Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol11.Issue6.1997:

(1)

(2)

David M. Bro c k

Strate gy, auto no my, planning mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss: a c o ntinge nc y study o f busine ss sc ho o ls Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f Educ atio nal Manage me nt 1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9

m ost of t h e r esea r ch in t h e a r ea of t h e pla n -n i-n g-per for m a -n ce li-n k a ge is t h a t it h a s -n ot discr im in a t ed a m on g m odes or a ppr oa ch es t o pla n n in g. T h e a ssu m pt ion seem s t o h ave been t h a t “m or e pla n n in g is bet t er ”, or t h a t lon ger -t er m , s-t r a -t e gic pla n n in g sh ou ld wor k in a ll con t ext s. We qu est ion t h is view a n d a sk wh et h er sim ple, sh or t er -t er m , in t er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g m ay be bet t er su it ed t o som e con t ext s t h a n m or e ela bor a t e a ppr oa ch es t o pla n n in g.

Strategy, autonomy and effectiveness Au t on om y is a n especia lly im por t a n t issu e in t oday’s cu lt u r e of em power m en t , in dividu a l r igh t s a n d in cr ea sed levels of edu ca t ion . For exa m ple, in t h e a ca dem e we ch er ish t h e r igh t t o det er m in e ou r ow n cu r r icu la , r esea r ch a gen da , h ir in g decision s a n d eva lu a t ion st a n -da r ds. However, a s a st r u ct u r a l va r ia ble it is possible t h a t a n in dividu a l’s level of a u t on -om y in a n or ga n iza t ion m ay be in a ppr opr ia t e. It is com m on t o h ea r som eon e com pla in t h a t t h ey cou ld h ave m a n a ged a sit u a t ion m or e effect ively if t h ey h a d n ot been bou n d by so m u ch r ed t a pe – a n exa m ple of t oo lit t le a u t on -om y. Con ver sely, on e ca n en visa ge a sit u a t ion wh er e a m a n a ger h a s t h e a u t h or it y, bu t m a k es a ser ies of illa dvised decision s r esu lt -in g -in squ a n der ed r esou r ces – a n exa m ple of t oo m u ch a u t on om y.

For effect iven ess of a n or ga n iza t ion , it h elps if t h e st r u ct u r e su ppor t s t h e st r a t e gy. For in st a n ce, a st r a t e gy t h a t em ph a sizes in n ova -t ion – lik e -t h e Miles a n d Sn ow (1978)

“pr ospect or ” st r a t e gy – is best im plem en t ed in a st r u ct u r e t h a t gives or ga n iza t ion a l m em ber s t h e fr eedom a n d a u t h or it y t o t r y differ -en t a ppr oa ch es. Con ver sely, a st r a t e gy t h a t in volves com pet in g on t h e ba sis of efficien cy – lik e t h e Miles a n d Sn ow (1978) “defen der ” st r a t e gy – w ill be best im plem en t ed if t h e st r u ct u r e r ein for ces st r ict con t r ols a n d a ccou n t a bilit y over wor k st a n da r ds, pr odu c-t ion , in ven c-t or ies a n d cu sc-t om er ser vice.

T h ese r ela t ion sh ips m ay be r ein for ced by t h e possibilit y of sh a r in g r esou r ces. A defen der st r a t e gy, for exa m ple, m ay ben efi t fr om t h e econ om ies of sca le t o be ga in ed on su ppor t , t ech n ica l a n d a dm in ist r a t ive fu n c-t ion s (lik e da c-t a pr ocessin g a n d pu r ch a sin g) of t h e or ga n iza t ion , t h u s cu t t in g cost s a n d in cr ea sin g efficien cy. An em ph a sis on sh a r ed ser vices a n d r esou r ces, h owever, m ay

in t en sify t h e n eed t o en su r e con sist en cy a m on g u n it s. T h ese pr essu r es wou ld r equ ir e t h a t u n it s be co-or din a t ed a n d con t r olled t o en su r e t h ese ser vices a n d r esou r ces a r e sh a r ed a n d u sed efficien t ly by a ll. Con ver sely, beca u se of t h e n eed for fl exibilit y a n d a u t on -om y, a n em ph a sis on sh a r ed r esou r ces m ay be n eit h er n ecessa r y n or desir a ble for im ple-m en t in g a pr ospect or st r a t e gy.

Resea r ch fi n din gs h ave fou n d t h a t low -cost st r a t e gies pr odu ce bet t er r esu lt s w it h low r a t h er t h a n h igh a u t on om y. Gu pt a (1987) sh owed t h a t differ en t ia t ion st r a t e gies a r e a ssocia t ed w it h m or e effect ive im plem en t a -t ion in decen -t r a lized con -t ex-t s, wh ile low -cos-t st r a t e gies a r e bet t er w it h cen t r a liza t ion . T h e follow in g pa ir of h ypot h eses su m m a r ize t h ese r ela t ion sh ips:

H 1. For or ga n iza t ion s im plem en t in g pr ospec-t or sospec-t r a ospec-t e gies, h igh a u ospec-t on om y w ill be a ssocia t ed w it h gr ea t er effect iven ess t h a n low a u t on om y.

H 2. For or ga n iza t ion s im plem en t in g defen der st r a t e gies, low a u t on om y w ill be a ssocia t ed w it h gr ea t er effect iven ess t h a n h igh a u t on om y.

Strategy, planning and effectiveness P la n n in g is t h a t pa r t of t h e m a n a gem en t pr ocess t h a t a t t em pt s t o fi n d t h e best cou r se of a ct ion for a n in st it u t ion (Ada m s, 1977). P la n n in g m ay be sh or t -, m ediu m -, or lon g-t er m . Da fg-t (1988) defi n es g-t h e sh or g-t g-t er m a s per iods of on e yea r or less; t h e in t er m edia t e-(or m ediu m ) t er m is t wo yea r s; a n d t h e lon g t er m is t h r ee yea r s or m or e. An ot h er dist in ct ion in pla n n in g m ode ct h a ct is u sefu l is in ct er -n a l ver su s ext er -n a l or ie-n t a t io-n (Pet er so-n , 1980). T r a dit ion a l yea r -t o-yea r bu dget in g is a ba sic for m of in t er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g t h a t is com m on t o m a n y in st it u t ion s. Mor e con t em por a r y st r a t e gic pla n n in g m odes t a k e ext er n a l fa ct or s (lik e dem ogr a ph ic t r en ds, in du st r y developm en t s, com pet it or s a n d polit ica l t r en ds) in t o a ccou n t .

T h e t h eor y in t h is pr oject is ba sed on t h e in t er n a l ver su s ext er n a l or ien t a t ion , bu t is a lso a ppr opr ia t e for a sh or t - ver su s lon g-t er m cla ssifi ca t ion . T h e con t in gen cies a n d cor r e-la t es in t h is pr oject a r e t h e sa m e for in t er n a l a n d for sh or t -t er m pla n n in g, a s well a s for ext er n a l a n d for lon gt er m pla n n in g. Gen er -a lly, ext er n -a lly or ien t ed pl-a n n in g m odes – lik e st r a t e gic pla n n in g – t en d t o be lon ger t er m (Br yson , 1988). Con ver sely, in t er n a lly or ien t ed syst em s – lik e t r a dit ion a l bu dget in g a n d pr oject pla n n in g syst em s – a r e u su a lly con fi n ed t o t h e sh or t er t er m . For con ven ien ce we u se t h e t er m s “in t er n a l” t o r efer t o in t er -n a lly or ie-n t ed a -n d sh or t -r a -n ge pla -n -n i-n g “...It is com m on to h ea r som eon e com p la in th a t th ey cou ld

(3)

David M. Bro c k

m odes a n d “ext er n a l” t o r efer t o ext er n a lly or ien t ed a n d lon ger -r a n ge pla n n in g.

P la n n in g h a s a n u m ber of a dva n t a ges t o t h e or ga n iza t ion . For in st a n ce, pla n n in g h elps t h e st r a t e gy-m a k in g pr ocesses by pr ovidin g a sou r ce of in for m a tioncon cer n in g t h e ext er n a l en vir on m en t . P la n s a lso ser ve a s st a n -da r ds a ga in st wh ich t o m ea su r e a n d t h u s

con tr ol, per for m a n ce. T h ese pla n s a r e t h u s in t er n a l a n d a r e gen er a lly sh or t -t er m .

An or ga n iza tion ’s n eed for in for m a tion a n d con tr ol depen ds u pon its str a tegy. For in sta n ce, a “pr ospector ” or ga n iza tion – bein g con sta n tly on th e lookou t for n ew cu stom er s a n d pr odu cts – h a s a h igh n eed for exter n a l in for m a tion bu t a lesser n eed for con tr ol. F u r -th er, lon g-ter m pla n n in g is n eeded to or ga n ize th e offer in gs of a or ga n iza tion to m eet th e ever ch a n gin g n eeds of th ese ch a n gin g m a r kets.

On t h e ot h er h a n d a “defen der ” st r a t e gy – pr eoccu pied w it h ser vin g t h e sa m e t a r get popu la t ion bet t er a n d m or e efficien t ly – h a s a h igh n eed for con t r ol over it s in t er n a l pr ocesses. Yea r -t o-yea r bu dget in g pr ocesses – t ypica l in t er n a l pla n s – m eet t h ese n eeds.

