Abstract
This paper considers the importance of schools developing a strategic perspective as a means of creating a sustainable and successful educational future. It draws on the research findings from a National College for School Leadership (NCSL) research project ‘Success and sustainability: Developing the strategically focused school’. The project built a model of strategic processes, strategic approaches and strategic leadership that were key elements in strategically successful schools. The paper defines a strategically focused school as one that is educationally effective in the short-term but also has a clear framework and processes to translate core moral purpose and vision into excellent educational provision that is challenging and sustainable in the medium- to long-term. The strategically focused school has leadership that enables short-term objectives to be met while concurrently building capability and capacity for the long term.
Leading the strategically focused school
The challenge facing many school leaders is how to balance the short-term demands of high stakes accountability frameworks with the challenge of building the longer-term sustainable strategic success of the school. Within the English school context a great deal of emphasis and effort has been focused on short-term target setting and test outcomes. The means of achieving test outcomes has been through what were originally termed School Development Plans and have more recently become described as School Improvement Plans. This has resulted in the development of short-termism at the expense of deeper educational values and approaches that take longer to nurture and develop. The author of this paper recognises the importance of short-term planning but he contends that, while it is necessary for operational development, it is insuffient as a means of longer-term sustainable development of the school. There is a need to distinguish between short-term and longer-term futures thinking and strategic thinking. While some authors (such as Bell & Chan 2005) see school development planning as a form of strategic planning, the author does not share this view and regards it as fundamentally important to separate out both the operational (school improvement planning) and strategic levels. He also recognises the importance of not seeing strategy as synonymous with the reductionist concept of strategic planning.
Davies & Ellison (2003) propose a view of school development that has three levels: futures thinking, which has a five- to ten-year horizon, a strategic dimension which has a three- to five-year dimension and operational planning which has a zero- to two-year dimension. The purpose of this paper is to report on a project funded by the National College for School Leadership (NSCL) in England entitled ‘Success and Sustainability: Developing the Strategically Focused School’ (Davies, Davies & Ellison 2005). The project aimed to research the middle strand on the Davies and Ellison (2003) framework, that of the strategic dimension of school development.
Methodology
The research project was based on a qualitative approach with ten primary schools (elementary schools), ten secondary schools (high schools) and three special schools providing a set of twenty three case studies. The task was not to identify what percentage of school leaders were or were not strategic but to analyse those that were ‘strategic’ in their approach to identify the elements of that strategic dimension. A twofold approach was used to identify potential strategic leadership practices in schools. First, a survey of Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) reports on individual schools was undertaken to find those reports which identified strategic leadership and strategic planning processes. Second, an initial telephone conversation was undertaken to verify the use of strategic approaches, such as the existence of planning documentation which had both operational and strategic elements. From this the case study schools were identified. In the case study schools, a portfolio of information was assembled i.e. school planning documentation, Ofsted report, school organisational and operational guidelines, and then a semi-structured interview was carried out with the principal of each school.
The challenge of this type of research involves the size of the sample. The surveyed Ofsted reports rarely mentioned strategy and when they did they often equated it to short-term development planning. Refining a short-list of forty schools was possible but a larger sample was not practicable. A large scale, questionnaire-based, survey asking principals if they were strategic may have received an affirmative response but it is doubtful whether a common fundamental understanding of strategy would emerge from such a generic quantitative research tool. The depth of response that was possible with a qualitative approach, having first established some parameters of whether the school was strategically focused, seemed to offer a more fertile area for research. This approach has elements of appreciative enquiry in that it was seeking to understand the nature and dimensions of strategic processes in schools. The approach was not to discover whether strategy existed or not in a large number of schools. The research would, by its nature, offer indicative ideas of good practice for consideration by school leaders rather than a definitive list of essential factors for good practice.
Initial concepts of strategy
The initial literature research demonstrated the importance of seeing strategy as a strategic perspective emanating from strategic thinking. This is well illustrated by Garratt (2003: 2-3):
‘Strategic thinking is the process by which an organisation’s direction-givers can rise above the daily managerial processes and crises to gain different perspectives …. Such perspectives should be both future-oriented and historically understood. Strategic thinkers must have the skills of looking ... forwards ...while knowing where their organisation is now, so that wise risks can be taken while avoiding having to repeat the mistakes of the past.’
