facilitator utilizes a counting off method to create randomly mixed groups 2 minutes

3. The four groups answer the focus questions and rotate to all stations 20 minutes

4. Groups return to their original question and read the information and check off ideas they agree upon 5 minutes

5. Small groups select the top four or five ideas/answers for their focus question and prepare a brief presentation 5 minutes

6. Each small group makes a short presentation about their top four or five answers 5 - 7 minutes

7. Facilitator thanks participants and explains how the information will be utilized 2 minutes

TOTAL TIME: Approximately 45 - 60 minutes

THREATS

• ByrneUniversityhasbegunanursingprogramthatwillcompetewithours

• Deferredmaintenanceisagrowingproblemandwedon’tseemtohaveaplan

• Stateexpendituresforhighereducationarebeingreduced

• Fundraisingisexpensiveandverycompetitive

• Technologicalsecurityoncampus

• Changesintechnologywillincreaseobsolescenceandcost

• Numberofregionalhighschoolstudentsisdeclining

44


RESOURCE D: OPPORTUNITY MAPPING

LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: MODERATEDESIGNED BY PAT SANAGHAN, THE SANAGHAN GROUP

Overview:

This planning/thinking tool will help support sound decision-making. The primary purpose of the mapping is to capture participants’ anonymous thinking and create the opportunity for an open discussion and evaluation of an opportunity for the institution. The activity has several steps, each of which needs careful attention.

First, the “opportunity” needs to be described in some detail to ensure that participants in the decision-making process understand what is being proposed.

Second, participants must agree on the criteria for deciding to pursue the opportunity prior to any assessment of or “voting” on the opportunity. The group needs to spend time discussing what criteria are appropriate for this specific situation.

If at all possible, try to create criteria that have the same “weight” or importance. You want to avoid the situation where one or two of the criteria are significantly more important than the others.

In some cases, you might want a combination of “hurdle” criteria, which present a very high standard that must be met (e.g., “plays to our institutional strengths,” “we trust these people,” “the potential pay off is high”) and “preference” criteria, which present a lower standard but one that is still important to consider (e.g., “these people will be easy to work with given their experience”).

We recommend keeping the criteria succinct and simple, and restricting the group to a set of 5-8 criteria. More than that, and the discussion of the opportunity will get bogged down with complexity and information overload.

Next, the group needs to agree on a grading scale and clearly define the terms of the scale. For example, if the group will grade an opportunity between “very poor and “very good,” ensure that the group members are in agreement about what a “poor” looks like vs. a “very good.” Some people’s ideas of what “very good” look like can be dramatically different than others. Take the time to get everyone on the same page.

Once the criteria and the grading scale are defined, the opportunity mapping can take place. It is almost always helpful to have a neutral facilitator guide the discussion.

Logistics

Materials: Flip charts, easel, magic markers, opportunity map handoutSpace needs: A comfortable room with plenty of wall spaceTime frame: 2 hoursNumber of participants: 6-12

45


Setting up the activity

The facilitator describes the opportunity that is being assessed (the president can contribute to this information-sharing but should not be lobbying) and reviews the voting process, the criteria, and the grading scale.

The facilitator then hands out copies of a worksheet for the opportunity map, with the criteria and grading clearly identified.

Individually, and anonymously, each member of the cabinet scores the opportunity and hands in their sheet to the facilitator.

The facilitator then plots the scores on a piece of flip chart paper.

The visual graphing allows everyone to “see” the proposed opportunity, so as to inform a robust discussion.

In the example provided above, it is obvious that one individual (probably the president) sees the opportunity very differently than the other group members. Notice that there are also a lot of question marks, indicating that several members need more information in order to grade the opportunity. (The president or a content expert may need to step in at this point to provide the appropriate information.)

Once the responses have been graphed, the facilitator encourages an open discussion about the scores by reviewing the grading and soliciting responses from the group members.

Caveat: This will obviously not work with a president who doesn’t like to hear “no” for an answer. However, this is an excellent activity to use in cases in which the president really wants input from their cabinet or team, and is open to being influenced by others. We have seen this design create an honest and open discussion and help support good decision-making in about 75-80 percent of the occasions in which we have seen it used.

Note that even if you have a somewhat autocratic leader, this activity will at least ensure that they will be more well-informed going forward.

This process is not meant to counter the president’s aspirations; it is meant to invite a more holistic and disciplined approach to important institutional decisions. The activity is especially helpful in evaluating special “initiatives” suggested by the president, the board, or a generous benefactor. This process also works well for assessing opportunities at the level of a particular division or department.

