University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: STRATEGIC PLANNING 1
LINKING SHARED GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES:
AN INNOVATION STUDY

by

Adrian Jesse Donato

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Adrian Jesse Donato

STRATEGIC PLANNING 2
Acknowledgements
No person is an island. The completion of this work is the fruit of many years of
investment into a life by many strategic change-agents over the course of one’s life, which
renders naming so many shaping individuals and influencers along that winding path in this one
strategic dissertation acknowledgment opportunity impossible. Only for two would it be a great
injustice to not accentuate. The first is my LORD Jesus Christ, the God-Man who has blessed
me with salvation by grace through faith in Himself apart from any works and who with that gift,
has also given me the consequent desire to exalt Him in all of life. Even during the course of this
program, He has proven Himself and His wisdom true over and over again. The second is the
wife of my youth…her worth is far above jewels…many daughters have done nobly, but she
excels them all! The completion of this program is a reflection of her support, encouragement,
and repeated unselfish expressions of grace upon grace, day after day, night after night, for the
last two years.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Organizational Context and Mission 10
Organizational Performance Need 11
Related Literature 11
Importance of the Organizational Innovation 13
Organizational Performance Goal 14
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 15
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Gap 18
Purpose of the Project and Questions 18
Methodological Framework 19
Definitions 19
Organization of the Study 21
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 22
Strategic Planning 22
Theological Institutions of Higher Education 23
The Stakeholders 25
Shared Governance 26
The Role of Faculty 27
The Role of Shared Governance 29
Models of Shared Governance 30
Organizational Impact 33
Negative Mindsets 34
Positive Mindsets 36
Faculty Engagement 39
Change 39
Effectiveness 40
Implementation 41
Mission 42
Communication 42
Egalitarianism 43
Internationalization 43
Academic Freedom 44
Non-Tenure Faculty 44
Conclusion 45
Implications of Research 47
Chapter Three: Methodology of the Study 50
Methodological Framework 50
Assumed Performance Needs 52
Preliminary Scanning Data 53
Knowledge and Skills 53
STRATEGIC PLANNING 4
Motivation 54
Organization 54
Learning and Motivation Theory 55
Knowledge and Skills 55
Motivation 55
Organization 56
Related Literature 56
Validation of the Performance Needs 57
Participating Stakeholders 57
Discussion of the Sample 57
Rationale for the Sample 58
Data Collection 59
Surveys 59
Interviews 60
Focus Group 61
Validation of the Performance Needs 62
Data Analysis 62
Trustworthiness of Data 62
Role of Investigator 63
Limitations and Delimitations 63
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 65
Purpose of the Study 65
Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs 66
Need for Factual Knowledge Concerning Strategic Planning Terminology 68
Need for Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge About Strategic Planning Processes 68
Need for Metacognitive Knowledge to Alter Strategic Planning Concepts 69
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs 70
Results and Findings: Motivation Needs 71
Strategic Planning Process Participation Independent of Capabilities 75
Strategic Planning Process Participation Linked to Value 76
Strategic Planning Process Participation Linked to Capabilities 77
Strategic Planning Process Participation Linked to Goals 78
Strategic Planning Process Participation Linked to Affect 79
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Needs 80
Results and Findings for Organization Needs 80
Governance Alignment 89
Stewardship and Faithfulness 91
Relationships 91
Competition 92
Change 93
Communication 94
The organization needs improved communication. 94
Performance Goals 94
The organization has vague performance goals. 94
Role Models 95
Decision-Making Processes 96
STRATEGIC PLANNING 5
Student-Centeredness 96
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organization Needs 97
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation and Evaluation 98
Recommended Solutions 99
Recommended Solutions for Knowledge and Skills Gap 101
Solution 1: Define Terms 101
Solution 2: Facilitate Understanding of How Strategic Planning Works 101
Solution 3: Provide a Step-By-Step Overview of the Strategic Planning Process 102
Solution 4: Engender Flexibility Related to Strategic Planning 102
Recommended Solutions for Motivation Gap 103
Solution 5: Provide Clear, Current, and Challenging Goals 103
Solution 6: Boost Institutional Morale 104
Solution 7: Provide Models of Conviction in Leadership 104
Recommended Solutions for Organization Gap 106
Solution 8: Pre-Teach the TCBS Governance Model 106
Solution 9: Cultivate Stewardship and Faithfulness 107
Solution 10: Build Intentional Relationships 107
Solution 11: Persist in Creating a Change-Oriented Culture 108
Solution 12: Link Incentives to Student Outcomes 109
Solution 13: Collaborate in Meaningful Ways 109
Solution 14: Cultivate Mission Mindedness 110
Solution 15: Build Trust Through Communication 111
Implementation Plan 112
Factors of Influence on Implementation Activities 113
Governance Decision-Making Structure 113
Leadership Instability 114
Change Orientation 114
Implementation Activities 115
Implementation #1 115
Implementation #2 116
Implementation #3 116
Implementation #4 117
Implementation #5 118
Implementation #6 119
Implementation #7 119
Implementation #8 120
Implementation #9 121
Implementation #10 121
Evaluation Plan 122
Reactions 122
Learning 123
Behavior 123
Results 123
Future Research 124
Conclusion 125
References 126
STRATEGIC PLANNING 6
Appendix A: Summary of Assumed Needs 136
Appendix B: Survey Protocol 139
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 143
Appendix D: Focus Group Protocol 144
Appendix E: Metaphysical Underpinnings of Strategic Planning 146

STRATEGIC PLANNING 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals 16
Table 2: Knowledge Needs Validation Summary Chart 66
Table 3: Motivation Needs Validation Chart 72
Table 4: Organization Needs Validation Chart 81
Table 5: 15 Recommended Target Solutions by Validated Need 99
Table 6: Knowledge Needs and Solutions 102
Table 7: Motivation Needs and Solutions 105
Table 8: Organization Needs and Solutions 111

STRATEGIC PLANNING 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process: Innovation Model 51
Figure 2: Explicit Pre-teaching and Embedding Prior to Pre-Planning 125

STRATEGIC PLANNING 9
Abstract
This case study used a gap analysis framework to identify the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational needs in achieving 100% faculty and staff active participation in the strategic
planning process. The perspectives of 20 faculty and staff of a private religious school were
examined. Data were collected through surveys, interviews, and a focus group meeting. The
study revealed that administrative leadership held undefined operating assumptions about the
relationship between governance and strategic planning that adversely affect institutional
effectiveness. The study also found that administrative leadership will need to provide faculty
and staff with basic definitions, steps, “how-to” knowledge, and the capacity for altering
strategic planning concepts. The study confirmed that faculty and staff are highly motivated to
participate in strategic planning processes, but they can experience yet higher motivation levels
when administrative leadership ensures they have clear, current, and challenging goals, feel
valued, and have peer-models of conviction in strategic planning leadership. Organizational
needs findings indicated that administrative leadership may want to engage faculty and staff by
pre-teaching the adopted organizational governance model, cultivating a stewardship and
faithfulness mindset, building intentional relationships, creating a change-oriented culture,
linking incentives to student outcomes, providing opportunities for meaningful collaboration,
cultivating mission-mindedness, and building trust through communication. The paper
concludes with a detailed implementation plan and evaluation framework for monitoring the
effectiveness of actively engaging 100% of faculty and staff in the strategic planning process.

STRATEGIC PLANNING 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Over the last 30 years, strategic planning has become a common institutional
effectiveness activity in higher education around the globe. Universities and non-profit
organizations alike have sought to gain an edge over their competition, become better managers
of their resources, gain greater stakeholder buy-in, safeguard branding, and account for overall
organizational achievement of outcome based performance goals (Al-Omari & Salameh, 2009;
Bronzetti et al., 2012; Machado & Taylor, 2010; United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2010b). Strategic planning in the 21
st
century provides the
concrete guidance necessary for institutions of higher education to respond well to the ever-
changing landscape of higher education (Fathi & Wilson, 2009). The collective wisdom of
100% of the faculty is critical to define, measure, promote, and improve institutional objectives
through strategic planning (Welsh & Metcalf, 2003; Welsh et al., 2005). TCBS currently has no
strategic plan, nor has its faculty ever participated in a strategic planning process.
Organizational Context and Mission
The mission of TCBS of Vallejo, California, is to partner with local churches to prepare,
train, and propel into the world shepherds and mature servant-leaders who are “God-glorifying,
Christ-centered, Spirit-dependent, and Scripture-saturated” (TCBS, 2014). A theological
institution for higher education (TIHE) started in 2004, TCBS now offers two programs to its 60-
member student body, comprised of an undergraduate Bachelor of Arts degree with a
concentration in either pre-seminary, biblical counseling, or women’s ministries, and a graduate
level four-year Master of Divinity degree. Graduates of the institution are employed as pastors,
church planters, missionaries, seminary professors, college professors, and leaders of missionary
organizations. Graduates also offer volunteer services as conference speakers, Sunday school
STRATEGIC PLANNING 11
teachers, and Bible study leaders. They hold these positions in North America, Asia and Europe.
In addition to 25 Bay Area churches within California that consistently direct students toward the
organization, the institution also draws students from the countries of Honduras, Spain,
Germany, Uganda, and India through mutual ministry and academic partnerships within those
countries. The student body ethnic profile is 3% African, 8% Latin/Spanish, 14% Slavic, 25%
Asian, and 50% Caucasian. The institution employs a faculty of 21 professors who hold one, or
more, of the three post-graduate degrees within divinity studies: M.Div, TH.M, or PH.D.
As a theological institution of higher education, concepts related to religion, service, faith
and its accompanying commitments are integral to its context and the achievement of its mission.
All stakeholders of TCBS view their connections as not just contractual, whether socially or
employment based, but as part of a higher calling. Therefore, faith is a critical lens through
which this study will be conducted.
Organizational Performance Need
In order to fulfill its mission of partnering with local churches to prepare, train, and
propel into the world shepherds and mature servant-leaders who are God-glorifying, Christ-
centered, Spirit-dependent, and Scripture-saturated, it is imperative that TCBS inextricably links
organizational goals to its mission. The current 100% shortfall of any concrete organizationally
determined strategic plan, by which to evaluate and align all sub-goals en route to achieving the
final larger goals of the organization and achievement of its consequent mission, heightens the
organization’s exposure to risk, unwarranted criticism, and potential loss of funding.
Related Literature
According to the literature, strategic planning can be motivated by a number of factors,
such as economics (UNESCO, 2010), stakeholder buy-in (Orians & Bergerson, 2014),
STRATEGIC PLANNING 12
competition between universities (Jaroslaw, 2009), risk management (Achampong, 2010),
student retention (Washington & McKay, 2005), added value to the organization (Jarosław,
2009), organizational accountability (Nauffal & Nasser, 2012; Walters & Shaun, 2005),
internationalization (Agnew, 2013), and a desire for the improvement of student learning
outcomes for eventual accreditation (Gallagher, 2008).
In the 1990s, strategic planning entailed focus, tying planning to budgeting, and
unearthing political realities of university life as basic elements (Holdaway & Meekison, 1990).
However, in the 21st century environment, strategic planning has taken on a much more complex
approach, as illustrated by Gregory (2008) who advocated adopting a systems approach in higher
education strategic planning that entails viable system methodology, strategic assumptions
surfacing and testing, soft systems methodology, and critical systems heuristics. Considering the
multi-faceted complexities and the learning curve for all stakeholders related to strategic
planning in the contemporary age, clear communication of the strategic planning process
becomes imperative.
Stakeholders in the strategic planning process play a number of roles from planning
leaders to team leaders, small-group facilitators, planning group leaders, research group leaders,
focus group leaders, as systemic deficiencies are teased out through quantitative methods
employed by consulting organizations and qualitative methods employed by the organization
itself (Barker & Smith, 1998; Nauffal & Nasser, 2012). For this reason, the strategic planning
process is often tied to accreditation as it involves key individuals within the institution such as
donors, the board of directors, administration, staff, faculty, parents, students, alumni, and
community representatives (Barker & Smith, 1998). Getting all players to buy into the process is
a daunting task.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 13
Faculty and staff buy-in and stay-in, is one of the key process management tasks for
successful higher education strategic planning (Welsh et al., 2005). Evidence-based research
indicates a number of demotivating impediments to wholehearted involvement in the strategic
planning process on the part of faculty and staff. For example, they do not understand the
operational framework for decision-making with relation to the strategic planning processes.
They do not believe it to be important. They do not feel like they are really made a part of the
process. Others do not feel like the strategic plan does not lead to depth of implementation, or
they feel like the institutional planning model is closed and their voice is not heard. Yet others
feel like the process is autocratic and they are not really participating in the process (Al-Omari &
Salameh, 2005; Huyck, 2012; Kezar, 2014; Lewis, 2009; Tierny & Minor, 2003). A number of
evidence-based considerations are also found in the literature to build faculty motivation, such as
tying student outcomes to the strategic planning process, including performance appraisals,
public recognition as in campus publications, promotion as in tenure and other pay-related
increases (Bellanca & Abernethy, 2014; Delprino, 2013; Morrison & Kezar, 2012). The
literature attests that faculty buy-in and stay-in must be creatively and concretely achieved for
the good of all stakeholders and to stay the course in the long-term direction of the institution.
Importance of the Organizational Innovation
It is important for TCBS to introduce and integrate a strategic organizational plan for a
variety of reasons. First, clear performance goals and objectives drive an organization forward in
the accomplishment of its mission (Clarke, 2008; Rueda 2011). Whether it is on the scale of
leading an entire government or corporation, or whether it is on the scale of leading a small non-
profit, organizational leadership must have a clear vision of its priorities and how to achieve
them (UNESCO, 2010b). Second, an organization must be able to think big by taking into
STRATEGIC PLANNING 14
account all possible options within a dynamically changing environment while at the same time
retaining focus upon the clear goal to be achieved (UNESCO, 2010a). Third, because
institutional alignment of mission, objectives, and performance goals ensures coordinate
successful outcomes (Clarke, 2008; UNESCO, 2010b), without a strategic plan in place, an
organization becomes susceptible to mission creep, wasteful spending, aimlessness, and failed
impact (UNESCO, 2010b). In spite of the importance of strategic planning in driving an
organization forward, the 2014 Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability non-profit
governance survey reported strategic planning as one of the top 5 areas of improvement for its
1900 affiliate non-profit religious organizations (Evangelical Council for Financial
Accountability [ECFA], 2014). The consequent result of not having a strategic plan for the
religious non-profit theological institution of higher education, regardless of size, is loss of
students, loss of funding, low faculty and staff morale, and discouraged donors.
Organizational Performance Goal
By September of 2017, TCBS will implement a five-year strategic plan for 2017-2022.
The goal will involve aspects such as appointing a strategic plan leader, garnering 100%
stakeholder support for the planning process, utilizing data collection instruments to survey
stakeholders, and regularly reporting to the board of the organization. The board established this
goal in consult with administration, and staff after reception of unsatisfactory assessment results
indicating lack of stakeholder clarity of the vision and goals of the institution. The achievement
of this goal will be measured by regular reporting to the board by the dean in bi-monthly board
meetings.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 15
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
In more tightly aligning its mission with its practice, by September 2017, TCBS will
implement a comprehensive strategic plan for 2017-2022. Though multiple stakeholders exist
for this study, three groups that are fundamental to the overarching good success of the strategic
planning process are (1) the board of directors, (2) students, and (3) faculty and staff.
The board of directors is a stakeholder as owner of the corporation. All board members
are at high risk of reputation damage by poor institutional performance. For the organization to
be successful, the mission of the organization must resonate with the board and cascade down
into every aspect of the life of the organization. Over the years, board members have been
carefully selected. They must have taught for the organization, preferably have received their
master’s degree from the organization, and must have demonstrated success in leading one’s own
local church, or non-profit organization. Board members are the face of the organization. The
board of directors is responsible for making final directional decisions in accordance with the
organizational mission. Consequently, by September of 2017, the board of directors of TCBS
has decided to create a comprehensive strategic plan for 2017-2022 (Table 1)
STRATEGIC PLANNING 16
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission

The Cornerstone Bible College collaborates with granting organizations, local churches,
and generous individuals, in the work of preparing, training, and launching into the world
individuals who are God-glorifying, Christ-centered, Scripture-saturated, and Spirit-
dependent.