T h ese idea s a r e ger m a n e t o Miles a n d Sn ow s’ (1978, pp. 43, 61) explica t ion of t h eir st r a t e gic t ypology. On e wou ld t h u s pr edict t h a t a pr ospect or st r a t e gy is bet t er im plem en t ed w it h a n ext er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g syst em a n d a defen der st r a t e gy bet t er w it h a n in t er -n a l or ie-n t a t io-n .

H 3. For or ga n iza t ion s im plem en t in g pr ospect or sospect r a ospect e gies, exospect er n a lly or ien ospect ed pla n -n i-n g w ill be a ssocia t ed w it h gr ea t er effect iven ess effect h a n in effect er n a lly or ien effect ed pla n -n i-n g.

H 4. For or ga n iza t ion s im plem en t in g defen der st r a t e gies, in t er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g w ill be a ssocia t ed w it h gr ea t er effect iven ess t h a n ext er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g.

Strategy, autonomy, planning and effectiveness

T h e developm en t of or ga n iza t ion a l t ypologies (Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978), a r ch et ypes (Miller a n d F r iesen , 1977), Gest a lt s a n d con fi gu r a -t ion s (Miller a n d F r iesen , 1984) h ave been m a jor bu ildin g block s in t h e u n der st a n din g of or ga n iza t ion a l st r a t e gy. T h is st r ea m of r esea r ch h a s sh ow n t h a t cer t a in com bin a -t ion s of s-t r a -t e gies, con -t ex-t a n d or ga n iza -t ion a l st r u ct u r es a r e m or e via ble t h a n ot h er s. T h e lin k a ges descr ibed a bove ca n be com bin ed

a n d ext en ded by dedu ct ive logic t o for m a m or e com pr eh en sive m odel. T h u s, bu ildin g on t h e t h eor y developed in t h e ea r lier h ypot h eses on e wou ld expect t o fi n d a pr ospect or st r a t e gy im plem en t ed m or e effec-t ively w ieffec-t h a n a u effec-t on om ou s seffec-t r u ceffec-t u r e a n d ext er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g; a n d a defen der st r a t e gy wou ld be bet t er w it h less a u t on om y a n d in t er n a l pla n n in g. T h ese r ela t ion sh ips a r e su m m a r ized in H 5a n d H 6.

H 5. For or ga n iza t ion s im plem en t in g pr ospect or st r a t e gies, h igh a u t on om y a n d ext er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g w ill be a ssocia t ed w it h bet t er per for m a n ce t h a n ot h er con fi gu r a t ion s.

H 6. For or ga n iza t ion s im plem en t in g defen der st r a t e gies, low a u t on om y a n d in t er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g w ill be a ssocia t ed w it h bet t er per for m a n ce t h a n ot h er con fi gu r a t ion s.

Method

Bu sin ess sch ools wer e ch osen a s sa m plin g u n its beca u se th ey a r e r ea dily a ccessible, su fficien tly plen tifu l a n d h ave clea r ly defi n ed for m a l lea der s – dea n s. Su r vey in str u m en ts wer e sen t to 260 bu sin ess sch ool dea n s, r epr e-sen tin g a ll MBA pr ogr a m m es a ccr edited by th e AACSB in 1991. N in ety-five u sa ble r espon ses wer e r eceived (36.5 per cen t); wh ile th is r epon se r a te is low, th u s im pedin g th e gen er a liza bility of th e fin din gs, th er e w a s n o eviden ce of th e sa m ple bein g bia sed w ith r espect to size, type of pr ogr a m m e, or geo-gr a ph ic r e gion a l cover a ge w ith in N or th Am er ica . Th e depen den t va r ia ble (effective-n ess) a (effective-n d th r ee i(effective-n depe(effective-n de(effective-n t va r ia bles (str a te gy, a u ton om y a n d pla n n in g m odte) wter te m tea -su r ed a n d th e h ypoth eses wer e tested u sin g on e-ta iled tests of gr ou p m ea n s. N otes on oper a tion a liza tion of th e va r ia bles a ppea r in Appen dix 1 a n d r eleva n t item s fr om th e su r -vey in str u m en t in Appen dix 2. Th e th r ee in depen den t va r ia bles – str a te gy, a u ton om y a n d pla n n in g – wer e u sed to cla ssify th e or ga -n iza tio-n s i-n to gr ou ps. F igu r e 1 illu str a tes h ow th e sa m ple w a s sepa r a ted in to th e two str a te-gies a n d th en in to th e two oth er va r ia bles. The general tests

All t h e h ypot h eses ca lled for dir ect ion a l com -pa r ison s of gr ou p m ea n s of t h e de pen den t va r ia ble: effect iven ess. T h e in it ia l r ou n d of a n a lyses con sist ed of on e-t a iled z-t est s t o com pa r e t h ese gr ou p m ea n s. T h e r eleva n t gr ou ps a r e illu st r a t ed in F igu r e 1.

T h e a n a lyses wer e a im ed a t t est in g for t h e h ypot h esized differ en ces in t h e de pen den t va r ia ble bet ween gr ou ps w it h in t h e sa m ple. For exa m ple, in H 1, t h e n u ll h ypot h esis is t h a t “...a p r osp ector stra teg y is b etter im p lem en ted w ith a n

(4)

David M. Bro c k

t h e m ea n effect iven ess of gr ou ps T+ U is n o differ en t fr om t h a t of gr ou ps V+ W. T h e a lt er -n a t ive h ypot h esis is t h a t m ea -n effect ive-n ess of gr ou ps T+ U is gr ea t er t h a n t h a t of gr ou ps V+ W. In h ypot h esis 6, t h e n u ll h ypot h esis w ill be t h a t t h e m ea n effect iven ess of gr ou p R is n o differ en t fr om t h a t of gr ou ps P + Q+ S. T h e a lt er n a t ive h ypot h esis is t h a t t h e m ea n effec-t iven ess of gr ou p R is gr ea effec-t er effec-t h a n effec-t h a effec-t of gr ou ps P + Q+ S. T h e a ct u a l t est s det a ils, st a t is-t ics a n d r esu lis-t s a r e su m m a r ized in Ta ble I.

Gen er a lly th e hypoth eses for th e pr ospector str a tegy (H1, H3a n d H5) wer e a ll su ppor ted a n d th ose for th e defen der s wer e n ot. All th r ee hypoth eses involvin g th e defen der str a tegy m et w ith n egative r esu lts u sin g th e above ba sic m eth odology. Th e follow in g section descr ibes som e m or e sen sitive tests of th e hypoth eses.

The marginal tests

In a ddition to th e gen er a l tests, fu r th er a n a ly-ses wer e n eeded to explor e th e th eor y in ca ly-ses wh er e th e gen er a l tests wer e in a dequ a te. Th e follow in g sta tistics r evea l som e ten den cies w ith r espect to effectiven ess of cer ta in gr ou ps.

Mea n effect iven ess:

1a for a ll h igh a u t on om y u n it s: 5.46 (n= 48)

1b for a ll low a u t on om y u n it s: 5.01 (n= 47)

2a for a ll ext er n a l/ lon g pla n n er s: 5.48 (n= 39)

2b. for a ll in t er n a l/ sh or t pla n n er s: 5.07 (n= 56)

T h ese st a t ist ics su ggest t h a t h igh a u t on om y a n d/ or ext er n a l/ lon g-r a n ge pla n n in g a r e gen er a lly a ssocia t ed w it h gr ea t er or ga n iza -t ion effec-t iven ess; a n d -t h a -t -t h ese -t en den cies m ay be in de pen den t of st r a t e gy a n d ot h er con t in gen cies.

Addit ion a l t ech n iqu es wer e u sed t o a ccou n t for t h e a bove t en den cies: in cr em en t a l a n a ly-ses of cell m ea n s wer e per for m ed. T h ese a n a lyses a r e discu ssed below.

Incremental tests

An ot h er a p p r oa ch t o exp lor i n g t h e t h eor y d evelop ed i n t h i s s t u dy i s t o i n ves t i ga t e t h e d i ffer en ces a m on g gr ou p m ea n s. T h e fi r s t a n a ly s i s focu s es on t h e fi r s t t wo h y p ot h es es a n d t h e s t r a t e gy -a u t on om y r ela t i on s h i p s. As s h ow n i n F i gu r e 2, t h e s ch ools i n cell E 1 h ave h i gh er m ea n effect iven es s s cor es t h a n t h os e i n cell E 3: t h i s i s i n a ccor d a n ce w i t h

Figure 1

The gro ups into whic h the s ample was c las s ifie d

Inte rnal Exte rnal Planning type

De fe nde r s trate gie s

Inte rnal Exte rnal

High

Lo w

Planning type

Auto no my

Pro s pe c to r s trate gie s

P Q

R S

T U

V W

High

Lo w Auto no my

Table I

Summary o f hypo the s e s and te s t s tatis tic

Hypothesized effective group Hypothesized less effective group Hypo- Description Description

thesis of group x SD n of group x SD n z or t p

1 Prospec tor Prospec tor

and high and low

autonomy 5 .3 8 1 .1 1 2 9 autonomy 4 .7 2 1 .1 1 2 3 z = 2 .1 4 0 .0 2 5

2 Defender and Defender and

low autonomy 5 .2 9 1 .2 0 2 4 high autonomy 5 .5 9 1 .0 6 1 9 neg. na

3 Prospec tor Prospec tor

and external and internal

planning 5 .3 7 1 .1 1 2 4 planning 4 .8 4 1 .1 4 2 8 z = 1 .7 1 0 .0 5

4 Defender and Defender and

internal external

planning 5 .3 0 1 .2 0 2 8 planning 5 .6 4 1 .0 1 1 5 neg. na

5 Prospec tor, Prospec tor,

high autonomy low autonomy

and external or internal

planning 5 .4 1 1 .2 5 1 6 planning 4 .9 4 1 .0 8 3 6 z = 1 .3 5 0 .1 0

6 Defender, low Defender, high

autonomy high autonomy

and internal or external

(5)

David M. Bro c k

H y p ot h es i s 1. On t h e ot h er h a n d s ch ools i n cell E 4 h ave les s er m ea n effect iven es s s cor es t h a n t h os e i n cell E 2: t h i s i s con t r a r y t o H y p ot h es i s 2.