They have excellent experiencein higher education

Will increase our market presence

This will help make us more competitive

We trust their reputation

We know about this compan

Don’t Know

y

46


Schedule

Facilitator reviews the opportunity, criteria, and grading scale: 15-20 minutes

Participants anonymously score the opportunity: 10 minutes

Participants hand the scores in to the facilitator, who plots the scores openly, in full view of everyone:

10-12 minutes

If appropriate (i.e., if there are lots of question marks), further information is shared about the

opportunity: 10-15 minutes

Facilitator reviews the mapping and solicits individual responses to generate discussion: 30-45 minutes

As appropriate, the group or president then makes the final decision.

Total time: approximately 1.75 hours

Additional notes

With an important institutional decision (such as entering into a new partnership with an external entity), it is always helpful to convene two separate groups — one consisting of the cabinet and the other consisting of a cross-functional set of credible institutional leaders who are not members of the cabinet — and have them assess the same opportunity. Both groups would follow the same process.

The two groups could then meet to discuss their findings and make recommendations for going forward.

This approach helps avoid a “group think” mentality in which a false consensus is reached because the cabinet members anticipate the final outcome (what the president wants) without really considering alternative courses of action. Involving the second group provides some real rigor for the final decision.

47


RESOURCE E: CHEWS AND CHATS

Here is a simple meeting design that anyone can facilitate to help glean the best practices from those attending. Let’s say we have 50 people at a meeting. Make sure that you have some food (that’s why it’s called a “chew and chat”). Then divide the 50 people into small, diverse groups of 6-8 participants each. You don’t want people sitting with others from their department/division/unit, but with people with whom they wouldn’t normally compare notes, people with whom they would not even usually communicate. Get a good mix of people at each table.

At each table, have participants volunteer for the following “self managed” roles:

• A facilitator, whose job is to keep things moving and people involved

• A timekeeper, whose job is to keep the group gently aware of time

• A recorder whose job is to capture the group’s output on the flip chart

• A presenter, whose job is to make the group’s presentation to the larger group

Provide each table with an easel and flip chart, and then give them 30 minutes to address two focus questions

• “Please talk about something you have done or seen done in your area that has helped move the

strategic planning process forward.”

• What challenges are you experiencing with the implementation of the plan?

Have participants capture their ideas on flip charts and report them out to the larger group. Make sure you capture all the information on the flip charts and distribute this to all who attended. In fact, it is helpful to put this information on the campus intranet so anyone can access the information.

After reporting out, allow 20-30 minutes of large group discussion of everyone’s reactions to the small group reports

You could conduct a short (1.5 hours) meeting like this quarterly; invite different people each time, and easily engage 200+ stakeholders per year.

48


RESOURCE F: PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENTOne of the biggest concerns boards have is conducting a comprehensive, informative, and current environmental scan. Many board members are leaders of competitive businesses where paying attention to shifting consumer demands, demographics, and emerging technologies is a primary responsibility for them. They want the institutional plan to be well-informed about the complex external environment it lives in.

For this reason, one of the most effective ways to utilize the talent and experience of board members is to create a “planning assumptions” report. This report helps create a shared understanding of the current and potential future environment among campus stakeholders and the board.

Briefly, planning assumptions are:

Temporary estimates of the external environment over which you have no controlNot facts, but important information to be consideredPowerful and important trends that the institution needs to pay attention toGeneral, not detailed, pictures of the current reality and possible future worldThe issues, trends, and forces that could potentially impact the institutionThe following are some “conceptual buckets” or types of information that together can provide a framework for the planning assumptions report. These would be filled in with the appropriate information to fully inform campus stakeholders and create a shared picture for the institution.

• Demographics

• Legislation/regulation

• Economic trends

• Enrollment

• Competition

• Technology

• Global and national issues

• Social trends

• Teaching and learning

• Resources and facilities

We suggest you restrict these “conceptual buckets” to 10 themes or less. The point is not a laundry list of all the things that need to be paid attention to by campus stakeholders and the board, but to identify the most important themes and issues that need to inform the planning process going forward.

The board itself is a great place to begin generating some of the information that will go into the planning assumptions document. For example, the president or PTF co-chairs could conduct a special meeting of the board that would solicit board members’ perspective and knowledge regarding the priority conceptual buckets. This keeps the board meaningfully involved but also at arm’s length regarding the planning process. Obviously, the board cannot be the sole source of information, but they are a strategic resource to be utilized.

49


The cabinet, or a subset of the planning task force, could be given the responsibility of creating the planning assumptions report. Keep it to a reasonable length (4-5 pages) and keep the report layperson-friendly. This is not a report that is meant to dazzle the reader with obscure or complicated information or with complex charts. Keep it simple. For example, here are some statements that illustrate the type of planning assumptions you want to identify, and how you will want to communicate them in the report:

• “Regionally, our high school graduation rates are flat or declining. We anticipate this will

continue for the rest of the decade.”

• “Incredible University, our main competitor, is starting a new MBA program for mid-career

executives.”