Organizational Goal

By September 2017, The Cornerstone Bible College and Seminary will implement a
comprehensive strategic plan for 2017-2022.

Board of Directors

By July of 2017, the board
of directors of TCBS will
have created a
comprehensive strategic
plan for 2017-2022.

Students

By March of 2017, the
Student Strategic Planning
Committee will have
engaged 100% of student
body to create strategic
planning goals for
remittance to the board of
directors in the strategic
planning process.

Faculty and Staff

By March of 2017, 100% of
faculty and staff will
actively participate in the
development of institutional
strategic planning goals for
remittance to the board of
directors.

The leadership function of the board of directors in the strategic planning process is
crucial to the effective engagement of all other stakeholders. The board of directors will need to
determine and apply proper methods for setting long-term strategic objectives that improve the
performance of the organization and further its enduring purpose. The strategic planning process
will also necessitate board involvement in synthesizing data, interpreting major issues,
confronting the life of the organization, and generating alternative strategic options. The board
will lead all stakeholders as a stakeholder. It will also need to hold the organization accountable
to successful implementation by embedding in the strategic plan the method for monitoring the
execution of strategies against the long-term objectives. One of the board’s goals is that, by
STRATEGIC PLANNING 17
March of 2017, 100% of faculty and staff will actively participate in the development of
institutional strategic planning goals for 2017-2022.
Students are also important stakeholders in the organization because they carry a vested
interest in directly benefiting from the accomplishment of the organization’s goals and mission.
They are keenly interested in the organization’s life as evidenced by the investment of student
tuition and the ongoing relationships created with faculty, administration, and peers en route to
graduation. For TCBS to be successful, the mission must resonate with the students and then
they must decide to submit to the rigor of study and practice to achieve it. Through the intake
process, student compatibility with, and commitment to, the organizational mission is
determined.
The strategic planning process will incorporate students in several ways via a student
strategic planning committee: (1) 100% of current students will participate in focus groups to
identify areas of strength and weakness within the institution, (2) four groups of ten students
representing each level of seniority will complete qualitative survey instruments constructed by
faculty and staff, but administered electronically for anonymous feedback, and (3) student
leaders will demonstrate understanding of the processes critical to identifying significant
strategic factors such as SWOT, PEST, and KMO analytic constructs. One of the board’s
performance goals is that by February of 2016, the student strategic planning committee will
engage 100% of the student body to create student tailored institutional goals to be considered
for the 2017-2022 strategic plan.
Faculty and staff are stakeholders in that they are service providers of the organization
and believe in its mission, experience the sense of doing a good job, and enjoy the aura of
successful student achievement by the outworking of the institutional mission under their
STRATEGIC PLANNING 18
leadership. For the organization to be successful, faculty and staff need to resonate with the
mission aimed at our students and then decide to co-labor with the dean in its achievement. All
faculty and staff commit to promote the mission to all individuals who touch the life of the
organization. They set the tone of the organization to all other stakeholders in the web of
organizational relationships. Incompatibilities with organizational mission and vision at this
level would prove disastrous for the life of the organization.
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Gap
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of creating a comprehensive strategic plan, and three stakeholders in
particular have been delineated as entities of great importance, research indicates that, of those
three, it is most crucial to understand the needs of the faculty and staff in strategic planning in
order to ensure success in the strategic planning process and effectively bring about, and carry
out, the institutional mission in a meaningful way. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this
study will be all TCBS faculty and staff.
In light of the organizational goal established by the board of directors, by September
2017, TCBS will implement a comprehensive strategic plan for 2017-2022. A faculty and staff
performance goal has also been established that by March of 2017, 100% of faculty and staff will
actively participate in the development of institutional strategic planning goals for remittance to
the board of directors. The gap in performance is 100%.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance
goal. The analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and then moved to examining
STRATEGIC PLANNING 19
these systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs’ analysis
would have focused on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder focus in this
analysis was all TCBS faculty and staff members.
As such, the questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for 100% of
TCBS faculty and staff to actively participate in developing institutional strategic
planning goals?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
needs?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, was adapted for needs analysis. Assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational needs were generated based on personal knowledge and related
literature. Surveys, interviews, and focus groups, literature review, and content analysis
validated these needs. Research-based solutions were recommended and evaluated in a
comprehensive manner.
Definitions
Institutional decision-making refers to the process of making decisions regarding a college or
university’s strategic direction that involve the use of institutional resources, are influenced by
institutional mission, and usually include the participation of governance constituents (Bulette,
2014).
STRATEGIC PLANNING 20
Strategic planning is a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that
shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it (Bryson, 2010).
Strategic planning concerns the process of defining the institution’s aspirations and the ways that
the institution intends to reach them in light of internal and external opportunities and limitations
(Bulette, 2014).
Strategic plan is a document that an institution or an organization uses to guide implementation
of mission, goals, and objectives for a specific period of time (Clagett, 2004; Ecung, 2007; Ford,
2007).
Strategic management is the appropriate, reasonable and sustained integration of strategic
planning and implementation across an organization (or other entity) to enhance the fulfillment
of mission, meeting of mandates, continuous learning, and sustained creation of public value
(Bryson, 2010).
Shared governance is the fundamental belief that structures and processes are in place within
any given academic institution to legitimate and facilitate a trusting balance of leadership and
input between faculty as the professional authority and the administration as the legal authority
(Brinbaum, 2004; Lock et al., 2011).
Shared stewardship is considered a spiritual discipline within theological institutions of higher
education that links shared participation to the role of the Holy Spirit in a Christian’s life
(Aleshire, 2009; Bassinger 2009).
Social capital is the description used to refer to trust, and relational strength within the
organization that facilitates change (Birnbaum, 20014).
STRATEGIC PLANNING 21
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about comprehensive strategic
planning. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts of
gap analysis adapted to needs analysis, were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of
current literature surrounding the scope of the study with regard to the relationship of shared
governance to strategic planning, organizational impact on mindsets with regard to strategic
planning, and the securing of faculty engagement prior to initiating the strategic planning
process. Chapter Three details the assumed needs for this study as well as methodology when it
comes to choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and
results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature,
for addressing the needs and closing the performance gap as well as recommendations for an
implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