For sim plicit y, t h e pa ir of cells com pa r ed in Hypot h esis 1 (E 1 a n d E 3) w ill be ca lled t h e “pr ospect or ” gr ou p a n d t h e pa ir in H 2(E 4 a n d E 2) t h e “defen der ” gr ou p. T h e differ en ce bet ween t h e “pr ospect or ” gr ou p com pa r ison (E 1 – E 3) is gr ea t er t h a n t h e “defen der ” com -pa r ison (E 2 – E 4). To expr ess t h is a n a lysis a lgebr a ica lly:

(E 1 – E 3) > (E 2 – E 4) or 5.38 – 4.72 > 5.59 – 5.29

or 0.66 > 0.30

wh ich is t r u e. T h e differ en ce (bet ween 0.66 a n d 0.30) of 0.36 w a s t est ed by ca lcu la t in g a st a n da r d devia t ion of 0.453 a n d gen er a t in g a t est st a t ist ic of 0.80 w h ich is n ot st a t ist ica lly sign ifi ca n t .

T h e fi n a l a n a lysis focu ses on t h e secon d t wo h ypot h eses a n d t h e st r a t e gy-pla n n in g r ela t ion sh ips. T h e gr ou p m ea n s in F igu r e 3 r evea l t h a t sch ools in cell E 1 h ave h igh er m ea n effect iven ess scor es t h a n t h ose in cell E 3: t h is is in a ccor da n ce w it h H 3. On t h e ot h er h a n d sch ools in cell E 4 h ave lesser m ea n effect iven ess scor es t h a n t h ose in cell E 2: t h is is con t r a r y t o H 4.

However, t h e differ en ce bet ween t h e “pr ospect or ” gr ou p com pa r ison (E 1 – E 3) is gr ea t er t h a n t h e “defen der ” com pa r ison (E 2 – E 4). To expr ess t h is a n a lysis a lgebr a ica lly:

(E 1 – E 3 ) > (E 2 – E 4 ) or 5.37 – 4.84 > 5.65 – 5.30

or 0.53 > 0.35

wh ich is t r u e. T h e differ en ce (bet ween 0.53 a n d 0.35) of 0.18 w a s t est ed by ca lcu la t in g a st a n da r d devia t ion of 0.453 a n d gen er a t in g a t est st a t ist ic of 0.42 w h ich is n ot st a t ist ica lly sign ifi ca n t . T h ese in cr em en t a l a n a lyses sh ow som e wea k su ppor t for t h e u n der lyin g t h eor y beca u se t h ey sh ow t h a t t h e h ypot h esized differ en ces for pr ospect or st r a t e gies (wh ich a r e in t h e pr edict ed dir ect ion ) a r e gr ea t er t h a n t h e differ en ces for defen der st r a t e gies (in t h e opposit e dir ect ion ).

Discussion

Det er m in in g wh et h er on e st r a t e gy is a bsolu t ely m or e effect ive t h a n a n ot h er is beyon d t h e scope of t h is st u dy. Ra t h er, a s a con t in gen cy st u dy, t h e a n a lyses in t h is st u dy wer e gea r ed t o t est con t in gen cies t h a t “fi t ” w it h a given st r a t e gy. Most of t h is sect ion discu sses t h e fi n din gs r ela t ive t o t h ese con t in -gen cy r ela t ion sh ips. T h e pr em iss of t h ese st u dies is t h a t t h e st r a t e gy of t h e sch ool or su bu n it is for m u la t ed a t a h igh er level (u n iver sit y or cor por a t e level). Con t in gen cy r ela -t ion sh ips a r e sou gh -t – -t h r ou gh -t h eor y bu ild-in g a n d em pir ica l a n a lysis – t h a t best su ppor t t h e ch osen st r a t e gy for effect ive im plem en t a -t ion by -t h e su bu n i-t .

The prospector strategy

H 1, H 3a n d H 5dea lin g w it h t h e pr ospect or st r a t e gy wer e su ppor t ed by t h e da t a a n d a n a lyses in t h is st u dy. T h e ba sic con clu sion s t o be dr aw n fr om t h ese a n a lyses a n d discu s-sion s of t h ese fi n din gs a r e pr esen t ed below. Im plica t ion s of t h e fi n din gs for pr a ct it ion er s a n d r esea r ch er s a r e discu ssed la t er in t h e fi n a l sect ion of t h e pa per.

H 1. P r ospect or st r a t e gies a r e a ssocia t ed w it h su per ior per for m a n ce w h en a ccom pa -n ied by h igh a u t o-n om y of t h e dea -n . T h ese fi n din gs su ppor t t h e gen er a l descr ip-t ion s of ip-t h e pr ospecip-t or sip-t r a ip-t e gy fi r sip-t deip-t a iled by Miles a n d Sn ow (1978). For exa m ple, Miles a n d Sn ow st a t e t h a t t h e pr ospect or develops “a low de gr ee of st r u ct u r a l for m a liza t ion ”, it s “con t r ol syst em sh ou ld be decen t r a lized”, a n d “per m it s in dividu a ls t o exer cise a con sid-er a ble a m ou n t of self-con t r ol” (1978, p. 62-3). T h ese con dit ion s a r e im por t a n t beca u se pr ospect or s n eed t o con cen t r a t e on ext er n a l clien t s, pot en t ia l m a r k et s a n d em er gin g t r en ds; t h ey n eed t o be fr ee t o in n ova t e a n d t a k e ca lcu la t ed r isk s. For t h ese r ea son s pr ospect or s sh ou ld be a s fr ee a s possible fr om bu r ea u cr a t ic con t r ols – t h ey sh ou ld h ave Figure 2

Gro up e ffe c tive ne s s me ans , by auto no my

Pro s pe c to r

E1 5 .3 8

E2 5 .5 9

E3 4 .7 2

E4 5 .2 9

High

Lo w Auto no my

De fe nde rs

Figure 3

Gro up e ffe c tive ne s s me ans , by planning mo de

Exte rnal

Inte rnal Planning

E1 5 .3 7

E2 5 .6 5

E3 4 .8 4

E4 5 .3 0

(6)

David M. Bro c k

a u t on om y t o im plem en t pr ospect in g a ct ivi-t ies. T h ese idea s a r e sim ila r ivi-t o Peivi-t er s a n d Wa t er m a n ’s (1980) “excellen ce ch a r a ct er is-t ics” of “closen ess is-t o is-t h e cu sis-t om er ” a n d “a u t on om y a n d en t r e pr en eu r sh ip”.

Th ese fin din gs a lso a gr ee w ith r esea r ch fin din gs in th e bu sin ess str a tegy liter a tu r e. Gu pta (1987) sh owed th a t differ en tia tion str a tegies a r e a ssocia ted w ith m or e effective im plem en ta tion in decen tr a lized con texts, wh er ea s low -cost str a tegies a r e better w ith cen tr a liza tion . Differ en tia tion str a tegies (Por ter, 1980) a r e sim ila r to pr ospector s in th a t both str a tegies r equ ir e a n ou tw a r d, cu stom er or ien ta tion . Br ock a n d Zeith a m l (1988) a lso fou n d sim ila r r esu lts in a stu dy of 50

su per m a r k ets a n d th eir m a n a ger s. Th ey fou n d th a t differ en tia tion str a tegies wer e m or e effective w ith h igh a u ton om y th a n w ith low a u ton -om y.

H 3. P r ospect or st r a t e gies a r e a ssocia t ed w it h su per ior per for m a n ce w h en a ccom pa -n ied by ext er -n a lly or ie-n t ed lo-n ger -t er m pla n n in g.

As a r gu ed a bove, a n sch ool’s n eeds for in for -m a t ion a n d con t r ol de pen d on it s st r a t e gy. T h e pr ospect or – bein g con st a n t ly on t h e look ou t for n ew cu st om er s a n d pr odu ct s – h a s a h igh er n eed for ext er n a l in for m a t ion a n d a lower n eed for con t r ol t h a n t h e m or e in t er -n a lly or ie-n t ed defe-n der.