• “The state legislation is very interested in outcomes-based institutional scorecards and is

discussing funding allocations tied to identifiable performance.”

• “Online education will have a pervasive effect on us over the next five years. We will have

to invest heavily in a high-quality online experience or partner with a credible and trusted

technology partner.”

50


RESOURCE G: SAMPLE CONCEPT PAPERS

CONCEPT PAPER: ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE

Background

As a small regional university in the extremely competitive academic marketplace of [our region], the University faces poor student retention, declining resources for programs, faculty and students, and increasing demands for academic specialization, especially in professional programs outside of its traditional strengths in the liberal arts and education.

• According to commonly recognized measures of academic success, the University has performed

poorly. The fall to fall retention rate for the class of starting in the Fall of 2010 was approximately

59%. The six year graduation rate for the University has hovered at 44%. There has been little

significant movement in these measures over the past five years. These rates put the University in

the lowest quartile for institutions in our region. (See Campus Life paper for additional details.)

• The University currently offers 39 undergraduate majors, while most schools of similar size offer

a greater variety of majors. The numbers of declared majors has risen in the natural sciences,

remained generally unchanged in business, and declined in education and the humanities. Recent

change from 4 credit hour system to 3 credit hour system will enable the University students to

add a minor and/or a second major.

• The University’s focus for the past four to six years has been on athletics and facilities,

specifically building of new residence halls, academic building and student center. Concurrently,

the instructional spending declined in absolute terms and relative to other areas of University

spending. With the rising reliance on adjunct faculty and the freezing of faculty positions, the ratio

of students to full time faculty has declined to 40 to 1, which is poorer than any of the schools with

which the University competes for student, with the exception of Neighboring State University.

• According to data for 2010-11, 38% of the University’s undergraduate students received Pell Grants.

The Federal Pell grant provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain post-

baccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education. Over 40% of new incoming

freshmen are involved in athletics, although the vast majority of them do not receive athletic aid.

• According to the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) conducted in the spring 2011,

95% of freshmen and 98% of seniors report that their academic experience is good or excellent.

Overall, the NSSE data demonstrate that students’ academic experiences are equal to or better

than the national average. In the NSSE survey, students rated academic content and faculty

preparedness and performance as higher than average. Data from the recent survey conducted by

Noel-Levitz suggest that current students are satisfied with the University’s academic programs,

but faculty members and staff appear to believe academics at the University are not adequate.

(Student Satisfaction Inventory, 2011)

51


• Regarding undergraduate programs, the University currently does not promote any undergraduate

academic majors as signature or destination programs. New undergraduate programs have

generally been organic outgrowths of existing programs, with the exception of a major in Exercise

Science added a few years ago. The core curriculum includes seven defined learning outcomes for

undergraduates, although these are not explicitly assessed to measure basic academic achievement

for all Bachelors graduates.

• Enrollment in the University’s non-traditional adult program, has declined to less than 500 students,

from a high in 2005 of over 800. This decline is due to lack of market identity, perceived lack of

academic rigor, and of lack of distinctive academic programming. The drop-out rate for this program

averages approximately 50% of the new enrollment starts in any given month. Enrollment in the

University’s graduate programs has remained stable but appears to suffer from the same issues as

the adult program.

• Academic support resources have been scarce in recent years. For example, academic support and

advising budgets have not kept pace with the needs and size of the incoming classes. The University

compensates its adjuncts at $2100 per three credit course, which is below the industry standard even

for comparable sized institutions in the region. The positions for Director of Institutional Research

and for Director of the Center for Instructional Technology have been unfilled for a number of years,

impeding the University’s ability to analyze trends internally and externally and to address the

learning expectations of incoming students.

• Faculty perceive themselves as overworked due to increasing class sizes, committee service

demanded of an undersized faculty, insufficient support for administrative tasks and for research,

and the recent imposition of an additional course per year from six to seven (even though the credit

hour load decreased from 24 to 21). Class size caps have been rising in recent years, with many now

set at 25 to 30 (or more) for lower level classes. Thus, faculty morale is down due to lack of annual

salary increases, enhanced work load expectations, and unstable leadership in senior administrators.

Lessons Learned

While it is tempting to take comfort in student reports of engagement and academic satisfaction, the enrollment trends, retention rates and graduation rates can only be interpreted as evidence that academic programs at the University are not attractive to applicants and fail to serve enrolled students’ needs. Numerous factors contribute to lackluster academic results, including the low incoming student profile, too few faculty with too few resources, and the lack of academic innovation in recent years. All of these issues are interrelated so that all need to be addressed simultaneously to improve the academic quality of the University. Additionally, poor retention rates adversely impact financial stability at the University, which has been a longstanding problem as well.