STRATEGIC PLANNING 22
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Governance is intimately linked to faculty participation in the strategic planning process.
A partial evaluation of this link between governance and strategic planning to the oversight of
the theological institution for higher education (TIHE) must also be considered in examination of
the literature, both secular and religious, as it properly relates to the global practice of higher
education strategic planning and the question of inquiry: how to gain 100% active faculty
participation in the strategic planning process.
At its core, strategic planning is the outflow of consistently applied authority and power
through the common outlook and relational life of an organization as represented by all
stakeholders who each hold a common interpretation of mission and governance. Strategic
planning is a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and
guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it (Bryson, 2010). It concerns the
process of defining the institution’s aspirations and the ways that the institution intends to reach
them in light of internal and external opportunities and limitations (Bulette, 2014). The strategic
plan is of critical importance serving as an instrument for navigation during turbulent times, for
delineating distinctions and similarities between competing institutions, and for communication
to stakeholders that expectations are being met (Stensaker, 2013).
Strategic Planning
While higher education began strategic planning efforts in the 1970s, it took 20 years
before universities around the world adopted the strategic planning processes from the
competitive business world (Barker & Smith, 1998; UNESCO, 2010b). By the mid-1990s,
universities within the United States and outside of the United States had made the shift from
traditional approaches of long-term planning to various forms and hybrids of strategic planning
STRATEGIC PLANNING 23
(UNESCO, 2010a). Driven by UNESCO as a major force, strategic planning within higher
education internationally eventually became a norm by tying grant funding for education to
actual performance goals, whether for developed, or undeveloped countries (UNESCO, 2010b).
Today, strategic planning is a worldwide practice in higher education within developed
countries around the globe as well as within underdeveloped countries (Al-Omari & Salameh,
2009; Bronzetti, Mazzotta, & Nardo, 2012; Machado & Taylor, 2010). Developed countries
consider it commonplace to evaluate themselves in light of somewhat normative strategic
planning procedures (Suklev & Debarliev, 2012). Underdeveloped countries, overall, either lack
the skills for strategic planning, as in the case of Jordan, or they find the models employed by
developed countries impractical, as in the case of Macedonia and Saudi Arabia (Al-Omari &
Salameh, 2009; Suklev & Debarliev, 2012). However, once an organization is motivated to
adopt culturally relevant strategic planning models within underdeveloped countries, it generally
contributes to overall organizational effectiveness (Suklev & Debarliev, 2012). The key is
getting all stakeholders involved.
Theological Institutions of Higher Education
Though the apostle Paul founded the first Christian theological seminary known in
church history at Ephesus (Acts 19:9 New American Standard), the influence and establishment
of Christian theological seminaries was not confined to Ephesus, as the reach of influence
penetrated into Europe and, eventually, the New World (Naylor, 1977; Geiger, 2015).
Though, culture, careers, and knowledge have greatly influenced the development of
American higher education, it is the interplay of these factors that has presented a kaleidoscope
of changing patterns over the history of American higher education. This history began with the
founding of theological seminaries by the forefathers of the United States of America. Many of
STRATEGIC PLANNING 24
these individuals were trained at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge as masters in the arts
with particular attention given to Calvinistic Puritanism. Upon arrival to the New World with an
understanding of the central role of the protestant church and universities to society for the
shaping of a Christian worldview, these founders developed the theological seminaries of
Harvard and Yale with two goals in mind: (1) to come alongside protestant churches in shaping
the Christian worldview rooted in Calvinistic Puritanism and (2) to educate gentlemen who
would become leaders of church and state. The theological seminary, after the Oxford and
Cambridge model, existed to produce a minister who could not only explain and interpret the
world around him according to the Scriptures, but who could also plumb the depths of Christian
theology for his congregants. Men who graduated from seminary and did not enter the career of
minister were viewed as possessing critical skills necessary to lead within society and considered
very well prepared for a variety of life tasks among the upper social ranks (Geiger, 2015). The
theological seminaries of Harvard and Yale were the first institutions of higher education in
America to embody consensus among community with regard to culture, career, and knowledge.
The curriculum of the theological seminary was rooted in the classics. Students were
taught Latin, Greek, Hebrew, theology, hermeneutics, New Testament history, Old Testament
history, New Testament survey, Old Testament Survey, Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and
Oration (Geiger, 2015; Naylor 1977). Liberal arts feeder colleges were formed as complements
to the theological seminary to provide a foundational education for Christian ministers going into
seminary graduate programs and eventually into the pastorate. A candidate for the ministry had
to graduate from the liberal arts college as an indicator of his critical thinking abilities in order to
enter seminary (Geiger, 2015; McCloy, 1962; Naylor, 1977; Sweet, 1937). Seminaries not only
fueled the founding of the liberal arts college, but they also helped establish the role of the liberal
STRATEGIC PLANNING 25
arts college in the organization of American higher education (Geiger, 2015; Naylor, 1977;
Sweet, 1937).
TCBS is one of these higher education institutions of old that stands in this same
historical tradition of training deep thinkers and gentleman in the classics who will become
leaders of church and state interpreting and explaining the world around them in light of
Trinitarian theology. These individuals serve as instruments in the world for the salvation of
souls, the transformation of society, and the service of His church. As the organization under
study, this organizational lens will prove significant for the reader.
The Stakeholders
Stakeholders in the strategic planning process play a number of roles such as planning
leaders, team leaders, small-group facilitators, planning group leaders, research group leaders,
and focus group leaders, while systemic deficiencies are teased out through quantitative methods
employed by consulting organizations, in addition to qualitative methods employed by the
organization itself (Barker & Smith, 1998; Nauffal & Nasser, 2012).
Internal stakeholders such as donors, the board of directors, administration and staff, and
faculty, are most directly related to the organization and are most vested in institutional success
through strategic planning (Domanski, 2009; Kettunen, 2015). External stakeholders such as
donors, parents, students, alumni, and community representatives participate in the strategic
planning process with a view to discerning the complementary vision of the organization (Barker
& Smith, 1998; Kettunen, 2015).
Faculty and staff buy-in, and stay-in, is one of the key process management tasks for
successful higher education strategic planning (Welsh, Nunez, &, Petrosko, 2005). Not only is it
required for institutional accountability measures, but the literature also shows that involvement
STRATEGIC PLANNING 26
of faculty in the process is integral for an institution to be able to define, measure, promote, and
improve institutional objectives (Welsh & Metcalf, 2003). The degree to which the group
participates in the decision, particularly faculty, will determine how the decision will be
implemented (Young, 2011). Those who participate with more intensity in the process will more
likely support the changes more intensely (Welsh & Metcalf, 2003). Increased organizational
effectiveness, whether in developed or underdeveloped, countries is intricately linked to the
participation of faculty and staff in shared governance and institutional effectiveness activities.
Shared Governance
The fundamental belief of the principle of shared governance is that structures and
processes are in place within any given academic institution to legitimate and facilitate a trusting
balance of leadership and input based upon distinct expertise between faculty as the professional
authority and the administration as the legal authority (Birnbaum, 2004; Lock et.al, 2011,
Rhoades, 2005).
Within the Commission on Accreditation of the Association of Theological Schools
(ATS), governance is understood as the sustained orderly stewardship and exercise of power
within an institution to accomplish the school’s mission and purpose in service of the Church and
the world (Aleshire, 2009; Tiede, 2009). When applied to the concept of shared governance, it is
understood as the process of distributing authority, power, and influence for academic decisions
among campus constituencies (Basinger, 2009). All stakeholders must maintain the outlook that
mission is carried out through both human and divine influence because governance is ultimately
divine influence mediated through, human tasks in discerning the right mission-related direction
for a school, devising and overseeing effective strategies to implement that mission, finding and
managing the resources that mission requires, and overseeing the human differences in
STRATEGIC PLANNING 27
perspective that accrue to each of these activities (Lewis, 2009, p. 14). Governance must
ultimately be understood in terms of faithfulness and stewardship and not simply power and
control (Lewis, 2009).
Rooted in the collegiality principle from France and England (Huyck, 2012; Winney,
2014), shared governance exists as a generally embraced principle within American higher
education. In 1966, the American Association of University Professor’s (AAUP) issued the
principle that encouraged involvement by all stakeholders, “the colleges and universities of the
United States have reached a stage calling for appropriately shared responsibility and cooperative
action among the components of the academic institution” (AAUP et al., 1966, p. 1.). The
principle is a very strong belief in California wherein in 1989, the balancing of the governance
responsibilities of administrators with faculty participation was encapsulated within legislative
policy as AB 1725 (California Community College Classified Senate, 2012).
Theological seminaries have generally articulated their own concept of shared
governance (Basinger, 2009). This has also found support with the ATS Commission on
Accreditation that officially decided that all ATS member schools shall implement their own
structure and process of governance (ATS, 2015). Each school, as its own entity, is free to
determine the system of shared governance most appropriate to its particular history, culture, and
structure (Basinger, 2009). Member schools are encouraged not to view policies and procedures
as bureaucratic encumbrances, but as the means by which authority flows through the structures
to produce governance (Aleshire, 2009).
The Role of Faculty
The fundamental assumption of shared governance is that administration is the expert
when it comes to management of the organization, but faculty is the expert in matters of all
STRATEGIC PLANNING 28
things academic (AAUP, 1966; Birnbaum, 2004). According to Brown (2001), this fundamental
premise can be borne out in the research. When faculty have greater control over academic
performance within the organization, this leads to increased university performance, but when
faculty greater control over organizational decisions, this leads to lower levels of university
performance (Brown, 2001). The fundamental premise of faculty as expert in all things
academic carries complex implications for the life of all institutions for higher education as it is
rooted in the concept of expertise tied to position that, in principle, should transfer to a greater
degree of committed involvement, responsibility and consequent credibility for institutional
decision-making practices by faculty and staff; however, this is not the case (Huyck, 2012).
University administration is expected to collaborate with faculty, which can take the form
of reaching out to faculty representatives, department chairs, faculty senates, and/or faculty
unions (Huyck, 2012; Kezar, 2014; Olaode, 2011; Young, 2011). The concept of expertise tied
to position demands an institutional culture of participatory governance (McGrane, 2013). When
a faculty is primarily part-time, when it is at odds with its administration, or when it is simply
unmotivated to participate in the shared governance process, the organization suffers in multiple
of ways, most critically in the area of strategic planning for change (Delprino, 2013a; Huyck,
2012; Kezar, 2014; Locke, et. al. 2011; Olaode, 2011; Young, 2011).
Within theological institutions of higher education, shared governance by faculty means
shared stewardship that is viewed as a spiritual discipline (Bassinger, 2009; Tiede, 2009).
Consequently, faculty participating in the school’s educational mission are strongly encouraged
to respect the separate fiduciary powers for which various groups are responsible, collaborate
with the powers of other governance groups to advance the effort strategically, and welcome the
STRATEGIC PLANNING 29
vision of stakeholders from beyond and within the institution of what is needed from the school
(Tiede, 2009).
Though the board of the ATS has embraced and encouraged the need for balanced faculty
participation in the overall life of theological institutions of higher education, rather than
devoting time and energy to governance roles, faculty members prefer to center on teaching and
research as their primary duty and motivation. The perception of TIHE leadership is that
theological faculty either take on governance roles under compulsion because it is seen as an
administrative responsibility or they want to be so involved in the decision-making that academic
administration experiences a paralysis that saps its energies (Graham, 2009, p. iii).
Consequently, even in light of the strong encouragement to shared stewardship that is viewed as
a spiritual discipline, seminary communities still struggle with meaningfully linking faculty
participation to the strategic planning process.
The Role of Shared Governance
The function. Shared governance serves various functions within the institution of
higher education: (a) contribution from faculty to the institution, (b) acting as a forum for debate,
(c) joint understanding and buy-in of institutional goals and (d) commitment to professional
ethics (Basinger, 2009; Birnbaum, 1991; Lewis, 2009; Locke et al. 2011). This third function of
joint understanding and buy-in is most crucial to the discussion in relation to shared governance
and strategic planning (Graham, 2009).
The outworking. In many institutions, stakeholders, like faculty and staff, assume they
know the functions of governance, but they are unclear exactly what it entails or what it means
(Aleshire, 2009; Lewis, 2009). In some institutions, individuals deduce that shared governance
has a common meaning across organizations and that, since the faculty at another school has
STRATEGIC PLANNING 30
certain entitlements, they, too, share those same entitlements within their own environment
(Aleshire, 2009). All the while, perceptions of what shared governance means are being re-
interpreted regarding the processes relating to decision-making and the types of actors involved
(Lewis, 2009; Stensaker, 2013). Though the concept of shared governance is highly valued by
faculty (Tierny & Minor, 2003), it is elusive in its application (Kezar, 2012).
Models of Shared Governance
In a survey of faculty and staff, the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (2003)
concluded that a mixture of understandings exist about how the principle of shared governance
actually applies (Tierny & Minor, 2003). The literature synthesizes these governance methods
into seven models: (1) the representative democracy, or bureaucratic, model that places
emphasis upon the close relationship between students, administration and academic staff in
developing the formal rules and regulations for how decision-making processes should be
organized; (2) the collegial model that emphasizes community, culture, ownership and decisions
based on consensus; (3) the political model that makes decisions focused around compromise
and deliberation regarding conflict in the institution; (4) the corporate enterprise model that
emphasizes representation of external stakeholders and actors in decision-making as key to
enhance institutional links; (5) the entrepreneurial model emphasizes the need and discretion of
dynamic leadership to take initiative and form coalitions for change and the creation of networks,
both internally and externally; (6) the organized anarchy model that is ambiguous with regard to
purpose, power, experience, and success; and (7) the shared stewardship model that encourage a
stewardship governance mission-driven model for faculty and administration that is fiduciary,
strategic, and generative in which both entities participate distinctly on the three levels while
STRATEGIC PLANNING 31
retaining the big picture of purpose in mind (Huyck, 2012; Stensaker, 2013; Tiede, 2013; Tierny
& Minor, 2003).
The aforementioned variety and broad divergence of the shared governance models and
decision-making structures introduces faculty to complexities in institutional decision-making
and consequently the overall strategic planning processes. For example, Stensaker (2013) lists
three ways that faculty tend to interpret the decision-making role within any given institution,
some believe that academics should be involved in all decision-making issues. Others would
hold that academics should be involved in decision-making on academic matters, and yet others
would hold that academics should not have a major influence in decision-making (Stensaker,
2013). Shared governance is discouraged when faculty are unaware of how they clearly fit into
the processes.
The complexities of governance and decision-making can be internally mitigated by
delineating responsibilities, articulating the meaning of shared governance, utilizing multiple
decision-making venues, consistent communication, and creating conditions for trust (Tierny &
Minor, 2003). But, when the external factor of the globalization of education is taken into
account, these complexities are exacerbated as administrative leadership functionally redefines
shared governance with a view to keeping the university competitive through streamlined
decision-making (Krücken & Meier, 2006). In today’s models, shared governance can now be
said to be the responsibility of the administration (Stensaker, 2013).
The chief end. On a global scale, strong institutional management is considered a key
component of university governance (Braun & Merrien, 1999; Lock et al., 2011; Rhoades &
Sporn, 2002). Traditional forms of university governance are under pressure to conform to new,
more innovative models of leadership fueled by the globalization of education (Stensaker &
STRATEGIC PLANNING 32
Vabø, 2013). On a worldwide scale, universities are being transformed with a new emphasis on
the organizational level as an independent level of decision-making (Krücken & Meier, 2006).
The role of the dominant faculty member to resist change has been lost in the accountability and
bureaucracy driven models of leadership, many times to the detriment of the university (Altbach,
2009).
The global tendency toward more centralized decision-making in the complexities of
massification and entrepreneurship of higher education has given rise to reminders from faculty
that shared governance serves as a safety net to the university and should not be usurped by
administrative leadership for the sake of expediency. In comparison of shared governance to an
orchestra, Rhoades (2005) called on administrative leaders to not leave faculty out of the process
of shared governance and strategic planning but, rather, to understand the faculty as an orchestra
playing ongoing changes and movements that facilitate the combination of support units and play
to existing strengths and develop new ones.
In making decisions that effectively respond to the changing nature of higher education
enough cohesion must exist between the administration and faculty that disagreements are not
just tolerated but perceived as useful in creative problem solving (Stensaker, 2013; Bulette,
2014). Unity of outlook and the effective accomplishment of change requires joint participation
of, and trust between, the administration and faculty in an adequate, balanced, and expeditious
response to market forces affecting the institution while at the same time keeping the institution’s
educational purposes and distinctive mission as chief guides (Birnbaum, 2004; Bulette, 2014;
Zemsky, Wegner, & Massy, 2006).
To institutionalize shared governance and strategic sustainability-thinking throughout the
organization and achieve a deep level of integration into a large number of existing governance
STRATEGIC PLANNING 33
mechanisms for change five principles have been suggested: (1) consideration of faculty as mid-
level leadership, (2) dedication to shared values, (3) the ability and willingness of faculty and
administrators to move from independent to consultative action (Kezar, 2004; Kurland, 2013),
(4) willingness to grant faculty better information and better incentives than administrators or
trustees, and (5) willingness to allow faculty members to exert decision control within a
predetermined framework. (Brown, 2001). In the midst of the globalization and
entrepreneurship of education, administration must still embrace the reality that faculty
participation in these ways is critical to institutional planning.
Organizational Impact
Shared governance is crucial as it relates to strategic planning. Within the literature on
governance, the role of faculty in shared governance is consistently mentioned as a critical
component to influencing the effectiveness and well-being of an organization (Huyck, 2014;
Kezar, 2001; Lewis, 2009; Tierny 2003). Shared governance is linked to institutional purpose in
that it frames and legitimizes new modes of governance through stakeholder dialogue and
negotiation, thereby magnifying the impact of governance upon any strategic planning for
change within the institution of higher education (Brinbaum, 2004; Stensaker, 2013).
Though it is recognized that shared governance in strategic planning does not guarantee
positive results (Bryson, 2010), and increased faculty participation may be good or bad
depending on the type of decisions in which faculty participate (Brown, 2001), linking strategic
planning to faculty governance will move faculty and staff from on-lookers to owners (Minor,
2003), but, the governance impact on the mindsets of faculty and staff needs to be understood.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 34
Negative Mindsets
Ambiguity. Strategic planning leads to strategic ambiguity because of the changing
culture both internal and external to an organization (Abdallah & Langley, 2014). A strategic
plan carries with it certain interpretive ambiguities in order to accommodate the perspectives of
multiple stakeholders despite their differences thereby enabling a form of unity in diversity.
Under a strategic plan that carries an ambiguous vision, everyone can initially interpret the vision
differently and still define themselves as consistent with the overarching organizational goals.
Ambiguity is not the enemy of order, but an intentional means by which orderly
transitions can occur. Ambiguity results in a willing buy-in by all stakeholders of the
organization without provoking a power struggle with those resistant to change, and it allows
people to import themselves into the bigger picture and view the future in a way consistent with
the objective of those that strategized the change (Gioia, 2012). However, strategic ambiguity
does not reinforce the sense by faculty that they are meaningfully brought into the planning
process (McPhail, 2006).
Budgetary stress. The strategic planning process itself is expensive. Institutions of
higher education suffer budgetary restraints due to decreased government funding, legislated
tuition fee levels, increased competition for fundraising dollars, keeping up with rapidly
changing technology, and deferred facilities maintenance. As a consequence, strategic planning
may be relegated to minimal importance (Delprino, 2013b; Hayward, 2008,). With an increased
service commitment by faculty to strategic planning processes come significant, and immediate
costs for faculty. One institution in a case study reported that the amount of time faculty spent
over a two-year period to develop and implement a strategic plan was almost equivalent to the
STRATEGIC PLANNING 35
amount of time the faculty had spent on department service for the entire five-year period
immediately preceding (Karmon & McGilsky, 1997).
According to the Society for College and University Planning, big-picture planning is
viewed by many as an added expense and unnecessary at a time when it can bring the greatest
value by harmonizing financial planning and budgeting processes (Society for College and
University Planning, 2014). Rather than neglect a strategic plan, institutions of higher education
should be focusing on initiatives that generate resources (public-private partnerships, corporate
America underwriting, real estate development, monetization strategies) in order to advance the
strategic plan in alignment with mission, sustainability, and faculty participation (Hayward,
2008; Society for College and University Planning, 2014). The development of this strategic
plan in which faculty and staff participate, requires incentives on the part of administration such
as tenure, reduced teaching loads and/or monetary compensation, to compensate faculty who are