On ce a ga in t h ese fi n din gs su ppor t Miles a n d Sn ow ’s (1978, p. 61) pr escr ipt ion s con cer n in g pla n n in g for t h e pr ospect or st r a t e gy: “con t in -u o-u sly m on it or s a n eclect ic a r r ay of ext er n a l or ga n iza t ion s a n d even t s”; “n ecessit a t es a com pr eh en sive pla n n in g a ppr oa ch ”; a n d, “feedba ck fr om t h e m a r k et a n d ot h er r eleva n t en vir on m en t a l elem en t s”.

H 5. P r ospect or st r a t e gies a r e a ssocia t ed w it h su per ior effect iven ess wh en a ccom pa -n ied by h igh a u t o-n om y a -n d ext er -n a lly or ien t ed, lon ger -t er m pla n n in g. In a ddit ion t o t h e st r a t e gy-a u t on om y a n d st r a t e gy-pla n n in g fi t s a ddr essed a bove, h ypot h esis 5 con fi r m s t h a t a u t on om y a n d ext er n a l pla n n in g a lso fi t w it h ea ch ot h er in su ppor t in g t h e pr ospect or st r a t e gy. T h is a llow s on e t o iden t ify t h is con fi gu r a t ion of pr ospect in g + h igh a u t on om y + in t er n a l pla n n in g a s bein g su per ior t o ot h er com bin a t ion s of t h e pr ospect or st r a t e gy, a u t on om y a n d pla n n in g oper a t ion a lized in t h is st u dy.

The defender strategy

Th e th r ee h ypoth eses dea lin g w ith th e defen der str a tegy wer e n ot su ppor ted. In fa ct, ea ch test of th ese h ypoth eses pr odu ced n ega -tive test scor es: th e gr ou p effec-tiven ess m ea n s wer e opposite to th e h ypoth esized effects. Possible r ea son s for th ese r esu lts a r e discu ssed in th e follow in g two pa r a gr a ph s, a s well u n der “Recom m en da tion s for fu tu r e r esea r ch ”.

H2 . The de fe nde r strate gy and auto no my

As su ggested ea r lier, th er e is som e th eor etica l a n d em pir ica l su ppor t for a defen der str a te gy bein g m or e effective if a ccom pa n ied by low a u ton om y (Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978; Wh ite, 1986). However, th e da ta a n d a n a lyses in th is stu dy did n ot con fi r m th is r ela tion sh ip. On e r ea son for th is m ay be th e h igh er edu ca tion con text of th is stu dy, wh ich is su bsta n tia lly differ en t fr om th e com m er cia l settin gs of pr ior stu dies. A m a jor distin gu ish in g fea tu r e of h igh er edu -ca tion is th e em ph a sis on a u ton om y, ba sed on th e va lu e of a ca dem ic fr eedom . Th e a u ton om y of th e pr ofessor a te, a ca dem ic de pa r tm en ts a n d oth er or ga n iza tion s, is a fu n da m en ta l ten et of h igh er edu ca tion . So h igh er edu ca tion con texts in wh ich low a u ton om y a r e a ssoci-a ted w ith effectiven ess m ssoci-ay be r ssoci-a r e. For th is r ea son , h ypoth eses su ch a s th is wh ich in vesti-ga te a low a u ton om y situ a tion m ay n ot be expected to m eet w ith effectiven ess in sch ools.

H4 : The de fe nde r strate gy and planning

Pet er son (1980) dist in gu ish es bet ween in t er -n a l a -n d ext er -n a l or ie-n t a t io-n s i-n pla -n -n i-n g. He st a t es t h a t for “m ost in st it u t ion s, pla n n in g n eeds t o be sen sit ive t o bot h in t er n a l a n d ext er n a l fa ct or s” (p. 119). T h er e is, h owever, a fu n da m en t a l disa dva n t a ge a ssocia t ed w it h in t er n a l pla n n in g, n a m ely t h a t it la ck s a t t en -t ion -t o ex-t er n a l fa c-t or s. Few or ga n iza -t ion s a r e u n a ffect ed by ext er n a l fa ct or s. For t h ese r ea son s, in t er n a l pla n n in g gen er a lly m ay be less h elpfu l t o st r a t e gy im plem en t a t ion – even of defen der st r a t e gies – t h a n ext er n a l pla n n in g. T h is t en den cy wou ld con t r ibu t e t o a n expla n a t ion of w h y Hypot h esis 4 w a s r eject ed. Im plica t ion s of t h is fi n din g a r e pu r -su ed in t h e “Recom m en da t ion s for fu t u r e r esea r ch ” sect ion .

Other conclusions

Strate gy

For th is sa m ple, sch ools cla ssified a s defen der s h a d a h igh er m ea n effectiven ess scor e th a n pr ospector s. A sim ila r ten den cy w a s fou n d by Ha m br ick (1983); n a m ely th a t th e h igh costs involved w ith pr ospectin g a ctivities m a de th em less pr ofita ble a n d th e secu r e n ich es occu pied by defen der s r esu lted in gen er a lly h igh er m a r k et sh a r es, econ om ies of sca le a n d su per ior efficien cy. In fa ct h e con clu des th a t th e pr ospector str a tegy is n ot m a in ta in a ble in “...d ifferen tia tion stra tegies a re a ssociated w ith m ore effectiv e

(7)

David M. Bro c k

th e lon g ter m for th ese r ea son s a n d th a t pr ospector s m u st even tu a lly sh ift tow a r ds som e de gr ee of defen din g to su r vive.

Auto no my

As r e por t ed ea r lier, t h e m ea n effect iven ess of a ll h igh a u t on om y u n it s is sign ifi ca n t ly gr ea t er t h a n t h a t of a ll low a u t on om y u n it s. T h is su ggest s t h a t , ot h er t h in gs equ a l, h igh a u t on om y is gen er a lly a ssocia t ed w it h su pe-r iope-r effect iven ess pe-r ela t ive t o low a u t on om y in t h e sa m ple u sed in t h is st u dy. Recom m en da -t ion s for a dm in is-t r a -t or s a n d r esea r ch er s ba sed on t h ese con clu sion s a r e pr esen t ed in t h e fi n a l sect ion s of t h is ch a pt er.

Planning mo de s

F u r th er, th e m ea n effectiven ess of a ll exter n a l pla n n er s is sign ifi ca n tly gr ea ter th a n a ll u n its u sin g in ter n a l pla n n in g m odes. Th is su ggests th a t, oth er th in gs equ a l, exter n a l pla n n in g is gen er a lly a ssocia ted w ith su per ior effective-n ess r ela tive to ieffective-n ter effective-n a l pla effective-n effective-n ieffective-n g ieffective-n th e sa m ple u sed in th is stu dy. Recom m en da tion s for a dm in istr a tor s a n d r esea r ch er s ba sed on th ese con clu sion s a r e pr esen ted below.

Recommendations

For m a n a ger s im plem en tin g pr ospector -type str a tegies, th e fin din gs of th is stu dy pr ovide two m a jor im plication s. F ir st, th e stu dy su g-gests th a t w ith r espect to sch ool-level decision m a ker s sh ou ld be a llowed a s m u ch a u ton om y a s possible. Th is decision a u ton om y h elps to save tim e a t th e sch ool level. Also, it per m its m a n a ger s th e flexibility to con cen tr a te on eva lu atin g th e m yr ia d possibilities w ith r espect to developin g poten tia l clien t ta r get m a r kets a n d pr odu ct/ ser vice offer in gs ava ila ble to th e sch ool. Th ese ila ctivities ila r e fu n dila -m en ta l to th e i-m ple-m en tation of a pr ospector str a tegy. Th e possible disa dva n ta ge of th e con com ita n t loss of con tr ol by u pper -level m a n a ger s ca n per h aps be ju stified by th e a bove a dva n ta ges. In a ddition , it h a s been a r gu ed th a t th e in n ova tion n ecessa r y to im plem en t a pr ospector str ategy su ccessfu lly is stifled by bu r ea u cr atic con tr ols (Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978).

T h e secon d r ecom m en da t ion in volves t h e ch oice of pla n n in g a n d con t r ol syst em s. Sch ools im plem en t in g ext er n a lly or ien t ed pr ospect or st r a t e gies h ave a r ela t ively h igh n eed for ext er n a l in for m a t ion – in for m a t ion con cer n in g com pet in g sch ools, dem ogr a ph ic

t r en ds, econ om ic for eca st s a n d ot h er m a r k et in for m a t ion (Kot ler a n d Mu r ph ey, 1981). F u r t h er, t h ese t ypes of in for m a t ion a r e best ga t h -er ed w it h a fu t u r e or ien t a t ion (Mor r ison et a l., 1984). T h is st u dy’s em pir ica l a n a lyses su ppor t t h e t h eor y t h a t lon ger -t er m a n d ext er n a l pla n n in g m odes a r e ben efi cia l t o t h e im plem en t a t ion of pr ospect or -t ype st r a t e gies. Alt h ou gh t h er e a r e su bst a n t ia l cost s a ssoci-a t ed w it h t h ese plssoci-a n n in g syst em s, t h e gssoci-a in s in effect iven ess fi n din gs su ggest t h a t t h e ben efi t s ou t weigh t h e cost s.