Use was made of a conceptual framework that sees strategy linking a number of ideas, chief of which are: (i) a series of actions that shape the direction of the organisation (ii) a medium- to long-term timescale (iii) concern with broader core issues and not operational detail (iv) involving building a strategic perspective through strategic thinking (v) seeing strategy as a framework for future action and, as such, providing a template against which to judge current action, and finally (vi) seeing strategy as providing sustainability for the school. A strategically focused school can thus be defined as: one that is educationally effective in the short-term but also has a clear framework and processes to translate core moral purpose and vision into excellent educational provision that is challenging and sustainable in the medium- to long-term. It has the leadership that enables short-term objectives to be met while concurrently building capability and capacity for the long-term.
What then did school leaders do that enabled them to build strategic capability in their organisations?
The conceptual map of the research project
In analysing the data from the research project three major elements that contributed to building a strategically focused school were identified:
This can be represented diagrammatically:
Figure 1: Elements contributing to building a strategically focused school.
Each of these elements will now be explored.
Strategic processes
The significance and importance of strategic processes can be demonstrated by a quote from one of the principals in this study:
‘I am going to start again, because in many instances the process of developing the strategy is actually as important as the strategy itself.’
If strategy is to move beyond the strategic document that lies on the shelf in the principal’s office and is instead a framework that guides current and future action, then how the strategic policy develops is of critical importance. The NCSL research showed four dimensions of process that school principals considered.
First, was the dimension of conceptualisation which encompasses the stages of reflecting, strategic thinking and strategic analysis. Reflection answers the question of where are we now? Making time for reflection presented a challenge for principals in the study, a point which is well illustrated by Hamel and Prahalad (1994):
‘So the urgent drives out the important; the future goes largely unexplored; and the capacity to act, rather than the capacity to think and imagine becomes the sole measure for leadership.’ (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994: 4-5)
Reflection is about senior staff attempting to understand where they are as leaders, where the school team is, and where the organization is. One leader in the research articulated this as:
‘It’s also about understanding – understanding the institution and understanding yourself, understanding the other players as well in the organisation so that you can actually take the whole thing forward.’
This process of reflection moves on to a projection forward by the use of strategic thinking which answers the question: where could we be? Gratton (2000) talks about the capabilities that need to be established to enable this strategic thinking to take place:
These two processes of strategic reflection and thinking are supported by strategic analysis which answers the question: what do we know?
Having worked through the conceptualisation processes, principals in the study commented on the key process in making strategy work, that of engaging the people in the school to be fully involved and committed. The key to this involvement by staff in the school was seen in the research as the process of initiating strategic conversations. These can be structured discussions and conversations that are part of meetings but can be powerful when they take place informally as reported by van der Heijden (1996):
Often much more important is the informal learning activity consisting of unscheduled discussions, debate and conversation about strategic questions that goes on continuously at all levels of the organisation. (van der Heijden 1996: 273)
The significance of an ongoing process of strategic conversations was outlined by two leaders in the research:
‘With strategic conversations we have constructed a common vocabulary that helps to build a common vision. It is through that quite intensive personal contact with the key stakeholders to create an understanding that we could make things happen in the school.’
‘So we have to keep having these conversations, but we have to have them at lots of different levels so that we keep everybody involved, carry everybody forward.’
These two leadership voices highlight a number of significant points that emerge from developing strategic conversations: establishing a common vocabulary; understanding how staff could make things happen; consensus building; outlining staff visions; building reflection; keeping everyone involved; carrying everyone forward.
The process of effectively communicating or articulating strategy is key to the successful adoption of strategy. In the research, leaders reported three main ways of successful communication. These were the traditional form of written plans and frameworks but supported by two other means. One of these the paper has already highlighted that of oral communication which takes place through strategic conversation. Emphasising the importance of this, one leader commented: ‘documentation is not as important as what people believe in and what people do, and for that you need constant conversations’.