heavily involved in strategic planning processes (Delprino, 2013c; Huyck, 2012; Karmon, &
McGilsky, 1997).
Divided attentions. Strategic planning divides attentions, thereby creating
organizational inefficiencies (Dooris et al., 2004). In the midst of the faculty responsibilities of
teaching, research and writing, strategic planning processes are not only viewed as burdensome,
but even unimportant and unwanted administrative duties (Al-Omari & Salameh, 2005; Welsh &
Metcalf, 2003).
Impeded creativity. Strategic planning initiatives within higher education need to be
creatively aligned with continuing higher education practice, employee performance, and
outcomes assessment. Creativity is tied to wedding these processes and practice into the concept
of strategic management of higher education institutions, instead of impeding creativity by
STRATEGIC PLANNING 36
concentrating focus on organizational processes and not the practices (Sullivan & Richardson,
2011).
Disrupted status quo. Strategic planning upsets the organizational politics of higher
education institutions. Birnbaum (2004) pointed out that changes in social systems are more
likely to be accepted when they do not challenge the social status of participants in that system
and are less likely to be accepted when they do. Strategic planning introduces the idea of change
and with it a threat to the internal politics of pre-existent power structures embedded in the fabric
of the institution.
Politics can become magnified by the strategic planning process, particularly when there
are ambiguous lines of authority and strategic planners have limited cognitive capacity to address
all of the issues related to the political dimensions of their role. Solutions that seem to be simple
can become politically complex very quickly when all scenarios are not considered, but the value
of understanding politics is in the value that they can have to the institution as part of a
successful strategic planning process.
Taking into account the politics of an organization can benefit strategic planners by
facilitating that they get what they want, providing for a greater effect at an increasingly greater
level as the number of people one influences grows, allowing an exercise of more control over
the way things get done, and influencing how stakeholders will feel about an outcome (Delprino,
2013c). The goal of understanding the politics of an organization must be to move the strategic
process forward in embracing not who is right but what is right.
Positive Mindsets
Stakeholder buy-in. By creating a strategic plan, higher educational institutions are
better able to involve all stakeholders in concrete ways to build a vision and then cast it
STRATEGIC PLANNING 37
concretely. The strategic plan supplies the preconditions for the shaping of a clear and cohesive
institutional identity that can then be embraced by all members of the campus community as new
initiatives are clearly and explicitly tied to this common core (Orians & Bergerson, 2014).
Stakeholder forums in which people can interact on matters related to their group norms and
personal values produce dense networks of interaction that increase social capital within the
institution, this social capital leads to increased trust and cooperation, that relate to
organizational effectiveness (Birnbaum, 2004).
Competition. By creating a strategic plan, higher education institutions are able to make
their distinctions clear in order to nudge out competitors and attract additional stakeholders such
as donors, students, and faculty. The strategic plan will be based upon research and clearly
delineate how the entity intends to increase the sum of accrued benefits for the stakeholders of an
organization while gaining an advantage over other entities. In short, all strategic management
efforts will focus on maximizing the satisfaction of stakeholders, increasing value in comparison
to other organizations, and enhancing organizational competitiveness (Domanski, 2009;
Stensaker, 2013).
As organizational competitiveness increases, institutions of higher education will
experience more successful competition for students among both traditional and non-traditional
institutions; more growth and better management of resources as an organization; more students
from a more consumer-oriented and knowledgeable pool of students; greater public satisfaction;
better incorporation of changing delivery methods; and better incorporation of organizational
improvement strategies (Welsh & Metcalf, 2003).
Risk management. By creating a strategic plan, higher education institutions are able to
guard their reputations and branding by being ready for disruptions in the higher education
STRATEGIC PLANNING 38
environment. Risk management involves the executive functions of planning, organizing,
leading, and controlling activities within an institution concerning specified risks with a view to
reducing their cost to the organization in order to maximize its value. Embedding risk
management into the strategic planning process makes them mutually reinforcing and prepares
the organization to avoid negative forces that can detract from the successful achievement of
institutional vision and mission (Achampong, 2010).
Student retention. By creating a strategic plan, higher education institutions are able to
implement calculated processes and procedures for student retention. The strategic plan must
include a core philosophy that deals with enrollment management. Embedding a student services
philosophy will aid the retention of students by allowing institutions to take into account the
diverse and changing needs of their constituency. In so doing, strategic targets can be structured
into the plan that will cultivate a student-centered culture and at the same time channel resources
into student services that align with student profiles and account for the changing external
environment (Washington & McKay, 2005).
Organizational accountability. By creating a strategic plan, higher education
institutions are able to give an account for organizational successes and failures (Walters &
Shaun, 2005). The general components of a strategic plan are vision, mission, and values;
environmental analysis; goals; action planning, and accountability. The strategic plan provides
opportunity for accountability and outcomes evaluation of an institution by measuring the
ongoing results of a plan against its goals, allowing for corrective action when necessary.
Assessing the extent of impact in intended direction and degree of progress are essential to
ensure the realization of the strategic plan and mission of the organization (Nauffal & Nasser,
2012). These accountability outcomes serve any number of purposes. On the international level,
STRATEGIC PLANNING 39
they most acutely translate into funding as international banks more and more move toward tying
grants to the accountability of a strategic plan, in order to gain greater confidence of the good use
and return on investment (UNESCO, 2010b).
Faculty Engagement
In light of the AAUP declaration, the legislation of AB1725, and in the case of TIHE
spiritual nature, one would expect a unified, strong complementary outlook and commitment
between administration and faculty to the strategic planning process. However, the literature
indicates that the principle of shared governance does not naturally translate into faculty
participation and engagement for organizational sustainability activities such as strategic
planning, and that such participation and influence is gradually being lost (Huyck, 2014; Kezar,
2014). However, the literature indicates a positive path forward for linking shared governance
with faculty incorporation into the strategic planning process.
Change
Understanding the dynamics of change is important to faculty in the strategic planning
process. Not only do faculty within the organization have employment contracts, but over time
they have also built implied psychological beliefs, values, and aspirations that have become
mental models of how individuals within the organization interact and what each one receives in
exchange for their contribution. Strategic planning introduces a disruption to these mental
contracts when it appears that the strategic plan is going in a direction that breaches the mental
contract. During the process, strategic planners need identify individual levels of resistance and
be alert to individual concerns (Delprino, 2013c).
STRATEGIC PLANNING 40
Effectiveness
How decisions will be made and effectively carried out is important to faculty and could
even be written into the strategic plan of universities for maximum effectiveness. Shared
purpose cannot be assumed to flow out of strategic management processes. After studying the
strategic plans of five leading research-intensive Nordic universities, Stensaker (2013) found that
shared purpose at the lower levels are alluded to within strategic plans, but the links between
institutional and faculty strategies and decision-making levels are not clarified thereby leading to
inefficiencies and a frustrated faculty (Stensaker, 2013). Without clearly delineating decision-
making structures and limitations, faculty will remain uncertain of not only how to participate in
governance processes, but also how to participate in the strategic planning process (Brulette,
2014).
Additionally, faculty support depends upon the cultivation of a sense across the
institution that the primary motivation of institutional effectiveness activities is to improve the
institution’s programs and services. This innate worth of institutional improvement is a more
compelling justification for institutional effectiveness than is responsiveness to external
mandates (Welsh & Metcalf, 2003).
Faculty support for institutional effectiveness activities is also likely to be increased by
ensuring that faculty perceives that they are personally involved in those activities (Al-Omari &
Salameh, 2005). Administrative openness to faculty involvement is critical to faculty support of
the organization (Huyck, 2012). Allowing faculty to experiment with strategic planning
processes and asking people to serve on committees involving institutional effectiveness
encourages ownership (Welsh & Metcalf, 2003). As faculty learn how the university functions,
they will tend to get more involved.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 41
Faculty support for institutional effectiveness is bolstered when the definition of quality
is tied to outcomes, particularly with regard to students, and not inputs (Bellanca & Abernathy,
2014; McPhail, 2006). Positive student outcomes can then also be employed for accreditation
purposes, thought accreditation is not the chief end (Gallagher, 2008). The good use of allocated
resources and affording access to the same data for all involved will authenticate this
commitment to quality (Tiede, 2013).
Implementation
Deep implementation of strategic plans encourages faculty participation. Within
American higher education, strategic planning has evolved from a focus on planning into more
of an emphasis upon strategic implementation in accordance with the strong ties of strategic
planning to change (Delprino, 2013a). A focus upon change highlights the human side of the
strategic planning process. In order for a strategic plan to be successful, the intended participants
need to be committed to the process, meaningfully contribute to its development, and integrate
the plan into daily work life (Delprino, 2013a). With reference to the importance of faculty
involvement in the strategic planning process, some have gone so far as to call it, “faculty-
centered” strategic planning (Olaode, 2011, p. 20).
At base, strategic planning involves three stages: pre-planning, planning, and
implementation. Pre-planning deserves maximum attention as it provides opportunity for
educating faculty on the planning process, sharing the data being used to make decisions, and
opening an avenue for faculty to take ownership in the development of the strategic plan (Young,
2011). By understanding the key players for proper initiation, implementation, and sustainability
of the strategic plan administration can gain buy-in and alleviate faculty frustrations of
STRATEGIC PLANNING 42
institutional inefficiency at the planning and implementation stages (Stensaker, 2013; Young,
2011).
Mission
Faculty participate in strategic planning when they are collectively focused on the
mission. This is usually because the concept of shared governance is interpreted as being
ideologically tied to individualism (Altbach, 2009). American higher education institutions are
viewed as professional bureaucracies because of democratic structure that accords extensive
autonomy and powers to faculty (Bulette, 2014; Lock et. al. 2011; Mintzberg, 1983).
Developing relationships and cultivating community across hierarchical levels facilitates the
minimization of individualism and a more corporate outlook around mission (Huyck, 2012;
Tiede, 2013). The trade-off between personal preferences and collectively made faculty
decisions is a significant obstacle for faculty and staff to overcome. Developing and
implementing a collective mission and goals, by nature, requires faculty to work together as part
of a team and thereby commit to the strategic planning process that has as its practical
outworking the mission in print and practice (Karmon & McGilsky, 1997).
Communication
Considering the multi-faceted complexities and the learning curve for faculty related to
strategic planning, clear communication of the strategic planning process becomes imperative
(Holdaway & Meekison, 1990). Communication helps everyone to feel a part of the group as
information about new decisions being made are disseminated (Young, 2011). Proper
communication builds trust, diminishes resistance, and reduces unfounded fears that potentially
lead to gaps in information leading to rumor and other inappropriate information (Delprino,
2013c). Communication is two ways and not a one-time occurrence, so it needs to be
STRATEGIC PLANNING 43
consistently monitored for useful feedback to ensure that the information conveyed is reaching
its target. Good communication between strategic planners and stakeholders can create
relationships that lead to employee commitment, a positive sense of belonging, and willingness
to change. Good communication includes using vocabulary appropriate to the audience to allow
for meaningful integration (Delprino, 2013c).
Egalitarianism
Though all faculty within an institution for higher education have opportunity to be
involved in the planning process, not all contribute insight and wisdom to make a meaningful
difference in the strategic planning process. Nevertheless, seeking and using the opinions and
advice of all members will facilitate and encourage participation while preserving unity through
the process between faculty and administration (Delprino, 2013c).
Internationalization
Faculty are motivated by the changes affected by internationalization. The impact of
university culture (disciplines, governance, tenure and promotion, academic freedom) on
organizational development supporting internationalization must be considered in discussions on
strategic planning (Agnew, 2013). In many countries, the expansion of the higher education
system is occurring in the wider context of the privatization and internationalization of higher
education both to improve it and to accommodate improved access, particularly for females
(Nauffal & Nasser, 2013). Linking institutional strategic planning to curriculum development
and policy making for internationalization can effect deep-level visible changes for sustained
institution-wide internationalization efforts that will ensure that students are prepared for an
interdependent global reality through faculty engagement in the strategic planning process
(Agnew, 2013).
STRATEGIC PLANNING 44
Academic Freedom
Participation in strategic planning is the faculty’s window of opportunity within the life
of the academic institution to demonstrate the application of empowerments that flow from
academic freedom. These empowerments include authority and control over curriculum
development, giving input into the direction of the university, and ultimately maintaining full
control in the classroom and in the selection and implementation of research topics. These
elements drive the mission (Altbach, 2001). The mission, in turn, drives the strategic planning
process and a faculty that participates in aligning tenure and promotion criteria with the
program’s mission and goals (Karmon, & McGilsky, 1997).
Non-Tenure Faculty
In 2009, the 987 public community colleges in the United States hired more than 400,000
faculty members; seventy percent of them were contingent, or part-time, hires (Kezar, 2012;
Knapp, Kelly-Reid, & Ginder, 2010). The decline of a real full-time professorate is an issue
within and beyond the US borders. Around the globe, the shift to a part-time faculty
composition is beginning to undermine high-quality academics within higher education as
professors find attentions more and more distracted from full attention to teaching and research,
working with students outside of the classroom, and participating in the governance of their
universities (Altbach, 2009).
Challenges in garnering increased faculty participation in the strategic planning process
are intimately tied to the increase in part-time faculty acquisition and their less than desirable
work conditions. Part-time faculty do not receive tenure and therefore are not protected by
academic freedom to speak their real thoughts about the direction of the institution, which results
in discouragement from participation. They are subject to last minute hiring decisions and a lack
STRATEGIC PLANNING 45
of time to prepare for providing instruction (in the case of first year instructors); a lack of access
to orientation, mentoring, and professional development opportunities; exclusion from
curriculum design and decision-making, and a lack of access to office space, instructional
resources, and staff support (Kezar, Maxey, & Eaton, 2014).
Additionally, part-time faculty are not tied into the institution with a contract, they have
limited access to information on campus, they have limited time restraints, they do not receive
compensation for being in meetings; they have limited availability, they have odd times of
classes, they do not have voting rights, and they lack respect (Huyck, 2012). All of this
contributes to low self-efficacy on the part of part-time faculty and poses an aversion to their
meaningful participation in the life of the institution.
Part-time faculty have expressed that making policy changes would enhance their
participation in several ways. This could be accomplished by connecting participation in
governance with responsibilities and rights of contingent faculty on campus; designating
participation and proportionality; defining faculty roles and the right to vote; enabling
participation through rewards, incentives, and promotion schemes; removing loopholes for
departments to evade campus policies; and encouraging leadership in departments among
contingents, so that they are seen as legitimate for governance roles (Kezar & Sam, 2014). Even
before policy changes, simply teaching part-time faculty about the right of and participation in
governance and consequent strategic planning is the best way to get part-time faculty buy-in
(Kezar & Sam, 2014).
Conclusion
The concept of planning is rooted in the order of God’s created universe and will be
performed in microcosm by every individual to some degree. Institutionally, the community of
STRATEGIC PLANNING 46
higher education theological institutions believes that shared governance is rooted in the spiritual
reality of the Holy Spirit’s operation within the believer. The international concept of shared
governance is tied to position. Though one would expect a greater degree of committed
involvement, responsibility and consequent credibility for institutional decision-making practices
by faculty and staff, this is not the case. Even when the concept of shared stewardship as a
spiritual discipline is embraced, seminary communities still struggle with meaningfully linking
faculty participation to the strategic planning process. Shared governance is, ultimately, the
responsibility of the administration which means faculty must be made aware of how they clearly
fit into the governance and planning processes of the institution, thereby leading out in the
promotion of a unified outlook and effective accomplishment of change in accordance with
institutional mission with a view to institutionalizing shared governance and strategic
sustainability-thinking throughout the organization.
An evaluation of literature within, and outside of, the United States reveals that there are
conflicting mindsets on the part of faculty, staff, and other stakeholders about the value of
strategic planning. Some would consider strategic planning to be negative on account of (1)
ambiguity written into strategic plans that leaves individuals feeling like they have no
meaningful voice; (2) budgetary stress brought on by the need for incentivizing faculty
participation; (3) divided attentions caused by unwanted administration that distracts from the
real passion of teaching and research; (4) an impeded creativity caused by overemphasis on
processes and not practices; and (5) a disrupted status quo related to who is right, rather than
what is right. Yet others would consider strategic planning to be positive on account of (1) the
stakeholder buy-in that the strategic plan secures as it shapes a clear and cohesive institutional
identity, (2) the competition introduced as a consequence of added value and increased
STRATEGIC PLANNING 47
advantage over other organizations, (3) the ability to minimize risk, (4) the sharp focus that
strategic planning brings in serving students better, and (4) a more crystalized accountability
reporting that can be tied to ongoing goal-oriented measurable outcomes. These mindsets must
be worked through during preparation for planning.
The literature has revealed that linking governance and faculty participation in higher
education strategic planning does not naturally translate into shared purpose of faculty
participation for organizational sustainability activities. Not only are mindset shifts required on
the part of administration, faculty, and staff, with regard to garnering faculty involvement, but
the literature has also suggested several practical measures to which all three groups need to be
alert and committed in order to achieve complete buy-in: change, effectiveness, implementation,
mission, communication, egalitarianism, internationalization, academic freedom, and the
relationship of non-tenure part-time faculty to institutional life. Apart from mindset shifts and
the adoption of these nine practical measures, the literature attests that faculty participation and
influence will wane.
Implications of Research
Gaining faculty buy-in to the general governance process is the first step to a successful
strategic planning experience. The literature has yielded three critical principles on governance
that administrators may want to consider in order to avoid faulty assumptions among themselves,
faculty, and staff prior to engaging in strategic planning procedures, while at the same time
increasing the possibilities of 100% faculty participation:
1. Explicit pre-teaching of faculty and staff concerning the interpretation, meaning, and
application of the institutionally predetermined governance and faculty decision-making
STRATEGIC PLANNING 48
model, how it fits the mission, and an example of how it is that these understandings
could be embedded into some future strategic planning document itself.
2. An outlook of faculty and staff stewardship and faithfulness, rather than faculty
prerogative, that is created around the innate worth of the organizational mission prior to
pre-planning activities for institutional effectiveness.
3. Intentional mutual affirmation, appreciation, and value of relationships among
administration, staff, and faculty rooted in social capital is created prior to pre-planning
activities for institutional effectiveness.
Built upon the recommended principles of governance, the literature reveals that faculty
and staff are likely to participate in the strategic planning process itself when the following are
taken into account:
1. Faculty and staff believe that change is important and, therefore, are actually willing to
change.
2. Faculty and staff link the strategic planning process to student outcomes.
3. Faculty and staff feel like they are meaningfully being brought into the strategic planning
process.
4. Faculty and staff feel like the strategic plan will lead to sustained and consistent
implementation.
5. Faculty and staff have models of individuals that concentrate on the mission of the
institution and not individualism.
6. Faculty and staff feel like communication flows freely, consistently, and openly, such
that their voice is being heard and the sense of trust is strengthened.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 49
7. Faculty and staff feel like the process is egalitarian and they are really participating in the
process.
8. Faculty and staff feel like they are a part of the larger world around them as strategic
planning leads to internationalization.
9. Non-tenured faculty and staff are afforded opportunities for tenure, other pay-related
increases, and public recognition.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance goal.
The analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and will then move to examining these
systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs analysis would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder focus in this analysis was all
TCBS faculty and staff members.
As such, the questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for 100% of
TCBS faculty and staff to actively participate in developing institutional strategic
planning goals?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to
achieve the goal?
Methodological Framework
The gap analysis framework utilizes evidence-based research in the development of
organizational solutions with a view to closing performance gaps within any given organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The framework is designed to channel decision-making through
systematic concrete steps that mitigate biases and assumptions in the problem-solving process
with a view to ultimately facilitating objective and measurable assessment of gap closure.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 51
GAP ANALYSIS PROCESS: INNOVATION MODEL