52


Many Strengths:

Despite the under-investment in academics, the University has a number of strengths that provide a solid foundation upon which to grow and develop the academic programs. First and foremost, the faculty is devoted and well-qualified. They are committed to students at all levels as individuals — and to challenging and supporting them in their learning and personal development. The University has many good academic programs as well as strong institutional leadership now in place. Finally, as evidenced by the high and passionate response to the strategic planning data gathering phase, the University community as a whole has a powerful desire to improve and move forward.

The Need for an Academic Identity:

A major challenge is that the University is not perceived as distinctive, either by its students, faculty and staff or by outsiders. The Strategic Plan data gathered in the fall reveal that the University does not stand out markedly from the other higher education institutions in our region. Its reputation appears to be as a solid academic institution. The CORE academic seminars and the general education learning outcomes evidently do not provided an academic identity or distinctive theme that resonates with current or potential students. At the least, the absence of a clear academic identity in the minds of stakeholders, both within and beyond the University, demonstrates that the University has not been successful in promoting the benefits of its curriculum and academic experience. A clear academic identity, including signature learning experiences and/or programs, will allow the University to distinguish itself in the marketplace and set priorities for allocating its limited resources to establish and enhance the academic strengths.

The Need for Demonstrated Academic Quality:

The data-gathering revealed a perception in the community that the University is not necessarily worth the tuition costs and, more particularly, that the University is not offering high quality programs and opportunities. While the concern is valid, it also reflects a widely-held skepticism regarding the cost and value of higher education. Although the NSSE data suggest widespread satisfaction among currently enrolled students, given the low student profile, this satisfaction must be weighed prudently against objective measures such as retention rate, resources, faculty metrics and academic program outcomes.

The Need to Innovate:

The University enjoyed a reputation for innovation and academic quality throughout most of its history, but which has waned in the past decade. The University now must reevaluate its place in the wider higher education ‘marketplace’ to assure that its academic offerings are meeting current needs. Some traditionally strong programs at the University have not maintained their reputation for quality and cutting-edge pedagogy and new programs have been more likely to be program extensions rather than new disciplines, with some exceptions such as exercise science, environmental science and the Physician Assistant program. The lack of innovation has hampered the University’s ability to compete with peer institutions, to attract and retain quality students to graduation and, hence, to maintain financial and intellectual health. Faculty do their best to offer quality programs and courses to our students, but for too long have operated under the philosophy of “do more with less” in recent years. One particularly glaring omission is courses utilizing robust online and hybrid pedagogies in every curriculum area. The University is also lagging behind other institutions in basic technology infrastructure and technology to enhance teaching and learning. Academic innovation is essential given the new initiative to raise the academic admissions standards over the next few years as stronger students will have higher expectations for their academic experience.

53


External Picture – Regional and National Factors:

The landscape of higher education is changing more radically than almost any other segment of society in the nation and the world. The following items are highlighted specifically because of their direct relevance to the University.

• New educational delivery models are rapidly emerging and challenging traditional

campus-based classroom learning. Information technology has revolutionized educational

expectations from online and hybrid delivery, to open course materials and the shared generation

of content, to creative learning assignments and, finally, unlimited access to students, and

communities at any location around the globe.

• Traditional liberal arts colleges and universities are increasingly required to demonstrate

the previously unquestioned priority of the humanities and a liberal curriculum. With concerns

about tuition value and focus on educational institutions as partners with the government in

‘workforce’ preparation, the focus on basic knowledge and skills has become hard to justify,

especially to first generation and lower income students anticipating heavy debt burdens

• According to recent data from College Board, the majors that students desire include:

biological sciences, special education, engineering, creative writing, health professions, applied

math, environmental sciences and criminal justice/enforcement. Preferences for architecture,

business management, communications and journalism, education, foreign languages, legal

professions, philosophy/religious studies and visual and performing arts are declining.

• In the United States, transfer student numbers are on the rise as students attend more than

one school in order to complete their degrees.

• Of the 25 competing schools that our applicants most frequently also apply to, 23 are in

our region and four are in our city. (Analysis by Admission Office.)

• Standards imposed by governmental oversight and accreditors have increased the

administrative burden on all universities and consequently increased the cost to deliver education

(without direct perceived benefit by students).

Strategic Themes

A deeper review of data on academic quality (from the Data Gathering event) surfaced seven themes relevant to the educational experience at the University. Enrollment and revenue stabilization will result from success on these individual initiatives.

Theme 1 – Distinctiveness – Liberal Arts CoreDistinctiveness can be derived from the University’s liberal arts core, from particular programs or from an all encompassing emphasis such as service learning, civic engagement, global outreach or even Dominican education to transform others. Any unifying themes will be the narrative for students’ personal and academic growth, extending into every aspect of their experience, especially academics. The seven core competencies ought to be (1) articulated into clear language that incorporates the theme, and (2) integrated into all of the academic programs, in the syllabi and other academic documents, so that students see the value of the work they are doing in the classroom. These themes open many possibilities – a revival of service learning, a program that was prominent here in the late 1990s, enhanced study abroad programs, the development of more and better internship and field work experiences for our students, enhanced program development in the area of nonprofits, social service, ministry, health care, business, and education in light of the theme, etc. An office that coordinates these service options would be necessary to make the theme work across the campus, and the theme would need to be a centerpiece of our marketing efforts. More discussion of this theme can be found in the Lessons Learned sections.