Th e su ffix “-type” w a s pu r posely a dded to “pr ospector ” in th is section to br oa den th e str a tegic con cept a t th is sta ge. Th er e is su p-por t in th e or ga n iza tion a l str a tegy liter a tu r e th a t a few str a tegic types beh ave in a sim ila r w ay w ith r espect to th eir con tin gen cy r ela tion -sh ips. Gu pta (1987) lin k s th e “differ en tia tion ” str a tegy a n d th e “bu ild” str a tegy. He th en sh ow s th a t both th ese str a tegies h ave sim ila r con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips w ith th r ee str u c-tu r a l va r ia bles (open n ess, su bjectivity a n d decen tr a liza tion ) a n d w ith bu sin ess effective-n ess a s th e depeeffective-n deeffective-n t va r ia ble. Th ese two str a tegic types h ave m u ch in com m on w ith ea ch oth er a n d th e “pr ospector ” type; im por -ta n tly, th e em ph a sis on fin din g n ew (a dded) ba ses for com petition . Also, a ll th r ee str a tegies a r e a ssocia ted w ith a cu stom er or ien ta tion . Th u s th er e is som e r ea son to expect th a t differ -en tia tion a n d bu ild str a tegies m ay be im ple-m en ted better w ith h igh a u ton ople-m y a n d w ith exter n a l pla n n in g system s.

For m a n a ger s im plem en tin g defen der str a tegies, th e im plica tion s a r e less obviou s. Th e em pir ica l fin din gs in th is stu dy con tr a dict th e h ypoth esized r ela tion sh ips. In fa ct, th e da ta su ggest th a t th e opposite m aybe tr u e; to w it, defen der str a tegies m ay be im plem en ted better w ith lon ger -ter m a n d exter n a lly or i-en ted pla n n in g a n d w ith h igh a u ton om y. Th ese fin din gs seem to con fi r m wh a t som e a u th or s h ave m a in ta in ed a bou t pla n n in g, n a m ely th a t lon ger -ter m str a tegic pla n n in g is r ecom m en ded for a ll situ a tion s (Br yson , 1988; Mor r ison et a l., 1984; Sh ir ley, 1983).

Con cer n in g a u t on om y, t h e fi n din g t h a t h igh er levels of a u t on om y a r e a ssocia t ed w it h su per ior levels of effect iven ess fi t s w it h w h a t som e w r it er s in t h e h igh er edu ca t ion a r en a h ave m a in t a in ed; n a m ely t h a t h igh er edu ca t ion is a n a r ea in w h ich a u t on om y is im por t a n t for execu t ion of t h e a ca dem ic m is-sion (Bess, 1988; Ch a ffee a n d Tier n ey, 1988). Recommendations for future research

Validity o f the the o ry

Is t h er e a con t in gen cy r ela t ion sh ip bet ween st r a t e gy, a u t on om y a n d effect iven ess? T h e t h eor y seem s com pellin g, bu t t h e da t a a n d a n a lyses in t h is st u dy len d su ppor t on ly in “...T h is d ecision a u ton om y h elps to sa v e tim e a t th e sch ool lev el it

(8)

David M. Bro c k

som e con t ext s. Som e r ea son s for t h is cou ld in volve t h e sa m ple of colle ges u sed in t h is st u dy. Aca dem ic fr eedom is su ch a n im por -t a n -t va lu e -t h a -t a n y dim in u -t ion of a dea n ’s a u t on om y m ay be cou n t er -pr odu ct ive in t h ese con t ext s. Or ga n iza t ion a l t h eor ist s con cer n ed w it h or ga n iza t ion s ou t side h igh er edu ca t ion a r e en cou r a ged t o t est t h e sa m e t h eor y w it h a differ en t sa m ple. For h igh er edu ca t ion , on e wou ld lik e t o eva lu a t e t h e effect s of va r yin g levels of a u t on om y, for exa m ple, u sin g t h e m ea su r e in t h is st u dy (wh ich gave a n a u t on -om y scor e of zer o t o 18). Per h a ps sch ools w it h a scor e of 18 differ fr om t h ose w it h 16; per -h a ps t -h e scor e of 7.5 u sed t o bifu r ca t e t -h is sa m ple w a s in a ppr opr ia t e. Gr ou pin g h a lf t h e sa m ple in t o a “low a u t on om y” cell m ay well h ave been gr ossly in a ccu r a t e; per h a ps fou r gr ou ps, “low ”, “m oder a t e”, “h igh ” a n d “ver y h igh ” wou ld h ave bet t er r e pr esen t ed t h e a ct u a l ext en t of a u t on om y in t h is sa m ple.

Th er e m ay a lso be a sign ifica n t bia s tow a r ds h igh a u ton om y in h er en t in th e m ea su r e of effectiven ess in th is stu dy. Assu m in g th a t dea n s pr efer a u ton om y a n d con tr ol over th eir sch ool, th ey a r e lik ely to: r a te th eir sch ools m or e effective if th ey h ave h a d th e per son a l a u ton om y to pu r su e th eir ow n idea s a n d im plem en t str a tegies of th eir ow n ch oice; a n d con sider th eir sch ools less effective if th ey feel u n a ble to m a k e th eir ow n decision s, or a r e fr u str a ted by in stitu tion a l in er tia . Th ese pr oblem s cou ld be a ddr essed w ith a la r ger sa m ple, w ith m or e discr im in a tin g in str u m en ta tion a n d m or e soph istica ted sta tistica l tech -n iqu es.

Is t h er e a con t in gen cy r ela t ion sh ip bet ween st r a t e gy, pla n n in g a n d effect iven ess? On ce a ga in , t h e t h eor y seem s com pellin g, bu t t h is st u dy w a s a ble t o su ppor t it for som e st r a t e-gies on ly. On e r ea son m ay be t h a t ext er n a l pla n n in g is su ch a n essen t ia l m a n a ger ia l pr ocess t h a t it is n ecessa r y in t h e va st m a jor it y of con t ext s. Or, on ce a ga in , it m ay be t h a t t h is pa r t icu la r set of bu sin ess sch ool con t ext s in t h e cu r r en t com pet it ive en vir on m en t gen er a lly r equ ir e a n ext er n a l or ien t a -t ion .

P la n n in g t a k in g bot h in t er n a l a n d ext er n a l fa ct or s in t o a ccou n t is m ost com pr eh en sive a n d is lik ely t o be m ost effect ive in m ost con -t ex-t s (Mor r ison et a l., 1984; Pet er son , 1980). To fi n d t h e r ela t ively r a r e con t ext s in w h ich in t er n a l t ypes of pla n n in g m ay be pr efer a ble

wou ld r equ ir e a m or e com plex t h eor y, a la r ger sa m ple a n d pr oba bly a w ider r a n ge of m ea su r es a n d a n a lyses. For in st a n ce, a cce pt in g t h a t a ll pr ospect or s n eed ext er n a l pla n n in g, on e m ay dist in gu ish bet ween t h e pla n -n i-n g co-n t i-n ge-n cies of va r iou s defe-n der s o-n t h e ba sis of ot h er va r ia bles. On ly t h e m ost well-est a blish ed sch ools m ay be a ble t o effec-t ively im plem en effec-t a defen der seffec-t r a effec-t e gy w ieffec-t h ou effec-t a n ext er n a l pla n n in g or ien t a t ion ; ext er n a l pla n n in g of va r iou s for m s m ay be n eeded for t h e m a jor it y of in st it u t ion s. It is lik ely t h a t m ea n GMAT scor es cou ld h elp dist in gu ish a m on g t h ose sch ools t h a t r equ ir e ext er n a l pla n n in g m or e t h a n ot h er s. Gen er a lly, sch ools w it h t h e h igh est GMAT scor es a r e bet t er est a blish ed a n d ca n m or e sa fely con -cen t r a t e on in t er n a l clien t ba ses. Ot h er sch ools pr oba bly st ill r equ ir e ext er n a l, lon ger -r a n ge pla n n in g, even wh en im ple-m en t in g a defen der st r a t e gy. T h u s t h e decision bet ween pla n n in g m odes sh ou ld pr oba -bly be on e of r ela t ive em ph a sis, n ot a n “eit h er -or ” ch oice: som e in t er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g a n d som e ext er n a lly or ien t ed pla n -n i-n g is pr oba bly -n eeded i-n m ost co-n t ext s. F u r t h er st u dy is n eeded t o explor e t h ese r ela -t ive em ph a ses in va r iou s con -t ex-t s.

In cr em en t a l a n a lyses (r em ovin g m a in effect s of gr ou p m em ber sh ip) su ggest t h a t t h er e m ay be som e va lidit y t o t h ese t h eor ies t h a t t h e cu r r en t oper a t ion a liza t ion s, sa m ple a n d st a t ist ica l t ech n iqu es h ave fa iled t o u n cover. T h ese a n a lyses a r e n ot con clu sive bu t do sh ow a t en den cy (a lbeit st a t ist ica lly in sign ifi ca n t ) su ppor t in g t h e t h eor ized r ela -t ion sh ips, n a m ely:

• h igh a u t on om y h a s a r ela t ively st r on ger posit ive in fl u en ce on t h e effect iven ess of pr ospect or s t h a n it h a s on defen der s; a n d

• ext er n a l pla n n in g h a s a r ela t ively st r on ger posit ive in fl u en ce on t h e effect iven ess of pr ospect or s t h a n it h a s on defen der s. T h ese t est s su ggest t h a t t h er e m ay be ca ses in wh ich H 2, H 4a n d H 6wou ld be su ppor t ed. T h e ch a llen ge for r esea r ch er s is t o fi n d a su it a ble sa m ple a n d t o em ploy fi n er

m ea su r es a n d a n a lyses t h a n wer e u sed in t h is st u dy.