Figure 1. Gap Analysis Process: Innovation Model
The framework begins with the identification of organizational performance goals. It
then takes into account how far the organization is from achieving its performance goal, referred
to as the performance gap. Once the performance gap is identified, it must then be analyzed to
determine the causes of the gap. Causes are then identified and subsequently validated or
invalidated. Based upon the validated causes for the performance gap, solutions must be planned
and implemented that specifically target the causes of the performance gap. Once evidence-
based solutions are implemented, outcomes must be evaluated to ensure that solutions actually
solve the performance problems for which they were created without also creating new,
unintended performance problems.
Within the framework, causes in the gap analysis are analyzed according to three critical
organizational elements: (1) knowledge, (2) motivation, and (3) organization. Knowledge can be
further broken down into four categories. Factual knowledge refers to the ability of an individual
to understand the bits of information related to any given concept. Conceptual knowledge refers
to the ability of an individual to relate factual knowledge to categories and classifications.
Procedural knowledge refers to the ability of an individual to use knowledge to accomplish
Assumed Needs
Root
Needs
Gaps
(100%)
Current
Achievement
(0%)
Goals
Implement Evaluate Solutions
Knowledge Motivation Organization
STRATEGIC PLANNING 52
certain tasks. Metacognitive knowledge refers to the ability of an individual to transfer
knowledge to a new context and/or problem-solve (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Motivation can be further broken down into three categories. Choice is the decision to
act and begin the motion toward the accomplishment of a predetermined goal. Persistence is the
ability to keep moving toward the predetermined goal in the face of obstacles. Mental effort is
the ability to maintain sustained activity toward the achievement of the predetermined goal
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organization can be further broken down into two categories. Organization models refer
to the culture and values within any organization that are caught rather than taught. These
models are the hidden assumptions that form the basis of interactions and decision-making
processes in the life of any organization. Organizational settings refer to organizational
structures and procedures. Both organizational models and settings may form barriers to the
good execution of performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge, motivation, and organization serve as the foundational starting points
through which human behavior and consequent organizational performance are filtered,
corrected, and eventual gap closure affected. Clark and Estes (2008) define knowledge (K),
motivation (M), and organization (O) as the key troubleshooting targets and foundational
components supported in the literature that must be in place and internally aligned for any
successful organizational goal achievement.
Assumed Performance Needs
Clark and Estes (2008) define the gap analysis process as a systematic problem-solving
approach to improve performance and achieve organizational goals. Unfortunately, many
organizations do not follow this systematic problem-solving approach to improve performance,
STRATEGIC PLANNING 53
opting instead for a problem-solving approach rooted in pragmatics and jumping to conclusions.
As a consequence of such presumptions, individuals often omit the real needs facing an
organization. As such, a thorough investigation of organizational performance should include
three components: (a) scanning (informal) interviews with stakeholders; (b) learning, motivation,
and organization/culture theory; and (c) review of the literature on the vital role of faculty and
staff to the strategic planning process. Related literature was discussed in Chapter Two but will
be synthesized and included in the table of Chapter Three. What follows is a discussion of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed needs for 100% faculty and staff active
participation in the strategic planning process.
Preliminary Scanning Data
By initial conversations with faculty and staff and by observations conducted within the
organization, several items pertinent to the knowledge, motivation, and organization of faculty
and staff involvement in the strategic planning process have currently been identified.
Knowledge and Skills
Observation and discussion revealed that stakeholders needed the factual knowledge of
what is strategic planning, how to define what is an organizational performance problem, and
how to define what is assessment. They have also yielded that stakeholders would need
conceptual knowledge of the strategic planning process. Stakeholders need to be able to
differentiate what is an organizational need, what is an organizational performance problem, and
what is a significant strategic factor. They also would need to know the concrete steps of the
strategic planning process. In addition to the above, stakeholders also needed procedural
knowledge and skills in using strategic planning analysis tools to identify significant strategic
factors. Metacognitive knowledge was identified as a need for stakeholders to work within a
STRATEGIC PLANNING 54
self-imposed critical and reflective timeline toward strategic planning benchmark completion.
Stakeholders would also need metacognitive knowledge to evaluate, strategize, and generate,
performance goals for each aspect of the strategic planning process.
Motivation
Observation and discussion have yielded that stakeholders are very busy individuals who
work more than 60 hours a week. The organization has functioned very well without a strategic
plan for the last 10 years, so why would stakeholders want to fix something that is not broken.
The majority of stakeholders are also high profile leaders with domain expertise and
consequently, who are unaccustomed to the fear of failure that comes with new processes.
Finally, though many of the stakeholders are familiar with accountability to character goals,
they lead non-profit organizations that do not practice the concept of performance goals and are
unaccustomed to the accountability that comes with adherence to concrete performance goals.
Organization
Discussions and observations have yielded a cultural model that stakeholders are
disinterested in excelling over other theological seminaries. Additionally, stakeholders value
tradition over innovation. Finally, stakeholders are predisposed to being polite, rather than
constructively critical for fear of being disrespectful to organizational leadership.
Discussions and observations have also yielded a unique cultural setting that 90% of
stakeholders have a full-time job in addition to holding a part-time teaching contract within the
organization. In addition, stakeholders have demonstrated through faculty and staff meetings
that they learn best from role models like them who have mastered the skills to be acquired.
Finally, stakeholders need persistent follow up otherwise organizational tasks surpass deadlines,
or simply go unaccomplished.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 55
Learning and Motivation Theory
A number of knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors need to come together in
order to ensure successful completion of the strategic planning process. These factors will play a
critical role in performance outcomes.
Knowledge and Skills
Stakeholders may not know the terminology related to strategic planning, nor how
understand the ideas of assessment and how to craft organizational performance goals upon
which goal setting in the strategic planning rest. Stakeholders may need conceptual knowledge
of the strategic planning process, if they do not know the underlying principles and structure of
strategic planning. Stakeholders may also need procedural knowledge and skills in the
techniques for strategic planning assessment such as SWOT, and PEST. Finally, stakeholders
may need to apply metacognitive knowledge to transfer skills previously learned to this new
context as they learn to monitor the strategic planning process (Anderson et al., 2001; Mayer,
2011).
Motivation
Stakeholders will need to choose to employ strategies that will free up time to be engaged
in the strategic planning process. Additionally, they will need to intrinsically value and believe
that having a strategic plan is the best thing for the organization as they persist in their belief that
Jesus Christ can and will give them focus and strength when they are anxious about failing.
Finally, stakeholders will need to hold each other accountable to the completion of concrete
performance goals and be gracious and forgiving people when it comes to dealing with the
failures of others so as to encourage sustained mental effort in the strategic planning process.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 56
Organization
The organization will need to move toward a cultural model of a healthy academic
competition within the theological seminary realm. Additionally, the organizational need exists
for not only a willingness to change, but also the willingness to change more quickly. Lastly, the
organizational need exists for the development of a sense of freedom to share open analysis
without the fear of being disrespectful to the organization.
Stakeholders will need much positive feedback and verbal appreciation on a job well
done and for time devoted to such an important aspect of the life of the organization, as is
strategic planning. Stakeholders will need competent, credible, and effective role models as
examples in the strategic planning process. The organization will also need to set objective
strategic planning performance goals for stakeholders to achieve.
Related Literature
The literature review to date establishes the key role of faculty and staff in the higher
education strategic planning process. Through the course of the study several assumed needs
have become apparent. For example, faculty and staff will need to connect strategic planning to
fruitful student outcomes. In addition, the literature has made evident that faculty and staff will
need to believe in the strategic planning process. This basic premise hinges upon the need for
trust within the organization.
The literature also suggests a number of gaps in organization as to why faculty and staff
are not engaged in the strategic planning process. For example, faculty and staff need to have a
meaningful sense of participating in the strategic planning process. Faculty and staff would also
say that strategic planning needs depth of implementation and that the strategic planning model
adopted by leadership will need to be open. They communicate that they view the process as a
STRATEGIC PLANNING 57
domineering exercise by leadership and that it needs to be inclusive, transparent, and
participative. From the reading, all of these needs hinge on the interrelationships of cultural
models and cultural settings within a given organization.
Further investigation will need to yield the underpinning epistemological presuppositions
and internal attitudes of why faculty and staff of TCBS would hold each view found within the
literature review, and why they would hold any other new view not in the literature but generated
among themselves during the data collection process, with a view to proper KMO categorization
and consequent suitably targeted solutions for getting 100% of TCBS faculty and staff actively
participating in developing institutional strategic planning goals. A summary of the sources of
assumed needs categorized as knowledge, motivation, and organization is found in Appendix A.
Validation of the Performance Needs
The remaining sections of Chapter Three describes how the assumed causes will be
validated in order to determine which might require solutions and which turn out not to be
problems and therefore require no solutions.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of this study representing the sample and population included 21
faculty members and five staff leadership members who comprise 100% of the faculty and staff
of TCBS. TCBS offers bachelor’s degrees in biblical studies and master’s degrees in divinity to
a total population of 60 students.
Discussion of the Sample
The faculty is comprised of two full-time and 19 part-time faculty members. The senior
staff is comprised of a dean, an assistant dean, a registrar, a director of student services, and an
office manager. None of the faculty participants have had any formal experience in strategic
STRATEGIC PLANNING 58
planning within an academic institution. Of the senior staff, three members have had experience
in strategic planning within other institutions.
The researcher, with over 13 years of planning and development experience in the
development of academic institutions in foreign countries, took on the observation perspective as
an active participant researcher. Surveys were utilized to afford faculty and staff anonymity and
the freedom of candid responses thereby enhancing the quality of research results. Interviews of
faculty and staff were utilized to expand on additional questions surfaced during anonymous
surveys in conjunction with an expanded literature review. A focus group comprised of five
faculty and staff was utilized in order to garner responses to questions raised through the survey
and interview processes.
All three types of qualitative instruments explored faculty and staff knowledge,
motivation, and organization with regards to performance gaps in strategic planning.
Rationale for the Sample
In order for the strategic planning process to be carried out successfully, faculty and staff
must be able to identify and overcome the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
performance needs that impede the process en route to facilitating 100% active participation.
Researching the gaps in performance through the aforementioned samples, identifying those
gaps, targeting them with the fruit of research-based solutions, and then evaluating those
research-based solutions, will empower faculty and staff to greater self-regulation and
consequent increased performance in closing said gaps thereby providing the preconditions for
transformation into a more high-performing organization.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 59
Data Collection
Data was collected through surveys, interviews, and a focus group. This ensured
triangulation of data for purposes of trustworthiness. The investigator developed all instruments
employed for data collection. Instruments were administered online and in person. All
instruments were administered in English.
The assumed needs and validation of those needs through the protocol reflected language,
context and concepts that are integral to the environment at TCBS. As such, concepts related to
religion, service, faith and its accompanying commitments were reflected in the questions posed
in interviews, surveys, and focus groups. All faculty and staff at TCBS view their connections to
the seminary as not just contractual or employment based, but as part of a higher calling.
Therefore, faith was one lens through which barriers were examined with relation to knowledge,
motivation and organizations in achieving the goal of meaningful involvement in strategic
planning.
Prior to data collection, permission from University of Southern California’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB) was obtained.
Surveys
Surveys included a combination of multiple choice, Likert scale items, and open-ended
questions designed to assess motivation, knowledge and organization depending upon the best
method of presenting the question to be framed. The survey was hosted on Qualtrics and the link
was sent to all faculty and staff, 26 individuals, through TCBS e-mail database accompanied by
an IRB approved information sheet and information about the study. The survey consisted in 28
items and took approximately 10 minutes to complete. All participants surveyed were protected
by online anonymous data collection, no identifiable demographic items were asked for, and IP
STRATEGIC PLANNING 60
addresses were not tracked. Responses were collected, tabulated, and stored by Qualtrics. All
results were stored on the hard-drive of a password-protected laptop. The survey protocol is
included in Appendix A.
Interviews
Interviews were an additional data collection tool. Interviews consisted in nine interview
questions and lasted approximately 20 minutes. Participants for the interview component were
purposefully selected based upon amount of time of service at the institution and their functions
within the institution. Respondents reflected both full-time and part-time employees of the
organization.
Six of the 21 faculty were selected to participate in the in-person interviews. All 21
faculty members were separated out based upon one to three years of service, four to nine years
of service, and ten or more years of service to glean feedback from the span of new hires up to
the most experienced professionals. Once grouped according to category of years of service, all
names were entered into a list on random.org by grouping. The random generator published the
names in a numerical order. The top 2 names of the randomly generated list in each category
were selected and pursued for the interview.
Interviews took place on the campus of TCBS. Each semi-structured interview began
with a standard interview protocol that included obtaining permission to record the interview for
later transcription and coding. A copy of the information sheet was shared with the participant
and time was afforded to ask questions. At the conclusion of the interview participants were
thanked, and audio files were secured. A professional transcriptionist was contracted to produce
all interviews in print and data was examined for patterns, themes, and conclusions. The
interview protocol is included in Appendix B.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 61
Focus Group
One regular faculty/staff meeting was used as a focus group. Individuals having common
interests and characteristics interacted together as a way to provide information about the
organizationally specific issues. The group was comprised of six participants, both faculty and
staff, who met for 45 minutes. The researcher led the meeting toward gathering data in
accordance with the predetermined research inquiry questions while stimulating constructive
discussions among members, drawing out the thoughts of introverted members, and encouraging
new ideas to be presented.
Focus group moderator controlled for bias in a number of ways. The moderator remained
as neutral as possible in dress, tone, and body language and did not give opinions while
moderating. The moderator also provided participants a clearly defined description of method
that (1) delineated framework setting via standardized introductory comments to create a
common set of expectations for participants, thereby reducing expectancy error; (2) included
specific questions along with specific phraseology to ensure that each participant is asked the
same questions to reduce, moderator bias, method error, stranger bias and acquaintanceship bias;
(3) delineated item presentation sequence to ensure that both moderator bias and order effect is
minimized; (4) delineated participant response sequence to ensure respondent, moderator, and
dominance biases are minimized, and (5) limited time frames for item and respondent in order to
minimizes dominance bias as well as moderator bias. Additionally, the moderator reduced
question bias by keeping questions neutral, simple, clear, and concrete to reduce
misunderstanding. The moderator also minimized question order bias by asking general
questions before specific questions, unaided before aided questions, positive questions before
negative questions, and behavior questions before attitude questions. Finally, the moderator
STRATEGIC PLANNING 62
employed more than one analyst to analyze the data in order to obtain differing perspectives that
another analyst may have identified, thus minimizing skewed reporting.
All focus group members were given an agenda one week in advance of the meeting that
included rationale, purpose, and goals in addition to the aforementioned clear description of
method. After the meeting, a transcriptionist was contracted to produce a printed manuscript of
the focus group discussion. Data was then examined for patterns, themes, and conclusions. The
focus group protocol is included in Appendix C.
Validation of the Performance Needs
Surveys, interviews, and a focus group were used to validate the assumed needs
necessary for performance goal achievement of 100% active faculty participation in the
organizational strategic planning process. Each of the critical knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs was validated through collection of both qualitative and quantitative data.
Data Analysis
Qualtrics was used to collect and tabulate survey results. Since the survey population
was under 25, percentages were reported. Interview and focus group results were transcribed,
and coded into themes.
Trustworthiness of Data
The investigator ensured the trustworthiness of data in four ways: (1) research was
triangulated between survey, interview, and focus group data, (2) research was based upon valid
and reliable instruments, (3) the anonymity of survey respondents and the confidentiality of each
interviewee was guarded, and (4) member checks after interviews were conducted.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 63
Role of Investigator
As the dean of TCBS, the investigator oversees all faculty, staff, and students within the
organization. The role of dean is all encompassing to the life of the organization. The dean
oversees all administrative, faculty, staff, donor, and student activities. As principle investigator
in this project, the dean conducted a gap analysis of the performance problem and proposes
solutions to help TCBS garner 100% of faculty participation in the strategic planning process.
Participation will help the organization establish and maintain a clear direction for the next five
years, retain a positive relationship with like-minded theological organizations, guarantee
sustainability in outward presentation to donors, and enable students to achieve personal goals
more concretely.
During this project, stakeholders were made aware of the dean’s role as principle
investigator and the concrete measures that would be taken to ensure the anonymity of survey
respondents. As part of the interview and survey protocols, stakeholders were informed that the
primary purpose of the project was to gather information for the purposes of improving the
organization and that any information obtained during this process would be utilized for that
purpose only. Stakeholders were also reassured that participation was voluntary and that there
would be no consequences for electing not to participate. Appropriate permissions were sought
to use documentation or data that was produced for other institutional purposes (Merriam, 2009).
Limitations and Delimitations
The intention of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the TCBS needs for
the innovation of a strategic planning process that involves 100% faculty and staff participation.
There are methodological limitations when data is gathered from interviews, surveys, and
focus groups. The investigator sought to retain objectivity in the data collection process through
STRATEGIC PLANNING 64
audio recordings and transcriptions, along with copious note taking; he also acknowledges the
possible intrusion of selective memory and telescoping at certain points. Additionally,
participants may have provided answers they believe to be socially desirable and not a true
presentation of their experience. Finally, all participants may not have interpreted the interview
questions and survey items in the manner intended. Though, the TCBS mission and
organizational goal as a small, private, TIHE may be less generalizable to other organizations,
nevertheless, the employment of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis process to meeting this
innovation need will hopefully serve as a strategic tool to the reader.
The focus of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the organizational needs
for the innovation of a strategic planning process that involves 100% faculty and staff
participation. One of the delimitations of the study is that it is context specific to the TCBS
mission and organizational goal, which makes it less generalizable to other organizations.
Nevertheless, the employment of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis process to the meeting of
this innovation need may serve as a strategic tool to the reader. A second delimitation is that the
size of the selected stakeholder group makes the study most pertinent to smaller higher
educational institutions.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 65
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The board of directors of TCBS established an organizational goal to implement a
comprehensive strategic plan by September of 2017. A faculty and staff performance goal has
also been established that by August of 2016, 100% of faculty and staff will actively participate
in the development of institutional strategic planning goals for remittance to the board of
directors. The gap in performance is 100%.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organization to identify the resources necessary to reach the organizational
performance goal. The study began by generating a list of possible needs and then moved to
examining these systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs
analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder focus in this
analysis was TCBS faculty and staff members.
As such, the questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for 100% of
TCBS faculty and staff to actively participate in developing institutional strategic
planning goals?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
needs?
The following assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs were generated
from a comprehensive review of literature, learning and motivation theories, and personal
knowledge. The gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) allowed for the possible needs to
be systematically narrowed, triangulated, and validated, or not validated based on the findings
STRATEGIC PLANNING 66
from a survey, interviews, and a focus group. This chapter presents the results in the categories
of knowledge, motivation, and organization, with key findings synthesized. The final section of
the chapter summarizes the overall findings in preparation for the development of solutions in
the next chapter.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs
A survey, interviews, and a focus group were used to collect data that would validate or
not validate the assumed knowledge needs. Using Anderson et al. (2001) expansion on Bloom’s
taxonomy, knowledge is categorized into factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
dimensions. Knowledge needs were identified and classified in accordance with each knowledge
dimension. Following is a summary description and synthesis of the findings related to the
assumed knowledge needs, based on the results of the survey, interviews, and focus group.
Table 2
Knowledge Needs Validation Summary Chart
Category Assumed Need Validated Method Summary