54


Theme 2 – Value and QualityAs discussed in Lessons Learned, the University has not been able to demonstrate convincingly the distinctive value of the programs it offers. This is a problem for the University, as well as all other universities and colleges in the current economic market. To the extent that graduates of the University are satisfied with their education and are prepared for the next stage of their lives, this must be clarified and expressed to promote student enrollment and retention. Beyond perception, objective measures of the academic quality of our faculty, programs and students are scarce. These must be established through benchmarking against peer and aspirational institutions, allocation of resources against measurable goals and critical assessment of progress.

Theme 3 – Delivery ModelsThe delivery of academic programs is currently as vital to quality as content. Recent national reports indicate a high correlation between student learning and the participation in service learning opportunities. Moreover, universities of the ‘21st century’ must incorporate technology into academics to support teaching, learning and research. This not only enhances academic engagement, but prepares graduates to use technology in the workplace. The point is not technology for its own sake, but technology as a tool for academic excellence as well as access for underserved communities. The University must give priority attention and resources to diversify its academic delivery formats.

Theme 4 – Connection to WorkplaceMore and more, students, education stakeholders, and the public demand that higher education fulfill the role of workforce development. Rather than rejecting this role, the University can maintain its liberal arts tradition along with increased attention to employment preparation. Research is necessary to determine what knowledge, skills and dispositions are demanded in the workplace and necessary for professional success. The education offered at the University will be more valuable when students know that their education is the path for lifelong productivity and employers in the region learn how well our graduates are prepared for employment. This connection must be developed more visibly and explicitly.

Short and Long Term PlansThe Academic Excellence Committee discussed both strategic approaches and tactical fixes to enhance and improve the academic quality of the University, and thus contribute to stable enrollment and fiscal health. As with every good plan, the beginning rests on research to determine what is currently happening at the University and in the marketplace, followed by a clear, measurable plan to improve and then re-evaluate. The following activities will provide intentional growth in academics, both in terms of the quality and marketability of programs.

Æ Distinctiveness/Liberal Arts Core: Analyze the substance of current academic programs, with special attention

to distinctiveness, clarity and coherency across the curriculum and the whole institution.

� Identify current academic strengths that can also provide a foundation for future growth.

� Identify centers of excellence, whether this is a cluster of academic programs or a type of student experience.

� Determine a theme to unify and articulate student educational and campus experience, which applies

appropriately to grad, traditional and adult programs.

� Create business plans and provide new resources, including leadership and personnel, to develop and sustain

new programs, according to initial analysis.

55


Æ Value/Quality: Assess the strength of current academic offerings against learning outcomes created internally as

well as those demanded by stakeholders.

� Improve information for current and prospective students about the benefits and actual costs of education.

� Survey graduates and employers to determine value/quality claims and post on web.

� Include core curriculum in the Academic Assessment initiative, including determining how and where to

assess core learning outcomes.

� Minimize cost increases passed on to students through technology utilization, electronic resources, and

creative delivery models for current courses.

� Benchmark students, faculty and programs against industry standards as well as universities recognized as

outstanding.

Æ Delivery Models: Create a comprehensive plan to assure that the University remains on the leading edge of

instructional design, delivery and research.

� Evaluate current online and hybrid offerings to determine quality measures.

� Develop phased plan to grow internal facility for learning and teaching innovations based on market demand

and best practices in higher education.

� Research and implement learning innovations in classroom pedagogy and student engagement through

faculty and student development.

� Integrate this item with strategic initiative concerning technology.

Æ Connection to the Workplace: Solidify University relationships with employers and the regional community to

assure that our graduates are in demand for their knowledge, skills and dispositions.

� Develop regular surveys and other data collection practices for information about professional employment

opportunities and employer needs.

� Coordinate activity between Academic Affairs and Career Services to capitalize on existing advantages in

graduates at all levels.

� Create plan to improve the perception of our graduates in the region, to develop the skills for

initial employability in addition to content knowledge, and to educate potential employers about the value of

a liberal arts education.

Sustained improvement is difficult without additional resources of time and money. Compared to peer institutions, and as a result of the under-investment in academics, the problems associated with stagnation and low academic quality are now endemic. The University must find ways to enhance its financial resources so that it can reinvest in academics. Enhanced resources will be essential to address each of the major themes that emerged from the Strategic Planning Steering Committee’s work thus far.

