Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Abstract
University management processes have evolved in the past 50 years in line with various changes that are sweeping the public sector organizations. Strategic planning was previously thought to be a concept of private sector organizations. While adopting strategic planning, universities face unique problems due to their nature and the environment in which they operate. A large number of stakeholders must be considered. This situation complicates the strategic planning process. Communication is a major tenet of ensuring that all stakeholders participate in the success of the strategic planning process. However, as discussed in this paper, without communication, the chances of success can easily become an illusion.
Background Context
Introduction
The role that universities play is of great importance in any society. Over the last years, universities have evolved more and more to take over corporate management practices in the quest of providing the highest quality of education to their student populations. As the world changes, the engine to this change can be attributed to universities that continue to evolve to produce skilled labor ready to continue the changes in the world. Like any other organization, universities face a myriad of problems that if not well addressed can affect their capacity to offer good services and eventually lead to the paralysis or collapsing of the institution. How does a university identify present and future opportunities and trends that they can undertake to remain relevant in the fast-changing world? Strategic planning is a major tenet of any university that is keen on addressing its present and future challenges, while at the same time ensuring innovativeness and continuity of its essential services and roles to the society.
A good strategic planning process allows a university to organize its leadership to be proactive in affirming the organizations mission and values while continuously redefining its role. The present-day universities must realize that the old days of university management are gone and will never come back. In addition to having different challenges, the present environment exposes universities to different requirements. Looking at the current trends in the world, university education has exploded, and that governments are increasingly unable to take the huge funding bills of higher education. Goodall (2009) asserts that university education has become so expensive that it seems unrealistic to expect governments to take up these huge financial resources.
Further, students are the main beneficiaries of higher education. Hence, they must cover at least some of the costs. As such, in addition to being unable to cover all the costs, governments are unwilling to pay up since university products carry considerable benefits to those who have acquired them. In the light of these changes, the university institutions have been forced to become hybrid institutions , that is, semi-public and semi-private organizations. The university environment has become a market economy environment where there is cutthroat competition for students and consequently for financial resources to cover budgetary requirements that are not covered through public funding. The emergence of new accredited corporate universities, virtual open universities, and for-profit educational institutions is a clear indication of the drastic changes in the environment that universities operate in.
Another major driver for change in the high education environment is the explosion of knowledge. With new fields of knowledge emerging in all quarters, the current state of knowledge is too fast for one institution to master. To emerge successfully in these muddy waters, institutions have to choose wisely the skills and knowledge that they can offer or extend their limitations through mergers, collaborations, and networks. Also, since knowledge has become very important in the current world, universities are under scrutiny by society, governments, individuals, and all stakeholders concerning what they do and/or how they do it. The issue of accountability has therefore become very significant and hence the importance of the projects and strategies that universities adapt to meet these increasing demands and challenges.
Understanding Strategic Planning
In its broadest definition, strategic planning in universities involves deciding in advance what the institution intends to do and how to do it. As higher education becomes more and more semi-public and semi-private, strategic planning has become more central to universities planning of various programs that they undertake in the process of remaining competitive and relevant in their fields of operation. Atkinson (2006) defines strategic planning as the process through, which organizations develop and maintain consistency between their objectives, resources, and their changing opportunities. Balogun (2006) goes on to define strategic management as the total concentration of an organizations resources on specific and predetermined measurable outcomes.
Strategic planning is one of the many organizational management tools that have emerged in various changes that are going on in the management of corporate organizations. Like other management tools, strategic planning is a tool that is meant for only one purpose: to help the organization to do a better job in its areas of responsibility. Strategic planning allows the human resource agenda and efforts to be aligned with the overall companys objectives. Further, it allows the organization to respond effectively to changes in its environment. Concisely, strategic planning is a strict and planned exertion for organizations to settle on choices for managing their activities while upholding why they execute such activities to influence future outcomes.
Another important aspect to look at in understanding the concept of strategic planning is in its wording. The dissection of its words, namely strategic and planning, offers important tips of the key elements of the concept. The term strategic indicates a push for the best and well thought out decisions that respond to the organizations environmental circumstances. Since organizations must respond to both known and unknown circumstances, the strategic decisions must therefore focus on the achievement of the organizations objectives with the available resources while remaining responsive to the often hostile and dynamic environments of operation. On the other hand, planning shows the part of deliberately establishing objectives and creating methodologies to accomplish the expected outcomes.