The other way of articulating strategy is through the structure that the school operates. It can be the simple measure of ensuring that, in meetings on the longer-term strategy, policy issues are separated out from shorter-term operational issues. Alternatively this separation can take the form of a more radical approach so that different organisational structures encompass both the operational and the strategic dimensions of school life.
Moving the processes forward requires an action and framework and the next section of this paper will consider three approaches that school leaders used in the research to structure their strategy.
Strategic approaches
Interviews with school leaders in the research highlighted the use of three approaches that were used to frame strategy in their schools: strategic planning, emergent strategy and strategic intent.
Strategic Planning. Strategic Planning is a rational linear approach which assumes that it is possible to define the desired outcomes and plan the stages necessary to get there. Strategic planning needs to be separated from short-term operational planning in that the latter deals with detail and a two-year time horizon while strategic planning has broader medium-term objectives. Strategic planning would encapsulate a three- to five-year view of broader issues and not the detail of the operational plan, but would act as a template against which to align short-term activities.
In broad terms, a school can plan student numbers over a five-year period, plan projected income flows and plan and manage a building project. Considerable parts of the educational world are predictable such as the core elements of the curriculum in terms of literacy and numeracy and demographic data with regard to student intakes. More mundane elements of a school’s activities such as the maintenance cycle are also predictable and plannable. Therefore schools can use this strategic planning approach in certain areas to great effect. However the mistake often made is to extend the detail of the operational plan in the belief that it can become strategic in future years. While school improvement plans may have some currency when extended into the third year, if the level of detail is extended to the fourth and fifth year the approach breaks down. Leaders in the research project found it extremely valuable to separate out the operational short-term plan and the strategic plan. The limitation of strategic planning is that it is not always possible to plan forward in a rational and predictable way. Very often strategy has to be built or crafted as the school moves forward and this will be considered next.
Emergent Strategy. Emergent strategy assumes that schools often operate in an environment of change and turbulence and have a number of initiatives or events thrust upon them. In such an environment schools do not always have the time fully to understand a new initiative before they have to introduce it. The learning process is done through ‘learning by doing’. It could be considered a trial-and-error process where the school tries new things, but occasionally there are errors. With a number of new activities undertaken by the school how can it learn by its experience? It has to set time aside to reflect on its actions; it can see that some actions were successful while others were less so. If a school can analyse experiences, it can determine which actions to repeat in the future (the successful ones) and which actions to abandon (the less successful ones). A pattern of successful behaviour emerges by building up a number of experiences and reflecting on them. By using that pattern of behaviour and actions, the strategy emerges through a reactive approach which starts to become proactive if schools learn from that experience, and use it to set a framework for the future.
Mintzberg (1989) sees leaders less involved in planning strategy and more involved in crafting strategy. The key to a successful emergent approach is that leaders work to shape and create the future by constantly scanning the environment and analysing their own responses to it. Such an approach is needed because constant initiatives demand constant reappraisal and testing but, at the same time, leaders need to set these activities against a back drop of futures thinking. As such, emergent strategy has a closer relationship to reality than an approach where strategy is reconsidered only at fixed time intervals. Leaders in the NCSL study reflected:
‘We are adapting as we go along and learning as we go along - emergent strategy is of course a learning process.’
‘I think so many strategic plans fall down because they are too prescriptive and an event or a personal change happens and the whole thing is scuppered. You need to build strategy as you go along.’
These insights from school leaders show the benefits of not being too prescriptive and the necessity of learning by doing. To incorporate the emergent approach into a school’s repertoire of strategy, the leaders must set up regular and systematic reviews of the current situation with free and frank discussions of lessons learnt set against the direction where the school should be going in the future.