56


CONCEPT PAPER: COMMUNICATIONS

Introduction and Background

Communication comes in many forms: listening, speaking, texting, emailing and writing. There are many facets: observing, questioning, analyzing, evaluating, understanding and providing feedback. Effective communication is important in any relationship whether business or personal. Anonymous Community College, not unlike other colleges, has been interested in improving the effectiveness of communication among employees and stakeholders for several years. With the transition of accreditation tracks, Anonymous Community College initiated survey processes, as well as campus training on communication in the past seven years. The first employee satisfaction survey helped identify a need to focus on better communication between campuses, area administration, and organizational levels. Most recently, the College’s strategic planning process has identified a need for more effective communication. The purpose of this paper is to provide information learned from previous surveys and the current strategic planning process that may shed light on opportunities for improving the effectiveness of our communications both internally and externally with employees, students and our many partners outside the institution.

Anonymous Community College designed its first college-wide employee satisfaction survey in 2002. It was based on a gap analysis that asked employees to rate the College’s current communication process and to identify how this process would ideally work. This survey was administered in 2003, 2004 and 2005 in a hard copy format. The data obtained from these surveys was used to develop quality improvement action projects to support accreditation academic quality improvement program (AQIP) Strategy forum activities and to guide the continuous quality improvement team’s (CQIT) role in continuous quality improvement (CQI).

Over the three years in which the employee satisfaction survey was conducted, the following issues were identified:

Large gap issues (indicates need for improvement):

1. A need to improve communication between Anonymous Community College administration and

subordinate campuses and individuals.

2. A need to increase the program external image promotion and program awareness.

3. A need to improve aspects of physical plant, such as climate control.

Small gap issues (indicates little need for change):

1. The perception of the rigor of Anonymous Community College courses.

2. The cost of Anonymous Community College courses.

3. Employee workload.

4. Employee satisfaction with their work in general.

In 2006, the CQIT requested that the Issues Questionnaire be redeveloped and updated. The survey was redesigned with input from several action project teams and the CQIT. The updated survey was then piloted in late 2006 and administered college-wide in February of 2007. This was the first college-wide survey to be administered on-line. After further refinement, along with the hiring of the Institutional Research Coordinator in 2008, the survey was redesigned again into the Employee Engagement Survey. This initial pilot of the current survey (Survey of Communication Improvement and Professional Development) was administered in early 2009. Based on feedback from the pilot survey, the fully updated version (Employee Engagement Survey) was administered in September 2009. The two most consistent issues discovered over all surveys administered over the past seven years include the need to improve communications both up and down the chain of command and a general satisfaction with work at ACC.

57


The training and development department of the College provided communications training for all full-time employees based on the results of the first three employee satisfaction surveys in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The College invested 7,000 person hours and 87% of the full-time employees participated in the training. At the same time, the Continuous Quality Improvement Team established a suggestion box which is still used today to gather anonymous suggestions for improving topics of interest like communications.

More recently, the College put more emphasis on improved communications by identifying improved communications as one of the four quality improvement campaigns in 2008-2009. The communications campaign committee completed an employee survey with the goal of identifying the structure and purpose of all college-wide committees along with current membership. Additionally, the committee explored more effective methods of distributing meeting minutes to all employees electronically.

Current Strategic Planning Process

Anonymous Community College has embarked on its next five year strategic plan. Communications has been identified as one of six areas on which to focus. The current planning process for the 2010-2015 strategic plan was initiated in May 2009 when consultant Pat Sanaghan met with employees to outline the process for developing the plan during the current academic year. Individual employees were nominated or volunteered to participate the in strategic planning task force which consists of 45 members from all three campuses, learning centers and area administration. Both full-time and part-time employees serve on the task force.Each of the three campuses and area administration has a team which collected feedback from several stakeholders: faculty, staff, administration, students, external education partners, business/industry and employers. A series of questions were developed over a two day planning process with the task force in August. These questions coupled with a S.W.O.T. analysis were used to collect information from these stakeholder groups throughout the 25 county service area of Anonymous Community College from September to October. A variety of techniques were used to asked the questions in the information gathering process and included a survey to external groups and a either a carousel design or interviews with employees and students. The task force met again to review the input from all groups in all locations and from this meeting six topics were evident for the College to focus on for the development of the 2010-2015 strategic plan including communications.

Lessons Learned

Anonymous Community College conducted several information gathering activities during the past few months from students, employees and external stakeholders. Among the results of the collected information can be found the following trends and themes: External constituents – Schools, businesses and community members have indicated that:

• Personal relationships and continued communication and collaboration are vital for ACC to maintain

our strengths and address opportunities.

• To take advantage of growth opportunities in the enrollments of on-line, distance and dual-credit

courses, Anonymous Community College must communicate well in its partnerships with other

community colleges, local business and industry, local employers, four-year institutions and local high

schools.