The process of strategic planning calls for high discipline. According to Goodall (2009), the course requires strategic conspirators to collect, integrate up-to-date data, and/or try hypotheses before they are incorporated into the organization. In the end, strategic planning is majorly about decisions and actions. Therefore, it addresses the choices that the organization decides to do or not to do. This observation indicates that since an organization is required to do many actions yet they cannot be achieved at the same time, it must therefore prioritize. While prioritizing, the organization must ensure that its planning gives a strategy for achieving the most important goals that will give it success in its activities. Indeed, much of the organizations strategy is focused on making touching decisions in choosing priority areas to focus on.
Strategic planning can be an organization-wide activity. It can even be focused on just one department or program. Regardless of the focus, strategic planning is complex, challenging, and sometimes messy. However, it qualifies as an important aspect of any organization in creating a clear map of where it is and where it desires to be in the future. In both public and private organizations, strategic planning gives specific directions on financial strategies, marketing strategies, human resources, organizational development strategies, and information technology deployments.
Concisely, good strategic planning must have various key characteristics. Although some of these characteristics are evident from the above discussion, it is important to identify them for the interest of applying the concept in a university environment. The characteristics of good strategic planning are as follows:
-
Strategic: The term shows the conscious, informed, and responsive nature of the decisions to the environment of the organization.
-
Planning: This element shows that the process is a deliberate establishment of the organizational agenda.
-
Fundamental: Strategic planning is elemental since it requires prioritizing decisions and objectives that are more critical than others. Consequently, it is all about doing what is fundamental for the organization, as not all actions can be done at a go.
-
Disciplined: Discipline is a mix of close adhering to the requirements of successful strategic planning. An organization reviews the powers, flaws, chances, and intimidation concerning its actions before choosing the most appropriate course. In a strategic planning process, it is important to have discipline since a sequence of questions is raised to test any assumptions and to examine evidence and/or use of present-day information to anticipate the future of the organization.
-
Decision-making: In strategic planning, decisions must be made to answer important questions that are raised in the planning process. In its entirety, strategic planning is all about decisions for choices of action.
-
Long-Range Plan: Long-range plan refers to the duration of actualizing the strategic plans. Some organizations put in place strategic plans running for six months or less while others can go up to five or more years. It is upon the organization to decide the long-range plan for its strategic planning.
-
Operating Plan: This process refers to the detailed action plans that guide the process of accomplishing the goals laid out in the strategic plan. The operating plans for each organization must translate into the achievement of its vision.
-
Strategy Hierarchy-In large corporations such as universities, different levels of strategy are evident. According to Balogun (2006), three levels can be represented as follows:
Corporate strategy is the highest level of strategic planning. It is very important in giving the organization a direction towards its corporate values, corporate culture, corporate goals, and corporate missions. Corporate strategy is the broadest level of strategic planning. It implies the organization-wide actions and decisions.
Strategic business unit strategy level of strategic planning refers to the planning at the departmental or other semi-autonomous units within an organization. For instance, at the university level, the overall corporate-level strategic planning may not cover all areas of the university. It is important to restructure the plan according to processes or strategic business units. The strategic business units (SBU) are the various departments or Sub-autonomous units that have their operations such as hiring, budgeting, purchasing of products, and price-setting among other elements that are separated from the main university management. The modern university has so many operations that cannot be run without strategic business units. Consequently, in such a case, the business units play a very important role. They are responsible for creating the universitys business strategies, which are in tune with the overall corporate strategy (Smith, 2013).
However, in the recent past, strategic business units have been seen as great hindrances to the achievement of the organizational goals. As such, many organizations have adopted the functional strategies. The functional strategies include human resource strategies, marketing strategies, human resource strategies, information technology management tactics, new product development schemes, legal approaches, and financial strategies. Each functional department must ensure that its respective strategy is in tune with the overall organizations strategic planning tenets. This goal is achieved by ensuring the goals of the functional department are derived from the broader organizational strategy. The operational level is the lowest level of organizational strategic planning. According to Balogun (2006), it has a narrow focus on an organizations strategic planning since it deals with the day-to-day operational activities that go towards the actual doing of the strategy. The operational segments must work within the set budget. They are not allowed to adjust or make their budgets. These operational activities are informed business units or functional strategies, which in extension depend on the corporate strategy.