Factual

Faculty and staff will
need knowledge of
specific terminology
pertinent to the
strategic planning
process in order to do
it well.
Yes
Survey

Based upon the survey, 90%
of respondents would like
knowledge of specific
terminology pertinent to the
strategic planning process in
order to do it well.
Interviews

Based upon interviews,
respondents indicate, “very
limited prior knowledge of
strategic planning” and a
need to “make sure there
were no misunderstandings,
even about the terminology.”

Focus Group No direct and relevant data
collected.

STRATEGIC PLANNING 67
Table 2, continued

Conceptual
Faculty and staff will
need knowledge of
concepts relevant to
the strategic planning
process that will help
them understand how
it works.

Yes
Survey

Based upon the survey, 90%
of respondents will need
knowledge of concepts
relevant to the strategic
planning process that will
help them understand how it
works.
Interview/Focus
Groups
No relevant data collected.

Procedural

Faculty and staff will
need “how to” guides
in order to effectively
engage in the
strategic training
process.

Yes
Survey

Based upon the survey, 73%
of respondents will need
procedural knowledge in
order to engage in the
strategic training process.

Interview

Based upon interviews and
focus groups, respondents
indicate a need to know “the
steps” and how to “go
through the process,” and
“how to work out the
mechanics.” They would
also like concrete examples
of the process.

Focus Group Focus group respondents
indicated that some
participants would like the
process broken down “into
the steps.”

Metacognitive

Faculty and staff
would like to know
the strategic planning
process well enough
to be able to alter the
concepts and suggest
more creative
innovations to fit
TCBS strategic
planning needs.
Yes
Survey

85% of respondents desire a
metacognitive knowledge of
strategic planning processes
for mastery and future
innovative uses.
Interviews No relevant data collected.

Focus Group

Three focus group
respondents have knowledge
of strategic planning that
they are willing to adapt and
transfer from the business
sector to the theological
education sector.

STRATEGIC PLANNING 68
Need for Factual Knowledge Concerning Strategic Planning Terminology
Factual knowledge refers to the awareness of terms and facts in isolation from concepts.
It is the basic, elemental knowledge that an individual must know about a subject area or
discipline in order to adequately perform (Anderson et al., 2001). The assumed factual
knowledge gap in this study was that faculty and staff do not know the basic component parts of
the strategic planning process. The institution has never engaged in any formal strategic
planning process; therefore, it was assumed that faculty and staff lack the foundational,
declarative knowledge about strategic planning processes. This need was validated.
To assess factual knowledge for active engagement in the strategic planning process,
faculty and staff were asked what they would need to know about the strategic planning process
in order to do it well. Based upon the survey results, 90% of respondents indicated they would
like to know specific terminology pertinent to the strategic planning process. During interviews,
respondents indicated a “very limited prior knowledge of strategic planning” and a need to
“make sure there were no misunderstandings, even about the terminology” in order to
successfully engage in strategic planning processes. Faculty and staff will need to know the
basic terminology of the strategic planning process to actively participate in the strategic
planning process.
Need for Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge About Strategic Planning Processes
Conceptual knowledge bridges isolated terms and facts. Factual knowledge lays the
foundation for operation by providing basic terminology and discrete information, but conceptual
knowledge builds upon the foundation by connecting each individual item, organizing the
information and creating schemas that help individuals understand the information beyond mere
facts (Anderson et al., 2001). Individuals possess conceptual knowledge when they can
STRATEGIC PLANNING 69
understand concepts, principles, and theories (Anderson et al., 2001). Procedural knowledge
refers to the application of knowledge in varied contexts (Anderson et al., 2001). Beyond simply
knowing the terms and then connecting individual items to organize information and create
schemas, procedural knowledge is demonstrated in the utilization of the knowledge in context.
The assumption was that faculty and staff need conceptual knowledge of strategic planning that
would support active participation in the strategic planning process. This need was validated.
Based upon the survey, 90% of respondents indicated a desire for knowledge of the
component parts relevant to the strategic planning process that will help them understand how it
works. In survey questioning with regard to procedural knowledge, 73% of faculty and staff
indicated a desire to know the “steps” in order to effectively carry out the strategic planning
process. Interviews and focus groups also yielded that respondents need to know “the steps” and
how to “go through the process,” and “how to work out the mechanics.” Others indicated a
desire for concrete examples of the process. Focus group respondents indicated that they would
like the process broken down for meaningful engagement in strategic planning processes. For
example, one respondent noted, “We’re trying to go a certain direction and you had to break it
down into the steps that you need to pursue to get there, so…I think that will play into this.” In
sum, faculty and staff will need a general understanding of the component parts and the general
steps involved in the strategic planning process in order to actively participate.
Need for Metacognitive Knowledge to Alter Strategic Planning Concepts
Metacognitive knowledge refers to the understanding and awareness of one’s own
cognitive processes and the ability to reflect and self-regulate (Anderson et al., 2001). It is the
ability to gauge one’s own efficacy in altering and applying knowledge in new contexts. From
initial scanning interviews, the assumed need was that because faculty and staff had never
STRATEGIC PLANNING 70
engaged in strategic planning processes, they would need knowledge that supports the ability to
alter its concepts and creatively innovate to active participate in the strategic planning process.
This need was validated.
Based upon the survey, 85% of faculty and staff desired a mastery of the strategic
planning process that will allow them to adapt the knowledge to other settings for consequent
innovative uses within the organization. Because of the open-ended nature of the interview
questions, no directly relevant data indicating a desire for knowledge mastery to alter concepts
for application in new settings was discussed, but the focus group meeting yielded that some
participants had knowledge of strategic planning and that they were willing to adapt and transfer
this knowledge from the business sector to the theological, higher education sector. For
example, when asked what he would bring to the strategic planning process that will be useful to
Cornerstone, one participant indicated, “I was involved for a number of years as the senior
management level at the bank and…that [strategic planning] was a good part of what we did.”
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs
The findings from the collected data confirm that there is a knowledge gap that prevents
100% active participation of faculty and staff in the strategic planning process. Faculty and staff
wish to learn factual knowledge about terminology in order to participate in the process well.
They desire conceptual knowledge about how the component parts fit together to make it work.
They would like procedural knowledge about the “steps” involved in the process. They also
aspire to gain metacognitive knowledge of strategic planning processes to be able to alter the
concepts and suggest more creative innovations to fit TCBS strategic planning needs.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 71
Results and Findings: Motivation Needs
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is the force that drives people to
actively choose to engage in an activity and to persist in that task. It also serves to signal the
amount of effort to utilize. Motivation is a problem if gaps in achievement are related to choice,
persistence, or effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Underlying the motivation indicators of choice,
persistence, and effort are five basic components of beliefs about self-efficacy, attributions,
interests, values, and goal orientation (Pintrich, 2003). Within these broad elements are more
particular levels of beliefs, all of which impact the motivation indicators of choice, persistence,
and effort. The assumed needs in this study probed faculty and staff motivation as it relates to
expectancy outcome, attainment value, cost value, utility value, intrinsic value, self-efficacy,
goals, goal orientation, and affect with a goal of active participation of 100% of faculty and staff
in the strategic planning process. Following is a summary description and synthesis of the
findings related to the assumed motivation needs, based on the results of the survey, interviews,
and focus group. A “no” response in the validated category indicates that a motivation need in
the given category does not exist.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 72
Table 3
Motivation Needs Validation Chart
Category Assumed Need Validated Method Summary
Expectancy
Outcome
I believe the
LORD will give
me the strength to
meaningfully
work on and
complete the
strategic planning
process
No
Survey

100% of participants expect to complete the strategic
planning process independent of their present
capability.
Interviews

No data collected.
Focus
Group
One participant indicated that he expects engaging in
strategic planning processes will result in a more than
successful outcome, “We are on the verge of
becoming globally known” (p. 3). One participant
indicated that he looks forward to meaningful
outcomes (p. 6). Another participant indicated that he
will not do the task just because it needs to be done,
but because he is goal-driven (p. 7).

Attainment
Value
It is important to
me to participate
in the strategic
planning process

No
Survey 100% of respondents value participation in the
strategic planning process.
Interviews No data collected.
Focus
Group
No data collected.

STRATEGIC PLANNING 73
Table 3, continued
Cost Value I am willing to
free up time to be
engaged in the
strategic planning
process.
No
Survey 100% of faculty and staff believe that the strategic
planning process is worth their time.
Interview No data collected.
Focus
Group
No data collected.
Utility
Value
I believe the
strategic plan will
be useful to me in
setting goals for
my students.
No
Survey

100% of respondents believed that engagement in the
strategic planning process will benefit their own
future goals and those of their students.
Interviews No data collected.
Focus
Groups
No data collected.
Self-
Efficacy
I am confident
that I possess the
skills necessary to
carry out the
strategic planning
process.
No
Survey 100% of respondents have positive expectations for
success in the strategic planning process.
Interview

One interviewee indicated having used several
different strategic planning techniques and, “I am
familiar with the process.”
Focus
Group
In response to prior knowledge that informs strategic
planning, one interviewee indicated having 25 years
of experience in strategic planning, “the process is the
same” (p. 1). Another mentioned, “I was involved for
a number of years at the senior management level at
the bank and that was a good part of what we did” (p.
1).

STRATEGIC PLANNING 74
Table 3, continued
Self-
Efficacy
I am confident
that I will hold
myself
accountable to the
completion of
TCBS strategic
planning
performance
goals.

Survey

100% of respondents have positive expectations for
self-regulative success in the strategic planning
process.
No Interviews No data collected.
Focus
Group

No data collected.
Intrinsic
Value
I want to continue
to learn about how
to do strategic
planning. No
Survey

95% of respondents are committed to a sustained
effort in the strategic planning process.
Interviews No data collected.
Focus
Group

No data collected.
Intrinsic
Value
I look forward to
accomplishing
strategic planning
goals set with my
peers and
administration.
No Survey

100% of respondents attribute success in setting
strategic planning goals to effort.
Interviews No data collected.
Focus
Group
No data collected.
Goals All participants
believe that
learning
motivation and
performance will
be enhanced if
they have goals.
.
Interviews All participants believe that the organization needs to
be goal-driven; strategic planning is important to the
life of the organization.
“If we’re not clear on our objectives, then we drift
and we experience mission shift.” (p. 11) “intentional
and purposeful and seeking to accomplish His
purposes” (p. 14).
Goals Several
participants
believe that
learning
motivation and
performance will
be enhanced if
they have clear,
current,
challenging goals.
Yes
Interviews

Some participants indicated not only a need to be
goal-driven but also a desire for clear, current, and
challenging goals in the strategic planning process.
“…explicit instructions…deadlines, what exactly you
are looking for (p. 15). “It helps us be proactive” (p.
21).
Focus
Group
“I would love to know that my energies are going to
accomplish meaningful goals” (p. 6).