Other methodological issues

Th is r esea r ch design obviou sly exclu ded m a n y va r ia bles th a t cou ld h ave h a d a bea r in g on th e fin din gs. Am on g th ese, th er e m ay well be som e “m eta -con tin gen cy va r ia bles” th a t play a deter m in in g r ole. For in sta n ce, ta k in g th e econ om ic cycle a s su ch a m eta -con tin gen cy va r ia ble, in tim es of r ecession a n d con sequ en t r edu ction s of fu n din g to h igh er edu ca tion , a ggr essive exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g m ay “...On ly th e m ost w ell-establish ed sch ools m a y b e able to effectiv ely

(9)

David M. Bro c k

be n eeded for a ll str a tegies. Sim ila r ly, sch ools w ith esta blish ed r esou r ce pools – typica lly defen der s – a r e h a r m ed less by th ese con texts a n d wou ld th u s be m or e effective.

T h er e cou ld a lso be a ca se of r ever se ca u sa l-it y a m on g som e of t h e va r ia bles. For exa m ple, a sch ool t h a t – for a n y r ea son – per for m s effect ively m ay be a llowed t h e leew ay t o pr ospect a n d m ay be gr a n t ed h igh er a u t on -om y. T h is wou ld a ccou n t for t h e r ela t ively la r ge n u m ber s of effect ive sch ools clu st er ed in t h e pr ospect or a n d h igh a u t on om y cells.

T h e a bilit y t o dist in gu ish pr ospect or s – or de gr ee of pr ospect in g – cou ld be en h a n ced by r ecor din g t h e r a t e of in n ova t ion s by t h e sch ool. E xa m ples of su ch in n ova t ion s wou ld be n ew pr ogr a m m es a n d differ en t st u den t (or ot h er clien t ) m a r k et s t a r get ed.

T h e low r espon se r a t e pr om pt s qu est ion s a bou t t h e gen er a liza bilit y of t h e fi n din gs. For exa m ple, t h e sa m ple con sist s of a sign ifi ca n t n u m ber of pr iva t e colle ges: 31 of 95, or 32.6 per cen t (sim ila r t o t h e 29.9 per cen t in t h e popu la t ion ). However, it is possible t h a t t h e in t er n a l st r u ct u r a l r ela t ion sh ips – lik e a u t on -om y – of pr iva t e colle ges differ fr -om t h ose of pu blic colle ges. So, for exa m ple, a “pr iva t e” pr ospect or w it h low a u t on om y m ay be m or e effect ive t h a t a “pu blic” pr ospect or w it h sim i-la r a u t on om y.

T h is st u dy m ea su r es a u t on om y of t h e dea n of a n sch ool. However, it m ay be r eleva n t t o n ot e t o wh a t ext en t ch a ir per son s, de pa r t -m en t s h ea ds, fa cu lt y a n d st a ff w it h in t h e sch ool a r e a u t on om ou s. For exa m ple, it wou ld be in t er est in g t o m ea su r e wh et h er on e pr o-gr a m m e w it h in a sch ool is m or e a u t on om ou s t h a n a n ot h er ; a n d t o en qu ir e wh a t t h e cor r e-la t es of t h ese differ en ces a r e.

F in a lly, it is u n k n ow n wh eth er bu sin ess sch ools a r e typica l of oth er colle ges w ith in u n iver sities. Th u s th e gen er a liza bility of th ese fin din gs to or ga n iza tion s w ith in th e h igh er edu ca tion sector n eeds to be qu estion ed.

References

Ada m s, J .J . (1977), “T h e m a n a gem en t of pla n -n i-n g”, i-n Row la -n d, A.W. (E d.), H a n d b ook of In stitu tion a l A d v a n cem en t, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA, pp. 455-63.

An der son , C.R. a n d Zeit h a m l, C.P. (1984), “St a ge of t h e pr odu ct life cycle, bu sin ess st r a t e gy a n d bu sin ess per for m a n ce”, A ca d em y of M a n a ge-m en t J ou r n a l, Vol. 27, pp. 5-24.

An soff, H.I. (1977), “T h e st a t e of pr a ct ice in pla n -n i-n g syst em s”, S loa n M a n a gem en t R ev iew, Win t er, pp. 1-24.

Ba r r y, D. a n d E lm es, M. (1997), “St r a t e gy r et old: t ow a r d a n a r r a t ive view of st r a t e gic

discou r se”, A ca d em y of M a n a gem en t R ev iew, Vol. 22 N o. 2, pp. 429-52.

Ben sim on , E .M. (1993), “N ew pr esiden t ’s in it ia l a ct ion : t r a n sa ct ion a l a n d t r a n sfor m a t ion a l lea der sh ip”, J ou r n a l for H igh er E d u ca tion M a n a gem en t, Vol. 8 N o. 2, pp. 5-17.

Bess, J .L. (1988), Collegia lity a n d B u rea u cra cy in th e M od er n Un iv ersity: T h e In fl u en ce of In for m a tion a n d Pow er on Decision -M a k in g S tru ctu res, Tea ch er s Colle ge P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Boa l, K.B. a n d Br yson , J .M. (1987), “Re pr esen t a t ion , t est in g a n d policy im plica t ion s of pla n -n i-n g pr ocesses”, S tra tegic M a n a gem en t J ou r -n a l, Vol. 8 N o. 3, pp. 211-31.

Br ock , D.M. a n d Zeit h a m l, C.P. (1988), “St r a t e gy im plem en t a t ion a t t h e oper a t in g level: t h e r ole of oper a t in g m a n a ger s a n d decision a u t on om y”, Pr oceed in gs of th e S ou th er n M a n a gem en t A ssocia tion, pp. 359-61.

Br ow n , A. (1995), “Hu m a n fa ctor s: th e pr oblem s of in tegr a tin g people a n d tech n ology in th e wor k -pla ce”, On th e Hor iz on, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 1-6. Br yson , J .M. (1988), S tra tegic Pla n n in g for Pu blic

a n d N on p r ofi t Orga n iz a tion s, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA.

Ca m er on , K.T. a n d Tsch ir h a r t , (1992), “Post -in du st r ia l en vir on m en t s a n d or ga n iza t ion a l effect iven ess in colle ges a n d u n iver sit ies”, J ou r n a l of H igh er E d u ca tion, Vol. 63, J a n u a r y/ Febr u a r y, pp. 87-108.

Ch a ffee, E .E . a n d Tier n ey, W.G. (1988), Collegia te Cu ltu re a n d L ea d ersh ip S tra tegies, ACE Ma cm illa n , N ew Yor k , N Y.

Da ft , R.L. (1988), M a n a gem en t, Dr yden , Ch ica go, IL.

Du t t on , J .E . a n d Du n ca n , R.B. (1987), “T h e in fl u -en ce of t h e st r a t e gic m a n a gem -en t pr ocess on st r a t e gic ch a n ge”, S tra tegic M a n a gem en t J ou r n a l, Vol. 8 N o. 2, pp. 103-16.

F ayol, H. (1949), “P la n n in g”, in Ma t t eson , M. T. a n d Iva n cevich , J .M. (E ds), M a n a gem en t a n d Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a v ior Cla ssics, BP I-Ir w in , Hom ewood, IL, pp. 85-93.

F u lm er, R.M. a n d Ru e, L.W. (1974), “T h e pr a ct ice a n d pr ofi t a bilit y of lon g r a n ge pla n n in g”, M a n a ger ia l Pla n n in g, Vol. 22, pp. 1-7. Gr in yer, P.H. a n d N or bu r n , D. (1975), “P la n n in g

for exist in g m a r k et s: per ce pt ion s of execu -t ives a n d fi n a n cia l per for m a n ce”, J ou r n a l of th e R oya l S ta tistica l S ociety, Vol. 138, pp. 70-97. Gu m por t, P. (1993), “Th e con tested ter r a in of a ca d-em ic pr ogr a m r edu ction ”, J ou r n a l of High er E d u ca tion, Vol. 64, May/ J u n e, pp. 283-311. Gu pt a , A.K. (1987), “SBU st r a t e gies, cor por a t

eSBU r ela t ion s a n d eSBU effect iven ess in st r a t -e gy im pl-em -en t a t ion ”, A ca d em y of M a n a ge-m en t J ou r n a l, Vol. 30 N o. 3, pp. 477-500. Gu pt a , A.K. a n d Govin da r a ja n , V. (1984), “Bu

(10)

David M. Bro c k

Gu pt a , A.K. a n d Govin da r a ja n , V. (1986), “Resou r ce sh a r in g a m on g SBUs: st r a t e gic a n t eceden t s a n d a dm in ist r a t ive

im plica t ion s”, A ca d em y of M a n a gem en t J ou r -n a l, Vol. 29, pp. 695-714.