Purpose of the Study
As a requirement, university institutions are expected to develop strategic plans to enhance result-based management as well as efficiency in their operations. These plans are important in providing a direction on resource targeting and management, as well as in program implementation. However, in the last decade, concerns have been raised regarding what is perceived as improper strategic planning or inadequate strategic planning practices in institutions of higher education. One of the main factors that determine the success of strategic planning is the human resource in the organization.
According to Balogun (2006), it is important to have a clear management practice that can bring all people, especially the institutions employees, and top management, together to ensure collaborative efforts towards the actualization of the strategic plans. The size of the modern-day university requires total collaboration between individuals, departments, and other stakeholders of the organization to ensure that all activities are streamlined and in tune with the overall aspirations of the organization. However, with the increasing concerns about the deteriorating quality of education that is offered in higher institutions, fingers are being pointed at the institutions lack of management of human resources to ensure the success of strategic plans that are usually very good on paper.
If implemented well, they can transform higher education forever. Many organizations do not understand that the key to a successful strategic plan lies within their human resource department, which is held together with good communication processes. Communication plays an important role in putting across the expectations of the organizations, decisions on various actions, decisions on resource allocation, and progresses in each segment of the implementation of the strategic plans. Consequently, communication is one of the key determinants of the success of strategic planning in universities. The issues identified above are major reasons why the strategic planning process breaks or thrives depending on how they are handled. The purpose of this study is to discuss the relevance of communication in successful strategic planning. It shows how a lack of communication can easily jeopardize any chances of successful strategic planning.
The Significance of the Study
This study on communication as a major factor that affects strategic planning will play an important role in shedding more light on a topic that has been around for some time. Many existing studies have focused on the importance and relevance of strategic planning in universities. However, they have not adequately covered the various issues that hinder the successful execution of the same. This study will be therefore very significant for various reasons.
The study will reveal important findings that will greatly help university institutions to implement their strategic plans successfully. It will also be important in contributing to the existing literature on strategic planning. Very few studies have focused on the key factors that affect strategic planning. The results in this paper will be very important for people who are interested in related studies. Another significance of the study is that it will also shed more light on the researcher regarding areas of the study relating to strategic management. Consequently, this study comes at an ideal time when universities are under pressure to transform their strategic plans from paper into action as a way of ensuring quality education and hence the rightful and relevant contribution to knowledge development in their societies.
Literature Review
Introduction
This section discusses what other scholars and researchers have written and discussed regarding the role of communication in strategic planning. Literature is very important since it helps one to understand how far other researchers have gone in terms of explaining the topic under study and consequently helping to identify knowledge gaps that the researcher can fill. The section will most importantly tackle the theoretical foundation of communication in strategic planning and consequently help the researcher to the extent of the knowledge beyond what is available in the literature. The section will also track the part that dialogue played during the early days of strategic planning. The section will also show how communication use in universities has changed over the years up to the present duration.
Theoretical Communication Frameworks for Strategic Planning
From the existing literature, strategic planning theories can be classified into normative and descriptive theories (Cutright, 2001). The normative theory is a derivative of the principles-and-processes school of thought and communication management science. Theories in this category are highly dependent on strategic fit where organizations must adopt internal and external communication policies based on their potential of offering growth benefits (Davoudi & Strange, 2008). On the other hand, the descriptive theory is derived from a more data-oriented communication approach, which has evolved from the existing larger body of empirical work that is related to decision-making and human problem-solving behavior. The theories employ deductive and empirical methods to produce and use information in their application.
In the 1970s, major developments in the field of management theory later resulted in the establishment of strategic planning as a distinctive body (Howell, Williams, & Lindsay, 2003). Such developments came at a time when other disciplines such as management science, systems approach, and behavioral were gaining prominence. Communication greatly affected the definition and conception of strategic planning during this time. Since its establishment, there have been various concerns and questions regarding the theoretical foundations of strategic planning as a discipline in the wide organizational management and development field (Elbanna, 2008).