Strategic Intent. Strategic planning, has already been considered and can be thought of as ‘knowing where you want to go and knowing how to get there’. Strategic intent would then be used when ‘we know what major change we want but we do not yet know how to achieve it, but we will!’ It is a process of setting defined intents or objectives and committing the organisation to a learning and development phase to achieve them. It is a framework for attacking difficult organisational change by energising the organisation into learning how to reach for new and challenging goals. Leaders in the research project commented:
‘What is really important about strategic intent is that it gives us an opportunity to say: ‘Here are some areas that we are going to investigate’. These are the ‘perhaps’ areas of development – it could be personal understanding, it could be about practice, it could be about wider reading, it could be about national initiatives. We don’t quite know yet how that’s going to pan out but, in fact, by identifying them now and saying let’s give us a bit of thinking time, some quality time to develop our thinking in these areas …’
‘I had to get them to stop thinking about ‘but you can’t go there because you need the route’. The intents are established first, and you don’t know the pathway to get there initially. I actually think you don’t make the big leaps if you know the steps you are going to get along the way. And I have a problem with target setting for that reason – that you always have to break down into little steps and you never think bigger than that.’
This form of strategy is very useful in a period of considerable change or turbulence. The planning framework is one in which, although the senior leadership is able to articulate what major strategic shifts or changes it wishes to make, it is unsure of how to operationalise these ideas. In brief it knows where it wants to go but not how to get there. Determining the intent may be dependent on leadership intuition (see: Parikh 1994) as well as leadership analysis. The key to deploying this form of strategic approach is to set targets in the form of strategic intents that stretch the organisation to perform in significantly different or increased levels. The school then engages in a series of capability- and capacity-building measures to 'leverage up' the organisation to produce at the higher level. The ‘intent’ is the glue that binds the organisation together as it focuses on how to achieve this new strategic outcome. Work by Hamel & Prahalad (1994) and Davies (2003) illustrates the significance of this approach.
Integrating the approaches. When considering these three types of strategic approach it is a mistake to think that schools use one strategic approach to the exclusion of all others. In the study, school leaders used a combination of strategic approaches in differing circumstances. Strategic planning may be the preferred approach when there is full knowledge and a time frame that facilitates it. However, given a need to implement a significant change at short notice with little prior knowledge of the area, then an emergent strategy approach would be evident. When the school is attempting to build a major cultural and organisational change by developing the capacity to achieve a significant shift in performance, it would build a series of strategic intents. All these approaches could be used concurrently in response to the challenges and possibilities which face schools, so deploying a portfolio of strategic approaches would be the appropriate response.
Strategic leadership
In analysing the data from interviews with leaders who have high level strategic skills, the research findings were divided into what strategic leaders do and what characteristics they possess. The analysis of the data revealed that strategic leaders involve themselves in five key activities in each of the two categories in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Strategic leadership
What strategic leaders do
Strategic leaders focus on the core activity of building the strategic direction of the school which involves a process of not just looking forward from the present but establishing a strategic picture of what we want the school to look like in the future and setting guidelines and frameworks for how to move forward to that position. Leaders from the NCSL study considered their strategic leadership role as:
‘It is taking a long-term view about what the vision is for the school and then strategy is about how you achieve that vision over a period of time. At the moment we are working with a five-year time scale and I think that is right initially but I don’t think we should ever lose sight of the longer term than that.’
Strategic leaders focus on translating strategy into action. The NCSL research showed that good strategic leaders were also good ‘completer finishers’. In Mintzberg’s (2003: 67) terms, they were able not only to ‘see ahead’ but also to ‘see it through’. This is facilitated by the ability of strategic leaders to focus on a limited number of key strategic issues and drive forward on those issues. One of the leadership voices from the NCSL research stated:
It’s not enough just to do that thinking and reflecting but then people actually want to see results.
Strategic leaders align individuals and the organisation to build strategic capability. Building capacity in-depth within the school to deliver the strategy is vital. Davies (2003) outlines a four stage ABCD approach as first, articulating the strategy, in oral, written and structural ways; second, building a common understanding through shared experiences and images; third, through dialogue creating a shared mental map of the future and fourth, defining desired outcomes. These processes build a powerful understanding within the staff to enable them to contribute fully to strategic implementation. Novak (2002) talks about the difference in strategic change of ‘doing to’ staff in the organisation and as a result very often ‘doing them in’. He argues passionately for an approach of ‘doing with’ as a way of building long-term commitment to change. Leadership voices from the NCSL study articulate the need to move from a top-down approach to encompass wider leadership:
‘The strategic view for me was about it actually being owned by more people. I think when I started out as a principal I felt very much the strategy was mine. I soon realized that it needed to be shared and built by a wide group of people if it was to be implemented in a sustainable way.’