Ha ck m a n , J .R. a n d Oldh a m , G.R. (1976), “Mot iva -t ion -t h r ou gh design of wor k : -t es-t of a -t h eor y”, Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a v ior a n d H u m a n Per for -m a n ce, Vol. 16, p. 256.

Ha m br ick , D.C. (1983), “Som e t est s of t h e effect ive-n ess a ive-n d fu ive-n ct ioive-n a l a t t r ibu t es of Miles a ive-n d Sn ow ’s st r a t e gic t ypes”, A ca d em y of M a n a ge-m en t J ou r n a l, Vol. 26 N o. 1, pp. 5-26.

Heydin ger, R.B. (1994), “A r einven ted m odel for h igh er edu ca tion ”, On th e Hor iz on, Vol. 3 N o. 1, pp. 1-5.

Holdaw ay, E .A., N ew ber r y, D.J ., Hick son , D.J . a n d Her on , R.P. (1975), “Dim en sion s of or ga n iza -t ion s in com plex socie-t ies: -t h e edu ca -t ion a l sect or ”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Vol. 20, pp. 37-58.

In k son , J .H.K., P u gh , D.S. a n d Hick son , D.J . (1970), “Or ga n iza t ion a l con t ext a n d st r u ct u r e: a n a bbr evia t ed r e plica t ion ”, A d m in istra tiv e S cien ce Qu a r terly, Vol. 15, pp. 318-29.

Kot ler, P. a n d Mu r ph y, P.E . (1981), “St r a t e gic pla n -n i-n g for h igh er edu ca t io-n ”,J ou r n a l of H igh er E d u ca tion, Vol. 52, Se pt em ber / Oct ober, pp. 470-89.

Miles, R. a n d Sn ow, C. (1978), Orga n iz a tion a l S tra teg y, S tru ctu re a n d Pr ocess, McGr aw -Hill, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Miller, D. a n d F r iesen , P.H. (1977), “St r a t e gy m a k in g in con t ext : t en em pir ica l a r ch et ypes”, J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t S tu d ies, pp. 253-80. Miller, D. a n d F r iesen , P.H. (1984), Orga n iz a tion s:

A Qu a n tu m V iew, P r en t ice-Ha ll, E n glewood Cliffs, N J .

Min t zber g, H. (1994), T h e R ise a n d Fa ll of S tra tegic Pla n n in g, T h e F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y. Mor r ison , J .L., Ren fr o, W.L. a n d Bou ch er, W.I.

(1984), “F u t u r es r esea r ch a n d t h e st r a t e gic pla n n in g pr ocess: im plica t ion s for h igh er edu ca t ion ”, A S H E -E R IC H igh er E d u ca tion R esea rch R ep or t, N o. 9.

Oxfor d Un iver sit y P r ess (1992), T h e Ox ford Dictio-n a r y of Qu ota tioDictio-n s, Oxfor d Un iver sit y P r ess, Oxfor d.

Pea r ce, J .A., F r eem a n , E .B. a n d Robin son , R.B. (1987), “T h e t en u ou s lin k bet ween for m a l st r a t e gic pla n n in g a n d fi n a n cia l

per for m a n ce”, A ca d em y of M a n a gem en t R ev iew, Vol. 12 N o. 4, pp. 658-75.

Pet er s, T.J . a n d Wa t er m a n , R.H. J r (1980), In S ea rch of E x cellen ce: L esson s fr om A m er ica ’s B est-R u n Com p a n ies, Ra n dom Hou se, N ew Yor k , N Y.

Pet er son , M.W. (1980), “An a lyzin g a lt er n a t ive a ppr oa ch es t o pla n n in g”, in J eda m u s, P., Pet er son , M.W. a n d Associa t es (E ds), Im p r ov -in g A ca d em ic M a n a gem en t: A H a n d b ook of Pla n n in g a n d In stitu tion a l R esea rch, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA, pp. 113-63.

Por t er, M.E . (1980), Com p etitiv e S tra teg y: T ech n iqu es for A n a lyz in g In d u str ies a n d Com p a n ies, F r ee P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y. Ra m a n u n ja m , V. a n d Ven k a t r a m a n , N. (1987),

“P la n n in g syst em ch a r a ct er ist ics a n d pla n -n i-n g effect ive-n ess”, S tra tegic M a n a gem en t J ou r n a l, Vol. 8 N o. 5, pp. 453-68.

Robin son , R.B. J r a n d Pea r ce, J .A. II (1983), “T h e im pa ct of for m a lized st r a t e gic pla n n in g on fi n a n cia l per for m a n ce in sm a ll or ga n iza -t ion s”, S tra tegic M a n a gem en t J ou r n a l, Vol. 4, pp. 197-207.

Scot t , W.R. (1981), Orga n iz a tion s: R a tion a l, N a tu ra l a n d Op en S ystem s, P r en t ice-Ha ll, E n glewood Cliffs, N J .

Sh ir ley, R.C. (1983), “Iden t ifyin g t h e level of st r a t -e gy for a coll-e g-e or u n iv-er sit y”, L on g-R a n ge Pla n n in g, Vol. 16 N o. 3, pp. 92-8.

Sla u gh t er, S. (1993), “Ret r en ch m en t in t h e 1980s: t h e polit ics of pr est ige a n d gen der ”, J ou r n a l of H igh er E d u ca tion, Vol. 64, May/ J u n e, pp. 250-82.

T h or elli, H.E . (1977), S tra teg y + S tru ctu re = Per for -m a n ce: T h e S tra tegic Pla n n in g I-m p era tiv e, In dia n a Un iver sit y P r ess, Bloom in gt on , IA. Wh it e, R. (1986), “Gen er ic bu sin ess st r a t e gies,

or ga n iza t ion a l con t ext a n d per for m a n ce: a n em pir ica l in vest iga t ion ”, S tra tegic M a n a ge-m en t J ou r n a l, Vol. 7 N o. 3, pp. 217-31. Wildavsk y, A. (1973), “If pla n n in g is ever yt h in g,

m aybe it ’s n ot h in g”, Policy S cien ces, Vol. 4, pp. 127-53.

Appendix 1. Operationalized and

measurement of the variables

“Strategy”

Th is va r ia ble w a s in ten ded to distin gu ish between (a ) u n its th a t wer e pr im a r ily con -cer n ed w ith ser vin g a r ela tively sta ble clien t ba se w ith a r ela tively sta ble pr odu ct offer in g – a defen der str a te gy – a n d (b) th ose m or e con -cer n ed w ith developin g n ew cu stom er gr ou ps a n d offer in gs – a pr ospector str a te gy (Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978). Th e m ea su r es u sed in th is stu dy a r e sim ila r to th ose u sed to m ea su r e str a te gy by (often cited) Gu pta a n d Govin -da r a ja n (1984) a n d by Ha m br ick (1983).

E a ch va r ia ble collect ed a n d cr ea t ed w a s given a n a bbr evia t ed n a m e:

STR01: T h e “eit h er -or ” r espon se in qu est ion 5, coded 0 for t h e fi r st r espon se, or 1 for t h e secon d. 0 in dica t ed a defen der, 1 in dica t ed a pr ospect or. STR07: T h e 0-7 sca le a t t h e st a r t of it em 4; a

(11)

id-David M. Bro c k

poin t of t h e “defen der r a n ge” a n d 5.25 t h e m idpoin t of t h e “pr ospect or r a n ge” of t h e 0-7 m ea su r e of st r a t e gy. T h ese r a n ges a n d m id-poin t s a r e sh ow n in F igu r e A1.

N in et y-fou r r espon ses for STR01 wer e r eceived a n d 85 for STR07, leavin g a m a xi-m u xi-m of 84 sch ools t o be cla ssifi ed by t h e STRX va r ia ble in t h is w ay. T h e m ea n STRX scor e for a ll 84 u n it s w a s 6.4. T h is scor e w a s a r bit r a r ily ch osen a s t h e poin t a t wh ich t h e defen der s wou ld be se pa r a t ed fr om t h e pr ospect or s. T h ose scor in g a bove 6.4 wer e cla ssifi ed a s pr ospect or s a n d t h e r est a s defen der s. T h e r em a in in g 11 sch ools wer e cla ssifi ed ba sed on t h eir r espon se t o eit h er STR01 or STR07. T h ese pr ocedu r es r esu lt ed in 52 sch ools bein g cla ssifi ed a s pr ospect or s a n d 43 a s defen der s.

“Autonomy”

Au t on om y is oper a t ion a lized a s t h e n u m ber of decision s fr om a given set t h a t a m a n a ger (in t h is ca se t h e dea n ) is em power ed t o m a k e. A set of 18 possible decision s is in it em 10. T h e a u t on om y va r ia ble – ca lled AU – is t h e n u m ber of decision s ch eck ed by t h e r espon -den t . T h e m ea n AU scor e w a s 7.5 for t h e 95 r espon den t s. On ce a ga in , t h e ch oice of t h e m ea n t o bifu r ca t e t h e sa m ple w a s a r bit r a r y. T h ose scor in g h igh er t h a n 7.5 wer e cla ssifi ed a s h avin g “h igh ” a u t on om y (n= 48), t h e r est “low ” a u t on om y (n= 47).