The first concern relates to the evident lack of a well and formally established descriptive communication theory of strategic planning that is based on empirical data and evidence. Secondly, concerns have been raised concerning the general lack of empirical studies relating to strategic planning in organizations. Thirdly, there are concerns that strategic planning is not a perfect approach to organizational development. No adequate information has been published on the difference between organizations that use formalized and non-formalized strategic plans (Lynch, 2000). Lastly, questions have been raised concerning the low level of integration of strategic planning with other various communication approaches of organizational development.
History of Strategic Planning: How Communication was Applied in the Early Days
Strategic planning is deeply rooted in military history. It is conceptualized from the militarys approach to planning the destruction of enemy forces through effective use and deployment of military resources. Early writers on military affairs have acknowledged the importance of communication in planning. For instance, in The Art of War, Sun Tuz wrote, The general who wins a battle makes many calculations than the general who loses the battle and its my attention to this I can suggest who is likely to lose or win a battle (Cutright, 2001, p. 24). Such calculations are synonymous with communication tactics that one can deploy in a given time and scenario to connect all involved parties. However, the discipline of strategic planning gained prominence in the 20th century as the business environment became highly dynamic and very competitive. It also within this time since the 1950s that more and more research has focused on the role of communication in strategic planning and strategic management.
Strategic Planning in Universities: Does Communication Play any Role?
It is not easy to discuss the concept of strategic planning without a mention of the two concepts as they are closely related. Both strategic planning and strategic management involve the organizations wish for understanding and communicating its current state and put in place decisions to take it successfully into the future. Just like strategic planning, strategic management and communication gained dominance in the 1950s and 1960s where Igor Ansoff, Alfred Chandler, and Peter Drucker were the most influential pioneers of the field (Balogun, 2006).
According to Davoudi and Strange (2008), Peter Drucker was one of the ardent theorists in strategic management and communication. He has dozens of communication management books under his belt. With a career spanning over 50 years, his contribution to strategic management and communication is profound. One of the most significant assertions developed by Drucker revolved around the importance of communication objectives in an organizational setting (Elbanna, 2008). He claimed that an organization without clear communication objectives would easily lose its mandate and drive itself into irrelevance. Consequently, any organization that is worth its name should have communication agendas to guide its activities at all times. His focus on these objectives led to the emergence of his theory titled, management by objectives (Balogun, 2006).
The management by an objective theory called for the process of setting communication indicators and tools for monitoring progress from the lowest to the highest levels of an organization (Atkinson, 2006). He is also credited for correctly predicting the importance of intellectual capital as it is known today. Further, he predicted the emergence of a knowledge worker and the role that such a worker can play in enhancing communication and interaction in organizations. He claimed that with excellent communication knowledge, tasks would be carried out easily under the dictatorship of who has the highest knowledge, irrespective of his or her positions in the organization. Overall, his contribution is very important to the concept of communication in strategic planning since it advocated the centrality of communication objectives in ensuring that organizations remain focused on their journey towards success and better efficiency in their services.
Igor Ansoff built his approach to strategic management from the work of Chandlers by adding a variety of communication concepts, which had a very big impact on strategic management. He established the Ansoff Matrix, which is represented as a network that focuses on bazaar expansion, horizontal and vertical incorporation, bazaar infiltration, commodity improvement, and extension tactics. He presented communication as the only tool through which these strategies could be of help since they (strategies) were meant to connect various business stakeholders. While developing these strategies, Ansoff was convinced that organizations that deployed excellent communication plans would be better prepared for future opportunities and challenges. His corporate strategy, which he called the gap analysis, was a very important addition to the strategic management and planning since it indicated the push for understanding and communicating where an organization is and where it wants to be and what it needs to do (gap) to be where it wants to be. The action points for propelling an organization to where it needs to be were referred to as the gap reducing actions .
In the 1980s, public sector organizations, including universities began to adopt corporate-style strategic planning approaches in the process of ensuring better delivery of services. Initially, bureaucracy, politics, and other interferences made universities management very wanting. Their services were in dire need of review. Also, there was little accountability, a situation that greatly affected the organizations capacity to plan and deliver services. Cutright (2001) confirms that these approaches to strategic planning were based on the previously existing corporate strategic planning models.