Strategic leaders in the study articulated the importance of strategic timing when seeking strategic intervention points. The strategic leadership challenge of when to make a change can be as significant as what change to make. This is a critical issue of timing which can arise from both a rational analysis but also from leadership intuition (Parikh, 1994). There is a useful distinction between ‘Chronos’ time and ‘Kairos’ time (Bartunek & Necochea, 2000). The former is the normal ticking of the clock and the passage of time; the latter points to those intense moments in time when critical actions and decisions take place. There are critical points at which strategic leaders can make successful interventions. Leaders in the research project commented:
‘You have to pick the right moment but also be careful that you don’t wait for every single detail to be in place.’
‘I learnt very early on to spend as much time on how you implement as to what you implement and I spend a lot of time on what is the best way to do it.’
As important as strategic timing is the concept of strategic abandonment. This can be defined as the ability to give up or abandon some activities to create the capacity to undertake the new activity. The difference between abandoning things that are not working well and abandoning those that were satisfactory because there were better ideas to pursue, was articulated by school leaders in the study as:
‘I see abandonment as being two different issues really. One is the abandonment of things that are not working and actually taking people’s time and energy and you’re flogging a dead horse. That’s easy to do. The other side of it which I did several times was to actually say OK this is working well and we are really comfortable with it and it’s getting the results we want, but actually there is another strategy here that takes us onto the next stage but we can’t run them both together. This has to be suspended or abandoned in order to give the other one time to grow.’
Strategic leaders in the study recognised the importance of building longer-term strategic competencies. Strategic competencies are a concept articulated by Prahalad and Hamel (1990) as ‘core competencies’ and by Stalk et al (1992) as ‘strategic capabilities’. They relate to fundamental attributes within the school. An example of a longer-term competency would be a fundamental understanding of learning and differentiated needs of children. This could be compared with the more shallow understanding of the latest curriculum initiative from government. Leaders in the study focused on developing the longer-term abilities as witness by the following leader:
‘Instead of doing what we always do, the strategic capability I want is to ‘challenge the status quo’ and ‘always ask - why, not just how, but why – why are we doing it like that, and then how can we do it differently.’
Characteristics strategic leaders display
The research related to the personal characteristics of school leaders in the study found that the leaders displayed five main characteristics.
Strategic leaders challenge and question - they have a dissatisfaction or restlessness with the present. One of the driving forces behind strategic leaders is that they see that the organisation can perform in different ways in the future. They want to challenge the current situation and improve things in the future. This means they have to deal with the ambiguity of not being satisfied with present arrangements and at the same time not being able to change things as quickly as they might want. One leader in the NCSL study commented:
‘Part of the problem has been that, in some people’s eyes, we were already successful. Why, then, change a winning formula? Some were content with the way things were, they were comfortable with existing strategies because they appeared to be working. But I knew we could do different and better things.’
Strategic leaders prioritize their own strategic thinking and learning and build new mental models to frame their own and others’ understanding. This is a significant characteristic of strategic leaders. To envision the future in order to develop new approaches requires both knowledge and experience. Strategic leaders in the study were very aware of their learning needs and prioritized time to meet those. They were also seekers after new experiences to broaden their repertoire of skills. New challenges need new skills and the leaders in the study saw continuous professional development as a means of achieving those skills. They framed their new understandings in mental models which they used in communication with other staff. Leaders in the NCSL study commented:
‘If I have to explain it to other people I need to understand it in depth and that means time for reflection.’
‘I set aside time each week, with the team, to look at strategic issues separated out from the day-to-day detail.’