T h is oper a t ion a liza t ion a n d in st r u m en t a r e ba sed on t h e m ea su r em en t of a u t on om y by In k son et a l.(1970).

“Planning mode”

T h is va r ia ble w a s design ed t o m ea su r e t h e ext en t t o wh ich t h e or ga n iza t ion s em ployed lon g-t er m , ext er n a lly or ien t ed pla n n in g syst em s, a s opposed t o m or e t r a dit ion a l pla n n in g ba sed on t h e a n n u a l bu dget in g cycle.

T h e follow in g code n a m es wer e u sed: P LTH: It em 7 ca pt u r ed t h e t im e h or izon of

t h e pla n n in g syst em . On occa sion s wh er e t h e r espon se t o t h is it em w a s a r a n ge (for exa m ple, “3 t o 5 yea r s”) t h e u pper ext r em it y (5 yea r s) w a s u sed a s t h is is closer t o t h e m ea n in g of t h e t er m “t im e h or izon ”.

P LP L: It em 8 t h e de gr ee of ext er n a l or ien t a -t ion , ba sed on -t h e r ela -t ive a m ou n -t of ext er n a l fa ct or s t a k en in t o a ccou n t in t h e pla n n in g pr ocess. Or ga n iza -t ion s scor in g h igh on i-t em 8 wer e deem ed t o h ave a r ela t ively “ext er -n a lly or ie-n t ed” pla -n -n i-n g syst em . P LX: T h is com posit e va r ia ble w a s t h e su m

of a n or ga n iza t ion ’s P LTH a n d P LP L scor es. T h is sim ple a ppr oa ch t o a ggr e ga t ion w a s possible beca u se t h e m ea n s for P LTH (4.60) a n d P LP L (4.47) wer e ver y sim ila r, so weigh in g wou ld h ave h a d lit t le effect .

In t h is sa m ple t h e P LP L a n d P LTH va r ia bles wer e cor r ela t ed: t h e cor r ela t ion coefficien t w a s 0.37 wh ich is sign ifi ca n t a t t h e 0.02 level (t= 2.46).

T h e 88 or ga n iza t ion s w h o r espon ded t o bot h P LTH a n d P LP L wer e cla ssifi ed in t o ext er -n a l/ lo-n g-r a -n ge pla -n -n er s if t h eir P LX scor e w a s h igh er t h a n t h e m ea n of a ll P LX scor es; a n d in t er n a l/ sh or t -r a n ge pla n n er s for lower scor es. For t h e seven or ga n iza t ion s wh o r espon ded t o on ly on e of t h e t wo P L it em s, t h e cla ssifi ca t ion w a s don e ba sed on t h e scor e of t h a t on e it em r ela t ive t o t h e m ea n of t h a t it em . So a or ga n iza t ion wh o r espon ded low t o P LTH a n d n ot a t a ll t o P LP L w a s cla ssifi ed a s if it h a d r espon ded low t o bot h P LTH a n d P LP L: in t er n a l. F in a lly, 39 or ga n iza t ion s wer e cla ssifi ed ext er n a l a n d 56 in t er -n a l.

T h e a ppr oa ch u sed h er e is sim ila r t o t h a t u sed in Du t t on a n d Du n ca n (1987) a n d by Ra m a n u n ja m a n d Ven k a t r a m a n (1987).

“Effectiveness”

E ffect iven ess w a s defi n ed a s “t h e de gr ee of su ccess in a ch ievin g t h e m a jor object ives of t h e or ga n iza t ion ”. A m a jor pr oblem in m ea su r in g effect iven ess w a s t h a t m a n y or ga n iza -t ion s differ w i-t h r espec-t -t o -t h eir m a jor objec-t ives. Som e a im for h igh er en r olm en objec-t , oobjec-t h er s for bet t er t est scor es for en t er in g MBA st u -den t s, st ill ot h er s t o su ccessfu lly im plem en t a n ew pr ogr a m m e. T h e in st r u m en t w a s t h er e-for e design ed t o a llow t h e r espon den t s t o in dica t e effect iven ess ir r espect ive of wh a t t h eir object ives wer e.

T h e follow in g m ea su r es of effect iven ess wer e u sed.

E F F 07: Item 6 in th e in str u m en t a sk ed for a r a tin g of effectiven ess on a seven poin t sca le (0-7). Th is is a sim ila r a ppr oa ch to th ose u sed by Boa l a n d Br yson (1987) a n d by Gu pta a n d Govin da r a ja n (1984). All 95 or ga n iza -tion s in th e sa m ple r espon ded to th is item .

Figure A1

Us e o f STR0 7 to c las s ify s trate gy

Midpo ints

De fe nde rs Pro s pe c to rs

(12)

David M. Bro c k

Appendix 2. Items from research instrument

4) To wh a t ext en t is you r sch ool cu r r en t ly t a r get in g a pplica n t s fr om se gm en t s (su ch a s a ge gr ou ps or qu a lifi ca t ion s) t h a t a r e differ en t fr om t h e t r a dit ion a l st u den t ba se descr ibed in t h e pr eviou s it em s?

0 – – – 1 – – – 2 – – – 3 – – – 4 – – – 5 – – – 6 – – – 7 n ot a t a ll som ewh a t t o a m a jor ext en t

P lea se in dica t e by br iefl y descr ibin g (if a pplica ble) t h e m ost im por t a n t n ew st u den t gr ou ps t h a t you r sch ool h a s t a r get ed in t h e la st 1 t o 2 yea r s:

Geogr a ph ic a r ea s: ______________ Gen der :________________ GMAT r a n ge: ______________ F u n ct ion a l/ m a jor a r ea ________ Age gr ou p: ______________ Ca r eer a spir a t ion s: _________ Yea r s’ wor k exper ien ce:______________ Ot h er :____________________

5) Wh ich of t h e follow in g is m ore tru ew it h r espect t o t h e m a jor object ives of you r sch ool over t h e la st 3 yea r s?

[ ] ou r em ph a sis is on doin g a bet t er job of sa t isfyin g t h e n eeds of ou r t r a dit ion a l st u den t gr ou ps or

[ ] in a ddit ion t o dea lin g w it h ou r t r a dit ion a l st u den t gr ou ps, we st r ess im plem en t in g n ew pr ogr a m m es a n d fi n din g n ew clien t ele

6) How h a s you r sch ool fa r ed in a t t r a ct in g st u den t s, r ela t ive t o it s m a jor object ives? 0 – – – 1 – – – 2 – – – 3 – – – 4 – – – 5 – – – 6 – – – 7

u n su ccessfu l som ewh a t su ccessfu l

To wh a t ext en t t h a t you wer e su ccessfu l, wh a t wer e t h e m a jor a ch ievem en t s? ______________________________ ________________________________

7) Wh a t t im e h or izon is u sed in t h e sch ool’s pla n n in g pr ocess? ____ yea r s

8) Wh en pla n n in g (or bu dget in g) for t h e u pcom in g yea r, wh ich of t h e follow in g fa ct or s a r e ser iou sly t a k en in t o a ccou n t ?

[ ] t h e sch ool’s en r olm en t t r en ds [ ] t h e sch ool’s t u it ion a n d fees [ ] t h e econ om y

[ ] dem ogr a ph ic t r en ds

[ ] ch a n ges t a k in g pla ce a t r iva l sch ools [ ] pot en t ia l n ew m a r k et s

[ ] polit ica l en vir on m en t [ ] qu a lit y of in t er n a l ser vices [ ] r e gu la t or y ch a n ges

10) Wh ich of t h e follow in g decision s ca n be m a de a t sch ool level (or below ), w it h ou t per m is-sion fr om ot h er u n iver sit y a dm in ist r a t or s or offices? (If you r u n iver sit y a u t om a t ica lly r u bber -st a m ps a cer t a in decision , con sider t h is a decision a t sch ool level.)

[ ] h ir in g a ju n ior fa cu lt y m em ber [ ] h ir in g su ppor t st a ff

[ ] gr a n t in g t en u r e t o a fa u lt y m em ber [ ] h ir in g a fa cu lt y m em ber w it h t en u r e [ ] pr om ot in g t o a ssocia t e pr ofessor [ ] pr om ot in g t o (fu ll) pr ofessor [ ] ch a r gin g a fee for a cou r se or la b [ ] set t in g t u it ion for Ma st er ’s pr ogr a m m e

[ ] st a r t in g a n ew con cen t r a t ion or m in or in gr a du a t e cu r r icu lu m [ ] ch a n gin g t h e t h esis/ r esea r ch pa per r equ ir em en t for Ma st er ’s de gr ee [ ] r edu cin g a m ou n t of cr edit h ou r s n eeded for Ma st er ’s de gr ee by 3 h ou r s [ ] ch a n gin g t r a n sfer r equ ir em en t s fr om ot h er sch ools

[ ] ca n cellin g a ll cla sses on e day for sch ool-w ide a ct ivit ies [ ] gr a n t in g a pr ofessor a sa bba t ica l or a sem est er leave [ ] pla cin g a n a dver t isem en t for a fa cu lt y m em ber

[ ] pla cin g a pr om ot ion a l or pu blic r ela t ion s a dver t isem en t [ ] h ir in g a pr iva t e pr in t er t o m a k e n ew let t er h ea d (cost $200)