• To understand the needs of the business community, Anonymous Community College needs to

continue to communicate with area advisory committees.

• In meeting the needs of minority students, it was deemed important to have informational materials

for minority students available, as well as bilingual instructors, staff and interpreters on hand. The

college also needs to reach out to other nontraditional populations such as students with disabilities

and older workers.

58


Internal constituents (ACC employees) – A significant percentage of employees responding to ACC’s Employee Satisfaction Survey indicated these trends about the current level of communication with the various leadership divisions within the college.

2009 Employee Engagement Survey Selected Items*The percentages listed in the table represent employees responses to either strongly agree and agree to the

communication topic.

The highest percentage of responses by employees to the following questions indicated a “Neither agree nor disagree”:

Æ Successfully delivers difficult news to employees

� College Cabinet leadership (42.7%)

� Campus Cabinet leadership (43.5%)

Æ Encourages and supports my input and feedback


� Campus Cabinet Leadership (38.5%)

Æ My input and feedback is listened to and valued by



Æ Overall I am satisfied with the communication from



With regard to competition between the campuses, poor communication or a lack of communication has been identified as one of the causes. The size and distance between campuses is a factor to consider, as well as the duplication of programs on more than one campus. The physical barriers that exist between Anonymous Community College’s three campuses could have a direct relationship with the poor communication issues the employees have addressed. Employees often feel that there are issues related to decision making in a top-down fashion without stakeholder input. Other communication improvement comments addressed the need for additional opportunities to interact with coworkers on the other campuses as well as with employees from the Area Administration in face-to-face situations. When asked about our minority student population, faculty and staff felt that in order to better communicate with these students there needs to be training/language classes provided and/or available to staff and instructors.

2009 Employee Engagement Survey Selected Items

Leadership Level*

Communication Topic College Cabinet Campus Cabinet Direct Supervisor

Communicates Openly and Honestly 42.5% 51.5% 80.6%

Communicates Goals, Values and Mission 55.3% 55.7% 70.1%

Communicates Important Issues in Timely Manner

34.7% 43.4% 70.3%

59


Staff and faculty alike desired to improve communication with our student population by allowing each area to make its own decisions.

Internal constituents (ACC students) -

Student respondents indicated that they would appreciate more information and details about ACC certificate/licensure requirements including the classes needed for a major and the availability of classes on other campuses. Providing students with more information about the ACC campus on which they attend classes and/or live on including detailed maps, lists of activities and campus organizations was also listed by students.Improved advisor-advisee communication was addressed by the student respondents as was the communication between the college and learning center students, including feedback from the instructor, offerings on campus, cost of books and internet information.

Strategic Priorities

The following communication themes were identified from lessons learned:

• Improve overall communication both inter-campus and intra-campus (efficiency of email from the

sender and the receiver between faculty, staff and student role; encourage active listening skills;

promote direct communication);

• Identify key external relationships and promote continued communication and collaboration as a vital

part for ACC to maintain strengths and address opportunities;

• Evaluate strategies to explore growth opportunities in enrollments of on-line, distance and dual-credit

courses by partnering with other community colleges, local businesses and industries, local employers,

four-year institutions and high schools;

• Promote outreach to minority students on-campus and online by providing training for faculty on

ethnic diversity, secure readily available translators and encourage development of multi-lingual

programs; and

• Provide broader informational booklets/websites to incoming students including detailed maps of

campuses, information about campus activities and organizations, descriptive guidelines for the

various plans of study and realistic guidelines for completion of said programs, general information

about student’s city of residence.

60


Strategic Tasks

The issue of communication is not new at Anonymous Community College. It seems to have a recurring urgency as a top priority through surveys completed by employees (i.e. Employee Satisfaction Survey, Issues Questionnaire and Employment Engagement Survey).

As a valued employer to faculty and staff, ACC will need to focus on the following:

• Improve communication between campuses by bringing employees together in decision making

processes;

• Integrate faculty and staff on college committees to utilize the strengths of all its employees;

• Have administration more accessible to employees and listen to their ideas/concerns not just by

email or through campus forums, but more face-to-face communication in small settings or one-

on-one; and

• Empower department faculty and staff to communicate decisions concerning their students to

promote a positive outcome through the guidance of administration.

As a valued college to its students, ACC will need to focus on the following:

• Improve communication between faculty and students; especially those taking classes through the

web and learning centers;

• Have information about campus organizations and activities made available to students through

various delivery systems;

• Address the concern students have in communicating with their advisor; and

• Implement a way to communicate more detailed information about classes to students concerning

costs, supplies and internet information.