Strategic leaders display strategic wisdom based on a clear value system. Having a clear value system which is ethically based was seen by the leaders in the study as the bedrock for all their activities. The wisdom to make the ‘best’ decisions was based not just on a good understanding of what change was possible but also what was in the best interest of the children. The leaders in the study used a series of value statements in their interaction with colleagues to set the framework for their strategic decisions. One leader in the NCSL study commented:
‘I have developed a series of leadership questions I ask staff to give them and me time to understand the nature of what we are doing and give us time to understand what might be the wisest choice such as ‘What is in the best interest of the children?’ or ‘What choices do we have?’ or ‘Who will benefit and who will not benefit?’
Strategic leaders have powerful personal and professional networks. Networks of fellow professionals and organisations that were local, regional, national and international were seen as the fundamental way to gain both new understanding and to benchmark their current understanding. The NCSL research showed that strategic leaders put a great deal of time and effort into maintaining and extending their networks. The significance of networks is supported by Fullan (2004: 17) who states ‘… if you want to change systems, you need to increase the amount of purposeful interaction between and among individuals … and indeed within and across systems.’
One of the leaders in the NCSL study commented:
‘Networks, networks, networks… I have learnt that I need multiple information and support networks to do my job. The rapid pace of change means I have to constantly share ideas with colleague to make sense of what is happening.’
Strategic leaders have high quality personal and interpersonal skills. Leaders in the research talked about building greater personal understanding about how to increase their own confidence and resilience as well as understanding others on the school staff. Honest relationships and making time to listen to others were seen as the cornerstone of strategic efforts led by school leaders. One leader in the study reported:
‘I am constantly trying to listen and support people to really understand where they are coming from. They need to trust and believe me and feel I am working in their best interests.’
Strategic leadership clearly involves working through people to achieve the long-term objectives of the school. This quotation from the study highlights that the quality of those relationships is vital.
Conclusion
Having considered the three dimensions of a strategically focused school, those of strategic processes, approaches and leadership, the challenge for schools is to bring to bear all three dimensions together. Short-term target setting often works against longer-term sustainability. While schools have to address the shorter-term demands of accountability the NCSL research shows that schools that concurrently address longer-term strategic objectives build frameworks to achieve that longer-term success and sustainability. These schools are strategically focused.
Discuss presentationReferences
Bartunek, J. M. & Necochea, R. (2000) Old insights and new times. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9 (2): 103-113.
Bell, LA (2002) Strategic planning and school management: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? The Journal of Educational Administration. 40 (3): 200-228.
Bell, L. & Chan, D. W. K. (2005) ‘Principals’ Leadership and Strategic Planning in Primary Schools in Hong Kong and England: A Comparison’. International Studies in Educational Administration. 33 (3): 2-21.
Davies, B. (2003) Rethinking Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools, Educational Management and Administration. 31(3): 295-312.
Davies, B., Davies, B. J. & Ellison, L. (2005) Success and Sustainability, developing the strategically focused school. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Davies, B. & Ellison. L. (2003) The New Strategic Direction and Development of the School. London: Routledge.
Fullan, M. (2004) Leadership and Sustainability: system thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Garratt, B. (2003) Developing Strategic Thought. London: McGraw-Hill.
Gratton, L (2000) Living Strategy: putting people at the heart of corporate purpose. London: Financial Times – Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1989) Mintzberg on Management. New York: The Free Press.
Mintzberg, H. (2003) Strategic Thinking as Seeing, in Garratt, B. Developing Strategic Thought. London: McGraw-Hill.
Novak. J. (2002) Inviting Educational Leadership. London: Pearson Education.
Parikh, J. (1994) Intuition – The New Frontier of Management. Oxford: Blackwell.
Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990) ‘The core competencies of the corporation’ Harvard Business Review. 68: 79-93.
Stalk, G. Evans, P. & Schulman, L. (1992) ‘Competing on capabilities: the new rules of corporate strategy’. Harvard Business Review. 70(2): 57-69.
van der Heijden, K. (1996) Scenarios – The Art of Strategic Conversation. New York: Wiley.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Professor Brent Davies, University of Hull, England, United Kingdom.