STRATEGIC PLANNING 75
Table 3, continued
Affect Some participants
indicate that
enhanced positive
emotions enhance
their learning and
performance.

Yes
Survey No data collected.

Interviews One participant indicated a need to feel supported as
important to participating in strategic planning. “I
want to help you do what you do because you support
me” (p. 21).
Focus
Group

Another participant indicated that he projects having
positive emotion on account of participation in
strategic planning processes (p. 7). One participant
indicated that strategic planning is “fun” and
“creative” for him “to create goals” and see them
happen.” (p. 8). Another indicated that, “you have to
measure right because that is going to make you feel
right” (p. 9). Strategic planning “energized the team”
(p.9).

Goal
Orientation
Mastery
orientation of
organizational
goals through
strategic planning
will enhance
learning,
motivation, and
performance in the
process.
Yes Survey No data collected.
Interviews No data collected.
Focus
Group
One participant indicated, “having the strategic goals
there, reviewing them daily if possible, but then
definitely weekly…and continually evaluating” the
strategic plan (p.9).

Strategic Planning Process Participation Independent of Capabilities
Expectancy outcome encompasses the belief that, independent of one’s capability, a
given behavior will, or will not lead to a given outcome (Clark, 1999; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Pintrich, 2003). It focuses on the outcome independent of one’s capability for factors external to
the individual. According to the survey, 100% of faculty and staff believe that dependence upon
the LORD will result in culminating the strategic planning process independent of their present
capabilities. Though no interview data surfaced with regard to this direct quality of expectancy
outcome, the focus group indicated the belief that engaging in strategic planning processes will
result in a more than successful outcome. One participant indicated, “We are on the verge of
becoming globally known.” Another participant indicated that he looks forward to meaningful
outcomes and another participant indicated that he will not do the task just because it needs to be
STRATEGIC PLANNING 76
done, but because of a desire to please Christ. Overall, participants possess high expectancy
outcome and believed that they will be successful in the strategic planning process despite their
inexperience. They expect that the outcome will be successful because the LORD Jesus Christ
will strengthen and guide them by faith.
Strategic Planning Process Participation Linked to Value
Task value is reflective of the understanding that motivation, learning, and performance
are enhanced if a person values the task (Clark, 1999; Clark & Estes, 2008). Higher levels of
value motivate individuals; consequently, focus should be placed upon importance and utility of
content and activities, in addition to the autotelic nature of intrinsic motivation as the strategic
planning process is undertaken for its own sake, for the inherent satisfaction in doing the task,
and from involvement in the task (Pintrich, 2003).
According to the survey, 100% of faculty and staff valued participation in the strategic
planning process and believed that participation is important (attainment value). Additionally,
when asked if they are willing to make time available to be engaged in the strategic planning
process, 100% responded positively, thereby indicating that they believed the strategic planning
process is worth their time (cost value). Beyond this, 100% of respondents considered that
engagement in the strategic planning process will benefit their own future goals and those of the
students. When asked if they believe the strategic plan will be useful to them in setting goals for
the students (extrinsic value), all responded affirmatively. Finally, to the statement, “I want to
continue to learn about how to do strategic planning,” 95% of respondents agreed, or strongly
agreed that they are committed to sustained effort that yields personal benefit in the strategic
planning process (intrinsic value). In addition, 100% of respondents attributed success in setting
strategic planning goals to effort as they look forward to accomplishing strategic planning goals
STRATEGIC PLANNING 77
set with their peers and administration (intrinsic value). No data on task value surfaced during
interviews or focus groups. However, surveys and interviews support the conclusion that faculty
and staff highly value the strategic planning process and will not need reinforcement in this
regard.
Strategic Planning Process Participation Linked to Capabilities
Self-efficacy reflects the belief that motivation, learning, and performance are enhanced
when individuals have positive expectations for success (Clark,1999; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Pintrich, 2003). Competence beliefs are rooted in a focus upon the competence, expertise, and
individual skill that makes one successful (Pintrich, 2003). According to surveys, 100% of
respondents indicated that they are confident that they possess the skills necessary to carry out
the strategic planning process and have positive expectations of success. One interviewee
indicated he has used several different strategic planning techniques in the past and, “I am
familiar with the process.” In the focus group one respondent indicated that he had prior
knowledge that will inform this strategic planning process, having 25 years of experience in
strategic planning, saying “The process is the same.” Another focus group participant
mentioned, “I was involved for a number of years at the senior management level at the bank and
that was a good part of what we did.” Additionally, 100% of survey respondents indicated that
they are confident that they will hold themselves accountable to the completion of the TCBS
strategic planning performance goals. They had positive expectations for self-regulative success
in the strategic planning process. The survey, interview, and focus group data on self-efficacy
show that faculty and staff believe they have the capabilities to actively participate in the
strategic planning process.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 78
Strategic Planning Process Participation Linked to Goals
Learning, motivation, and performance will be enhanced if individuals have clear,
current, and challenging goals (Clark, 1999; Clark & Estes, 2008). Goals motivate and direct
individuals (Pintrich, 2003). Interview data found that all participants believe learning,
motivation, and performance will be enhanced if they have goals. All participants believed that
the organization needs to be goal-driven, and as a consequence strategic planning is important to
the life of the organization, “If we’re not clear on our objectives, then we drift and we experience
mission shift” and again, we must be “intentional and purposeful and seeking to accomplish His
[the LORD’s] purposes.”
Some participants indicated not only a need to be goal-driven but also went so far as to
articulate a desire for clear, current, and challenging goals in the strategic planning process.
Individuals noted, a need for “…explicit instructions…deadlines, what exactly you are looking
for” and again, “It [clear, current, and challenging goals] helps us be proactive.” An additional
participant indicated, “I would love to know that my energies are going to accomplish
meaningful goals.”
The discussion of goals, naturally leads to goal orientation. Creating mastery orientation
enhances learning motivation and performance (Clark, 1999; Clark & Estes, 2008). Mastery
goals orient one toward learning and understanding, developing new skills, and a focus on self-
improvement using self-referenced standards (Pintrich, 2003). One focus group member
summarized the discussion by stating the desire for, “having the strategic goals there, reviewing
them daily if possible, but then definitely weekly…and continually evaluating.”
All interview and focus group participants believed that there is a need for a strategic
plan that will provide clear, current, and challenging goals. Faculty and staff also believed that
STRATEGIC PLANNING 79
mastery orientation of organizational goals through strategic planning will enhance learning,
motivation, and performance and facilitate active participation.
Strategic Planning Process Participation Linked to Affect
Pintrich summates, “Academic cognition is effortful, but it is not isolated, rather it is
socially mediated and supported, and it is not cold, but hot, in terms of the involvement of
motivational and emotional factors” (Pintrich, 2003, p. 679). In brief, enhancing positive
emotions and reducing negative emotions enhances learning, motivation, and performance
(Clarke, 1999; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Interview participants indicated that enhanced positive emotions enhance their learning
and performance. One participant indicated a need to feel supported as important to participating
in strategic planning. “I want to help you do what you do because you support me.” Focus
group participants indicated personal affect as critical to the strategic planning process. One
participant noted, “In my [secular] job I was doing strategic planning because it was necessary,
[now] I am doing it at TCBS to be successful in serving our students and expanding the ministry,
and glorifying Christ.” Another participant indicated that he projects having positive emotion on
account of participation in strategic planning processes, “it’s a positive to participate.” Another
member indicated that the strategic planning process will be “mutually encouraging” to the team.
Similarly, another indicated that strategic planning “energizes the rest of the team,” while
another characterized strategic planning as “fun” and “creative” for him “to create goals” and
“see them happen.” One participant summed up the conversation in a very poignant manner,
“you have to measure right because that is going to make you feel better…” Faculty and staff
will need to experience positive emotional affect to remain engaged in active participation in the
strategic planning process.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 80
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Needs
The findings from the collected data confirm that there is a motivation gap that could
prevent 100% active participation of faculty and staff in the strategic planning process. Though
faculty and staff are a highly motivated group, they will need strengthening with relation to
goals, affect, and goal orientation in order to gain 100% active participation in the process.
Results and Findings for Organization Needs
This study explored organizational gaps that are rooted in the culture and context of the
organization. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) provided the framework for cultural models and
settings that facilitate the examination of organizational gaps. Cultural models relate to
assumptions that are taken for granted within an organization and only noticed when coming into
contact with other organizations that have markedly different models, i.e., alternate
“…historically evolved and shared ways of perceiving, thinking, and storing possible responses
to adaptive challenges and changing conditions within an organization” (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, p.47). Out of cultural models flow cultural settings, “…those occasions where
people come together to carry out joint activity that accomplishes something they value”
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, p. 48).
The assumed organizational needs for 100% faculty and staff active participation in the
strategic planning process include the following validated elements that stem from cultural
models and cultural settings: 1) governance alignment; 2) stewardship and faithfulness; 3)
relationships; 4) competition; 5) change; 6) communication; 7) performance goals; 8) role
models; 9) decision-making processes; and 10) student-centeredness. Following is a summary
description and synthesis of the findings related to the assumed organization needs, based on the
results of the survey, interviews, and focus group.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 81
Table 4
Organization Needs Validation Chart
Category Assumed Need Validated Method Summary
Cultural Settings
(Governance
Alignment)
Faculty and
staff need
explicit pre-
teaching
concerning the
interpretation,
meaning, and
application of
the
institutionally
predetermined
governance and
faculty
decision-
making model,
how it fits the
mission, and an
example of how
it is that these
understandings
could be
embedded into
some future
strategic
planning
document itself.
Yes
Survey

Interview

Focus
Group
According to the survey, 100% of respondents
indicated that they will value the strategic
planning process when the governance and
decision-making processes of the organization
are embedded into the strategic plan itself.

According to the survey, 95% of respondents
indicated that they are more likely to participate
in the strategic planning process when they are
able to articulate how faculty input relates to the
TCBS governance model.

100% of respondents indicated that they would
like to understand the organization governance
model in order to better participate in the
strategic planning processes.

One faculty member wanted clarity on the
governance model. He also indicated the need
for a collaborative effort, rather than top-down
effort for successful strategic planning.

Another faculty member said, “I’m not sure I am
fully acquainted with it…I probably need to take
a little more time to familiarize myself
with…the ‘in’s and out’s’ of it.”

Another faculty member indicated, “I would not
know exactly what you are asking for…when
you say, ‘governance model.’”

One faculty member described exactly how the
Governance model operates, but he is also my
closest assistant.

Another faculty member indicated, “…it is not
top-down…I see [the governance model] very
much as a team.”

One participant indicated, “I’m not sure that I
have a good grasp of how this board operates.”

STRATEGIC PLANNING 82
Table 4, continued
Cultural Settings
(Stewardship and
Faithfulness)
Prior to pre-
planning
activities for
institutional
effectiveness,
faculty and staff
need an outlook
of stewardship
and
faithfulness,
rather than
faculty
prerogative, that
is created
around the
innate worth of
the
organizational
mission

Yes
Survey Another participant had worry and fear
regarding perceived instability in the
organization at the top levels, “I’m concerned
about the board president changing every year
and the continuity of the work we do…because
you have to re-explain to somebody exactly
what you are doing.” There is actually no board
president who has changed. The founding
president died and has never been replaced. The
organization is board-run with a rotating acting
chairman.

The board should not provide oversight of the
day-to-day operations.
Interview One faculty member indicated, “…sometimes
we don’t think through how we can be doing it
[the vision] better…we [faculty] are content
with things…you know…how they are right
now.”

One individual indicated that he will be able to
influence decision-making, “…when my
feedback is solicited ahead of time.”

Focus
Group
One participant indicated though it is not clear
how exactly authority is stewarded by the CEO
and the board he hopes that, “the board is open
to the feedback” and that, “those that are
providing the feedback also would be humble” if
some of their ideas do not get utilized.”

In discussion of the stewardship of governance,
one participant indicated that, “the board has to
be comprised of people beyond just
pastors…there has to be some business people
on the board…”

“We have got to know how to serve them
[faculty and staff], and support them, and not
overwhelm them and then have a realistic
approach to our strategic plan.”
STRATEGIC PLANNING 83
Table 4, continued
Cultural Settings
(Relationships)
Prior to pre-
planning
activities for
institutional
effectiveness,
faculty and staff
need to create
intentional
relationships of
affirmation,
appreciation,
and value that
are rooted in
social capital
among board,
administration,
and other staff,
and faculty.

Yes
Survey
Interview In the context of governance, one faculty
member indicated significant trust relationships
and social capital, “the close relationships we
have with one another enables us to speak truth
to one another.”
Focus
Group
As the organization grows, one individual
indicated that, “there is going to have to be more
trust delegated because otherwise, if you do not
do that, then you are not going to be
empowered…you are not going to be able to
continue expansion.”

Another individual indicated, “I think it would
be wonderful for us to periodically meet with the
board and allow us to get a sense of where they
are at…I am suspect of Christian leaders and
directors.” So it would be good to have a social
gathering once a year to get to know them.
Board members can get myopic and
transparency is a good thing... “We are a team,
act like we are on a team.

Another member indicated, “we need to have a
sense of collegiality.”

One individual indicated that there is nothing
that would be more encouraging to a staff
member than, “just a sincere ‘thank you’ and a
‘keep up the good work’” with a caring attitude
and an appreciation for what you are doing.
Again he indicated, “Some faculty members put
at the bottom of the e-mail, ‘Thank you for all
you do for TCBS’ just that little line is
important.”

STRATEGIC PLANNING 84
Table 4, continued
Cultural Models
(Competition)
Faculty and
staff need to
embrace that
competition
between TCBS
and other
theological
seminaries as
healthy.
Yes
Survey According to survey, 72% of respondents
believed that competition is healthy. However,
the variance indicates a .41 and standard
deviation is a .64, highlighting that though a
core of respondents are OK with the idea of
competition, but they do not feel strongly about
it. Only 5% strongly agree and of the few that
disagree, 5% strongly disagree.
Interview
Focus
Group

Cultural Models
(Change)
Faculty and
staff need to
view change as
important and,
therefore,
actually be
willing to
change.

Yes
Survey

According to the survey, 81% of respondents
indicated that TCBS is open to change. Though
this number seems high, compared to almost
universal agreement in other areas within
motivation and organization, the 81% seems to
indicate participants are OK with the idea of
change, but may not be so willing depending on
the cultural shift being pushed.

According to survey, 76% of respondents
indicate that implementation of creative
innovations within TCBS is needed.

Interview

One faculty member indicated that the goal of
the strategic plan, “…is to think about how we
can improve, and how we can do things better”
so it would make no sense to create a strategic
plan and not change.

One individual indicated that a status quo
mentality has been fostered within the
organization, “we have never had a strategic
plan per se…this kind of thing to me seems like
it would really help the school to be stable for
future generations.”

STRATEGIC PLANNING 85
Table 4, continued
Focus
Group
“I think we need to be cautious about adopting
something, ‘just because all of the other schools
are doing it successfully and seem to be
surviving better financially.’”