As a valued institution to its external stakeholders, ACC will need to focus on the following:

• Foster personal relationships and collaborations with external stakeholders to address

opportunities and needs in the county area;

• Keep the lines of communication open to promote our online and distance learning opportunities

to schools, business and industry;

• Have formal and informal meetings with advisory groups to understand the needs in our

communities; and

• Supply information about ACC to minority groups, people with disabilities, older workers, etc. to

meet their educational/vocational needs and have interpreters readily available when needed.

61


SUGGESTED READINGThe Predictable Failure of Strategic Planning – J. Martin Hays

This is an excellent paper on the myriad reasons strategic planning fails to live up to its promise. Hays’ key premise is that if the “implementers” don’t interpret and adapt the plan, it really doesn’t matter what the plan tries to accomplish. He also talks about the nuts and bolts of implementation (training, translating high-level objectives to day-to-day real work, including people in the process, team building).

More Hearts and Minds at the Table – Patrick Sanaghan (NACUBO, Business Officer, 2009)

This short article describes the five phases of a “collaborative” strategic planning process that has worked with a diverse set of institutions in the United States and overseas. The article provides the reader with a set of collaborative planning principles that can inform their thinking as they begin to create their own strategic planning process. The five phases are easy to understand and provide an effective yet simple framework for leaders who are interested in creating real engagement with their planning process.

The Geography of Trust – Saj-Nicole A. Joni – (Harvard Business Review, March 2004)

The author identifies three levels of trust leaders need to be aware of as they seek honest information and feedback about their ideas and their effectiveness from others.

Personal trust: This is where the leader seeks out the advice and opinions of people because of their level of integrity. The leader judges how much they trust a person by asking questions like: Is this person honest and ethical? Do they keep their word? Are they well-intentioned? This level of trust is earned.

Expertise trust: This is where the leader trusts the individual’s competence and mastery of a particular subject or process. Unlike personal trust, the parameters of expertise trust tend to be limited to a particular content area. High expertise trust exists when the leader can ask the following questions in the affirmative: Is this person an expert in their field? Knowledgeable? Up to date? Possesses credible information?

Structural trust: The author differentiates this kind of trust as residing mostly outside the leader’s organization. These advisors are not self-serving and do not have hidden agendas. They provide the leader with “outside insight” — which inoculates leaders against myopia and can be excellent sounding boards for sensitive issues with far reaching ramifications.

As leaders build and nurture trust on their campuses, these three different levels can help them when seeking advice.

The Enemies of Trust – Robert Galford and Anne Seibold Drapeu (Harvard Business Review, February 2003)

The authors communicate that it takes more than personal integrity to build a trusting and trustworthy organization. They identify three different kinds of trust:

Strategic trust: This is the kind of trust employees have in the people running the show to make the right strategic decisions.

Personal trust: The trust employees have in their own leaders. Do the leaders treat employees fairly? Do they consider the needs of employees when making decisions?

62


Organizational trust: The trust people have not in any individual but in the company itself. Are processes well-designed, consistent, and fair (e.g., hiring, promotion, reward, and recognition)?

The authors emphasize that leaders need to protect trustworthiness from its enemies. It takes years to build trust, yet you can lose it in a moment. Galford and Drapeu identify some “enemies” that leaders need to be aware of: inconsistent messages and standards; supervision processes that aren’t honest; rumor mills; downplaying organizational problems; and ignoring problem employees.

Collaborative Strategic Planning in Higher Education – Patrick Sanaghan (NACUBO, 2009)

This user-friendly book shows exactly how a campus would conduct a “collaborative” strategic planning process on a campus. By collaborative planning, Sanaghan means “the disciplined and thoughtful process of meaningfully engaging relevant stakeholders in creating a shared future vision and goals for their campus”. It is a bottom-up and top-down, highly inclusive and engaging process that has worked on scores of campuses.

The book provides dozens of layperson-friendly meeting and planning designs that can be used to solicit feedback, share information, conduct strategic thinking, and help make important institutional decisions.

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done – Larry Bossidy and Rom Charan (2002)

This is an excellent book for those leaders who are interested in the nuts and bolts of implementation. The authors present a counter-intuitive case because they believe that many leaders place too much emphasis on what some call high-level strategy and not enough time and attention on implementation.

Execution is not just tactics, it’s a discipline and a system. It needs to be built into a company’s strategy, goals, and culture. Bossidy and Charan believe most strategies fail because they are not executed well.

The authors want leaders to keep three things in mind:

• Execution is a discipline and integral to strategy

• Execution is the major job of a business leader

• Execution must be a core element of an organizational culture

• They provide processes and mechanisms to build an execution mentality throughout

an organization. It is a great resource by two thought leaders who know how important

implementation is to an organization’s success.

Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services – Robert C. Dickeson (2010)This is an excellent resource for campus leaders who want to engage in effective resource allocation. The book presents a process and guidelines for selecting, assigning weights to, and applying rigorous criteria for program prioritization.

63

strategic planning: 5 tough questions, 5 proven …

Documents