What Makes Strategic Plans Successful or Doomed to Fail?

Strategic planning in higher education is a contentious topic, often met with both optimism and skepticism, especially from front-line faculty. In Lee Gardner's article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, "The Truth About Strategic Plans," explores the nuances of strategic planning within academia, highlighting what can lead to success or failure. In this blog, we delve into the major points of Gardner's article, offering insights for leaders into the critical factors that determine the fate of strategic plans.

Gardner begins by acknowledging the polarizing nature of strategic plans in higher education. Some leaders view them as essential blueprints for improvement, while others dismiss them as futile exercises. The article discusses real-world examples, such as the University of Tulsa's controversial 2017 strategic plan that led to significant academic reorganization and backlash in 2019.

The Necessity of Strategic Plans

Strategic plans are a fact of life in higher education, driven by requirements from accreditors and expectations from boards of trustees. Institutions face unprecedented challenges, necessitating well-crafted strategies to navigate toward a thriving future. However, the effectiveness of these plans often hinges on their development process, underlying thinking, and ambition.

Common Pitfalls Leading to Failure

Several key factors contribute to the failure of strategic plans:

1. Insularity: Plans devised by a small group of senior administrators or board members without broader campus involvement tend to fail. The lack of stakeholder engagement can lead to a disconnect between the plan and the campus community. The resultant lack of buy-in renders even a well-written strategic document essentially dead on arrival.

2. Unrealistic Promises: “Blue sky” plans that set unattainable goals without considering existing resources or capabilities often end up unfulfilled. For example, aggressive new program development without sufficient faculty or budgetary support is a common pitfall.

3. Disconnect from Daily Operations: When strategic plans do not align with everyday activities and major institutional decisions, they become irrelevant. This lack of integration can make plans appear as mere rhetoric rather than actionable guides for departments and faculty.

4. Excessive Ambition: Plans with too many goals or overly ambitious timeframes (e.g., 25-year spans) can become impractical and lose focus. Effective plans typically set a manageable number of strategic goals, allowing for realistic progress tracking. Remember, too, that school leaders have programs to run and that their bandwidth for new initiatives within any given timeframe is limited.

What Makes Strategic Planning Successful

Gardner identifies several practices that can make strategic planning more effective:

1. Inclusive Process: It is crucial to have an inclusive, integrated planning process involving a wide range of stakeholders. Engaging internal and external stakeholders helps create a plan that is reflective of the campus community, fostering broad support and alignment of resources.

2. Clarity and Communication: Clearly defined goals and metrics for measuring progress are essential. Communicating these goals effectively to different stakeholder groups ensures that everyone understands their role in achieving the strategic objectives. 

3. Data-Driven Decision Making: Using environmental surveys, campus climate data, and student interest assessments can inform more realistic and targeted strategies. Plans grounded in data are more likely to address actual needs and conditions.

4. Adaptability: Successful strategic plans are flexible and continuously evolving. The process should allow for regular reassessment and adjustment based on changing circumstances and new information.

5. Authenticity: Plans that are authentic to the institution's identity and mission are more likely to succeed. Doubling down on core strengths and making incremental improvements can be more effective than attempting radical transformations.

Examples of Success and Failure

Gardner provides various examples to illustrate successful and unsuccessful strategic plans:

• University of California at Davis: The institution's 10-year strategic plan is cited as an example of a thoughtful approach. By setting a reasonable timeframe, the university allows for substantial progress without being bogged down by short-term issues or unrealistic long-term visions.

• Kenyon College: Former president S. Georgia Nugent's approach of continuous strategic thinking over traditional planning highlights the importance of adaptability and responsiveness to changing circumstances, a lesson reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion

Strategic planning in higher education is a complex and challenging endeavor. Gardner's article underscores that the success or failure of strategic plans hinges on several critical factors, including inclusivity, realistic goal-setting, data-driven decision-making, clarity, and adaptability. While strategic plans are essential tools for guiding institutions through turbulent times, their effectiveness ultimately depends on their conception, execution, and integration into the organization's fabric.

Summary prepared with assistance from ChatGPT version 4.0, June 19, 2024.