They had adopted a few variations, which did not give weight to communication, to reflect the unique needs of the public sector organizations. According to Lynch (2000), for successful planning and implementation process, it is paramount for organizations to adopt strategic communication planning and implementation processes that reflect the unique aspects of public organizations such as universities (Howell et al., 2003). Such communication approaches can provide better outcomes in strategic planning as compared to the long-range planning process that was previously common in the public sector organizations (Spee & Jarzabkowsk, 2011). The fact that many universities are in the public sector means that it is important to have strategic planning approaches that allow for opportunism, bargaining, and response to the dynamic forces and influences that characterize the political environment.
Communication is the only means of realizing this goal. The lag in the adoption of strategic communication in universities was mainly due to the perception that strategic planning was more suited for business (Cummings & Worley, 2001). For instance, it was claimed that since strategic planning followed near yearly appropriation cycles, it could be difficult to adapt it in public organizations. Besides, it was claimed that less control over administrative systems due to bureaucracies as compared to business would be a great hindrance (Cummings & Worley, 2001). Another major argument that acted to reduce the momentum towards the adoption of proper communication strategies in universities was that they lacked a bottom-line . The laws and policies that guide what public organizations do are mainly made by political authorities, which greatly hinder the process of independent decision-making processes in universities.
The introduction of the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) by the Department of Defence (DoD) in the 1960s marked the entry of strategic planning federal agencies. Up to date, the DoD has continued to improve its strategic planning by acknowledging the central role that communication plays in terms of bringing stakeholders together. It is a key tenet of its management. The PPBS systems have been very important in guiding the DoD in its labor and materials, as well as strategies for the acquisition of the materials and lifecycle support. In this case, the DoD can determine its present and future requirements, which are then aligned with its budget to ensure continuity of relevance of its activities (Elbanna, 2008). PPBS was put in place for the need to ensure effective and efficient use of financial resources based on priorities, needs, and projected available resources. The appropriate and working communication tools had to be established. Indeed, this need marked the earliest application of communication during strategic planning in the public sector organization (Cutright, 2001).
Universities, just like other public organizations, operate in a more complex environment as compared to the private sector organizations. This situation was recognized in the early 1960s. For instance, they must ensure that they answer questions of value as well as democratic principles that must always underlie the communication process. Such principles often complicate the process of strategic planning in terms of determining the most applicable communication mode, its content, and process. The strategic planning process needs to be open, while at the same time ensuring that all universitys stakeholders are put into consideration when developing communication tools (Balogun, 2006).
Besides, the goals and objectives that are defined in the formulation of the plans must conform to the legal policy requirements that are based on values of fairness and equity. Another important factor that affects the process and feasibility of achieving specific communication objectives are political influences. While these factors represent major hindrances to planning in universities, various authors have advanced models and techniques to address these challenges. For instance, in 1988, Bryson proposed a model that centered on the issue of communication management (Davoudi & Strange, 2008). While issues are generated from different factors, of great was the attention that this model gave towards political influence as a major driver of strategy in public sector organizations. Another author, namely Koteen, also supported Brysons approach and model in 1991. He advocated a focus on the management of strategic issues as the main areas of concern for public and not-for-profit organizations (Elbanna, 2008).
While strategic planning is mainly focused on private sector organizations, importing its tenets into the public sector organizations requires stakeholders to have a clear understanding of the context within which strategic planning happens in the two sides of organizations (Cutright, 2001). The difference between the private sector and the public sectors strategic planning greatly affects the design and completion of the actual planning process as well as the implementation and success of the whole strategy. Hence, stakeholder communication design must be tailored in a way that does not bar the contribution and interaction of the two sectors. While many other differences should be put into consideration, two main factors stand out (Lynch, 2000). Firstly, in private businesses, strategic plans are more precise, clearly defined, and always related to products, competition, and return on investment, market share, and profitability. On the other hand, policies and strategies in the public sector organizations are difficult to measure. They are ambiguous and often address broad social issues (Cummings & Worley, 2001).
Such a situation implies poor communication plans in the public sector. Secondly, strategy development and implementation in private organizations are confined to participants within the specific organization and the strategies in place for internal use. However, in the municipal sector organizations, considerable external input is witnessed. Consequently, successful implementation is dependent on cooperation with the administrative and political oversight bodies (Campell & Stonehouse, 2002). To many people, the pluralist nature of democratic governance in the public sector organizations casts major doubts on the prospects of the successful undertaking of communication planning. Balogun (2006) captures well this issue of pluralism in public sector organi
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.