Cultural Models
(Communication
)
Faculty and
staff need to
feel like they
are
meaningfully
being brought
into the
strategic
planning
process.
Yes
Survey

100% of respondents indicate that they are
confident that they are not considered
disrespectful when they share TCBS
improvement needs with leadership.

100% of participants indicate that they view the
strategic planning process as a team effort
between faculty/staff, and administration.

Interview
s
One participant indicated, “we would appreciate
a lot of direction from the top-down…the more
you can grease the skids…and we fill in what
we are capable of bringing in from our own
experience and wisdom….”

Focus
Groups
One individual posed a need for a definitive
concept of the board in terms of, “where do you
think you folks are going?” and a desire for
some sort of communication as to what’s going
on in the life of the organization.”

Another individual indicated that a successful
strategic planning process will hinge upon better
communication, “send out a weekly e-mail…a
little quick memo…keeping things before
people.”

“If you want to pull me into the process, make
me feel like a part of the team…when major
things are happening, or movements…it is
important to know.”
STRATEGIC PLANNING 86
Table 4, continued
Cultural Settings
(Performance
Goals)
Faculty and
staff need to
believe the
strategic plan
will lead to
sustained and
consistent
implementation.

Yes
Survey 100% of participants indicate that once
established, the strategic plan will be followed.

Interview

One participant indicated that he hopes the
strategic planning process will create “great
unity, a great vision among all faculty and
administration and board…a sense of
partnership and collaboration for the sake of the
Gospel…that this would enable us to continue
on the path that we started…that we would be
faithful to the vision of our founders…”

Another respondent indicated believe in the
priority of consistent implementation in strategic
planning, “The strength of the strategic plan will
probably largely depend on setting those
tangible short-term steps that lead to the long-
term changes that we want to make,” to which
people are held accountable.

Focus
Group
One person indicated that, “Our governance
model is a plurality of godly men who are
pastors, professors, who have hammered away
hard for a long time…at implementing the
vision…so there’s unity of heart and mind
relative to the core issues.”

Another member indicated that he thinks the
strategic plan will, “...hopefully advance that
[vision] and free up more energy to it, instead of
slowing down decision-making processes.”
Cultural Models
(Role Models)
Faculty and
staff need
models of
individuals that
concentrate on
the mission of
the institution
and not
individualism.

Yes
Survey

Only 24% of participants know of at least one
fellow faculty member who has been through a
strategic planning process.

77% of participants believe that having a faculty
role model will be important to their
participation in the strategic planning process.

STRATEGIC PLANNING 87
Table 4, continued
Interview
s

Focus
Group
One participant indicated that it will be
important to have a role model who is optimistic
about the mission and about the planning
process, a good communicator, one who works
well with others, and who is able to make the
hard decisions graciously and puts forward hope
as he “…equips us to do the vision.”

One participant indicated the need for a role
model who has experience in the strategic
planning process and who is willing to be further
trained if inexperienced.

One participant indicated that he thinks a
mission-driven role model will be, “…a person
who can communicate very clearly, very simply,
and very pithy, not technical jargon…even
‘strategic planning’ does not mean anything to
me.”

Another member indicated that the individual
does not have an, “I’m going to push my agenda
on everyone else” kind of mindset.

Faculty and
staff need
communication
to flow freely,
consistently,
and openly,
such that their
voice is being
heard and the
sense of trust is
strengthened.

Yes

Survey

100% of participants believe that the strategic
plan will be the outcome of a transparent
organizational self-study.
Interview
s

Focus
Group

STRATEGIC PLANNING 88
Table 4, continued
Cultural Models
(Decision-
Making
Processes)
Faculty and
staff need to
feel like the
process is
egalitarian and
they are really
participating in
the process.

Yes
Survey

100% of participants indicate that they
appreciate open feedback on their work at TCBS
of which, 43% strongly agree on this point.

100% of respondents indicate that when they
have done a good job, they like to know this.

Only 43% of respondents indicate that they
know how they can participate in the decision-
making process for strategic plan development.

Interview One faculty member indicated that he believes
the board will consider input from faculty on the
strategic plan, “I think there can be valuable
input, valuable, profitable counsel…from the
men who are doing it.”

Another faculty member indicated that he
believes the strategic planning process will
facilitate that he give feedback to the board for
incorporation into the strategic plan, “if it is
within the vision.”, otherwise the board may
decide, “no we don’t think that’s the best…I
think overall the feedback would be heard.”

Another faculty member indicated, “I love to
have my input sought, because I feel like in
some areas I have something I can say… .”
Focus
Group

Cultural Settings
(Student-
Centeredness)

Faculty and
staff need to
link the
strategic
planning
process to
student
outcomes.

Yes
Surveys

Interview
s
One participant indicated, “I would hope that the
strategic planning process would enable us to
not just improve just how we train [students],
but also help train them as men, followers of
Christ, compassionate, caring shepherds.”

Another respondent indicated that the strategic
planning process will serve students by
increasing, “…credibility…attract more student”
and demonstrate commitment that “sets
[Cornerstone] apart from other institutions…”

One professor indicated that he could make
adjustments to accommodate the strategic
planning process into his schedule, “…if this
doesn’t end up being something that is a time-
eater with no observable benefit to it…because
in some ways it takes me away from what I am
really called to do.”

STRATEGIC PLANNING 89
Table 4, continued

Focus
Groups
One member expressed the need for strategic
change, “While the culture may be changing, we
need to maintain a distinctiveness for all of the
right reasons, and for greater benefit to
students.”

Cultural Settings
(Internationalizat
ion)
Faculty and
staff need to
feel like they
are a part of the
larger world
around them as
strategic
planning leads
to
internationalizat
ion.

No Surveys No data collected.

Interview
s

Focus
Group

Cultural Models
(Personal Honor)
Non-tenured
faculty and staff
need to be
afforded
opportunities
for tenure, other
pay-related
increases, and
public
recognition.
No
Survey
Interview
s

Focus
Groups

No data collected.
No data collected.

No data collected.

Governance Alignment
The study found that faculty and staff need goal alignment enhancement with relation to
the institutional governance and faculty decision-making model, how it fits the mission, and an
example of how it is that these understandings could be embedded into some future strategic
planning document itself. According to the survey, 100% of respondents indicated that they will
value the strategic planning process when the governance and decision-making processes of the
organization are embedded into the strategic plan itself. In the survey, 95% of respondents
indicated that they are more likely to participate in the strategic planning process when they are
able to articulate how faculty input relates to the TCBS governance model. Additionally, 100%
STRATEGIC PLANNING 90
of respondents said that they would like to understand the organization’s governance model in
order to better participate in the strategic planning processes.
In interviews, one faculty member wanted more clarity on the governance model. He
also indicated the need for a collaborative effort, rather than top-down effort for successful
strategic planning. Another faculty member said, “I’m not sure I am fully acquainted with it
[governance model]…I probably need to take a little more time to familiarize myself with…the
ins and outs of it.” An additional respondent reported, “I would not know exactly what you are
asking for…when you say, ‘governance model.’” Only one interviewee described exactly how
the governance model operates and another guessed based upon observation that, “…it is not
top-down…I see [the governance model] very much as a team.”
In the focus group, responses to the question of the current governance model yielded
similar results to what was said in the interviews. One participant indicated, “I’m not sure that I
have a good grasp of how this board [TCBS] operates.” An additional respondent asserted that
the board should not provide oversight of the day-to-day operations, which is a perception by
some, but the board does not do this. Most significantly, one focus group participant indicated
that he was concerned about perceived instability in the organization at the top levels, “I’m
concerned about the board president changing every year and the continuity of the work we
do…because you have to re-explain to somebody exactly what you are doing.” However, this
has not happened, and the board president has not changed each year. The founding president,
who served as president of the board, died and has never been replaced. The organization is
board-run with a rotating chairmanship. Focus group participants agreed with interviewees and
survey participants in identifying an incongruence between the board governance model and
STRATEGIC PLANNING 91
shared participation that is so important to faculty and staff to grasp prior to initiating the
strategic planning process.
Stewardship and Faithfulness
During interviews, one faculty member indicated a lack of self-regulation on the part of
faculty and staff, “…sometimes we don’t think through how we can be doing it [the vision]
better…we [faculty] are content with things…you know…how they are right now.” One
individual said that he would influence decision-making, “…when my feedback is solicited
ahead of time.” In the focus group meeting, one participant indicated that though it is not clear
how exactly authority is stewarded by the CEO and the board, he hopes that, “the board is open
to the feedback” and that, “those that are providing the feedback also would be humble, if some
of their ideas do not get utilized.” The data indicates that readiness to offer input into the
governance process as connected to stewardship and faithfulness is not at the forefront of the
minds of the faculty and staff and that this awareness of stewardship and faithfulness with
relation to governance will need to be raised prior to initiating pre-planning activities for
strategic planning processes.
Relationships
Faculty and staff need to increase the depth of their relationships within the organization.
Prior to pre-planning activities for institutional effectiveness in strategic planning, faculty and
staff need to create intentional relationships of affirmation, appreciation, and value among board
members, administration, and other staff, and faculty. In the context of governance, one
interviewee indicated that significant trust relationships and a sense of strong ties exist within the
organization, “the close relationships we have with one another enables us to speak truth to one
another.” In the focus group some also indicated that there was trust, but that on account of
STRATEGIC PLANNING 92
anticipated growth, “there is going to have to be more trust delegated because otherwise, if you
do not do that, then you are not going to be empowered…you are not going to be able to
continue expansion.”
Though certain faculty and staff were very positive about the strength of relationship
enjoyed within the organization, other did not have the same perception. For example, one
individual indicated, “I think it would be wonderful for us to periodically meet with the board
and allow us to get a sense of where they are at…I am suspect of Christian leaders and
directors,” so it would be good to have a social gathering once a year to get to know them.
“Board members can get myopic and transparency is a good thing.” The individual also went on
to mention perceptions of not being valued by board members, “We are a team, act like we are
on a team.” Other focus group participant indicated, “We need to have a sense of collegiality”
and that there is nothing that would be more encouraging to a staff member than, “just a sincere
‘thank you’ and a ‘keep up the good work’” with a caring attitude and an appreciation for what
they are doing. For example, one participant said, “Some faculty members put at the bottom of
the e-mail, ‘Thank you for all you do for TCBS’ just that little line is important.” There were
mixed perceptions within the organization regarding the depth of relationship indicating a need
to foster internal relationships for a 100% active participation in the strategic planning process.
Competition
The faculty and staff did not have a consistent outlook regarding competition. According
to the survey, 72% of respondents believed that competition between TCBS and other
theological seminaries is healthy; however, the variance indicates a .41 and standard deviation is
a .64, highlighting that though a core of respondents accept the idea of competition, they do not
feel strongly one way or the other about it. Only 5% strongly agree and of the few that disagree,
STRATEGIC PLANNING 93
5% strongly disagree. This is the only survey question that garnered such a wide range of
responses. In the interviews, one participant indicated that it is important for the institution to
make its distinctive features known in comparison to other seminaries, which also reflects a
conscious sense of competition. Though the numbers do not seem to represent such a wide gap
on paper, the question stands as a reminder that leadership will need to keep the sense of healthy
competition in mind when interacting with faculty and staff, without over-emphasizing
competition which could actually prove harmful to 100% active participation of faculty and staff
in the strategic planning process.
Change
The faculty and staff reported an inconsistent outlook regarding change. According to
the survey, 81% of respondents indicated that those who comprise the organization of TCBS are
open to change. Additionally, 76% of respondents indicated that implementation of creative
innovations within TCBS is needed. One faculty member reported that the goal of the strategic
plan “…is to think about how we can improve, and how we can do things better…it would make
no sense to create a strategic plan and not change.” The consensus of the survey and interviews
was that participants accept the idea of change, but may not be so willing depending on the
cultural shift of the organization being encouraged. For example, one individual indicated that a
status quo mentality has been fostered within the organization, “we have never had a strategic
plan per se…this kind of thing to me seems like it would really help the school to be stable for
future generations.” In line with this, another indicated a calculated late adopter mentality, “I
think we need to be cautious about adopting something just because all of the other schools are
doing it successfully and seem to be surviving better financially.” Since faculty and staff view
STRATEGIC PLANNING 94
change as important, the planning processes will need to be linked to the calculated change that
the strategic plan will provide.
Communication
The organization needs improved communication. According to surveys, 100% of
participants believe that the strategic plan will be the outcome of a transparent organizational
self-study. In addition, 100% of respondents reported that they are confident that they will not
be considered disrespectful when they share TCBS improvement needs with leadership. Beyond
this, 100% of participants indicated that they view the strategic planning process as a team effort
between faculty, staff, and administration.
During interviews, one participant indicated, “we would appreciate a lot of direction from
the top-down…the more you can grease the skids…and we fill in what we are capable of
bringing in from our own experience and wisdom.” In the focus group meeting, participants
indicated a need for a definitive direction from the board in terms of, “where do you think you
folks are going?” and a desire for communication about the activities of the organization.
Another individual said that a successful strategic planning process will hinge upon better
communication, “send out a weekly e-mail…a little quick memo…keeping things before people”
(p. 17). One respondent indicated, “If you want to pull me into the process, make me feel like a
part of the team…when major things are happening, or movements…it is important to know.”
Overall, faculty and staff trust the process will work and feel like they are free to give feedback,
but they will be unsure of what kind of feedback to give without clear communication processes.
Performance Goals
The organization has vague performance goals. According to the survey, 100% of
respondents indicate that once established, the strategic plan will be followed. One participant
STRATEGIC PLANNING 95
indicated that he hopes the strategic planning process will “enable us to continue on the path that
we started…that we would be faithful to the vision of our founders…” Another respondent
stated, “The strength of the strategic plan will probably largely depend on setting those tangible
short-term steps that lead to the long-term changes that we want to make and to which people are
held accountable.” Focus group participants also indicated that, “Our governance model is a
plurality of godly men who are pastors, professors, who have hammered away hard for a long
time…at implementing the vision…so there’s unity of heart and mind relative to the core issues”
while others resonated with this indicating the strategic plan will, “...hopefully advance that
[vision] and free up more energy to it, instead of slowing down decision-making processes.”
Faculty and staff desire clearer performance goals that will lead to sustained implementation.
Role Models
The faculty and staff lack competent and enthusiastic role models who are skilled in
strategic planning. According to the survey, only 24% of participants know of at least one fellow
faculty member who has been through a strategic planning process, yet, 77% of participants
believed that having a faculty role model will be important to their participation in the strategic
planning process. During interviews, one individual indicated the need for a role model who has
experience in the strategic planning process and was willing to be further trained if needed.
Another participant indicated that it will be important to have a role model who is optimistic
about the mission and about the planning process, a good communicator, one who works well
with others, and who is able to make the hard decisions graciously and puts forward hope as he
“…equips us to do the vision.” One participant indicated that he thinks a role model for strategic
planning will be a mission-driven person who is, “…a person who can communicate very
clearly, very simply, and very pithy, not technical jargon…” Another member indicated that the
STRATEGIC PLANNING 96
individual does not carry himself with an attitude of “I’m going to push my agenda on everyone
else.” Though interviewee and focus group members indicated a lack of awareness of competent
and enthusiastic role models for the strategic planning process, they do know what they want in
strategic planning leadership.
Decision-Making Processes
Faculty and staff lack clarity on decision-making processes. According to the survey,
100% of participants indicated that they appreciate open feedback on their work at TCBS. Of
the 100%, 43% of respondents strongly agree on this point. Additionally, 100% of respondents
indicate that when they have done a good job, they like to know this. In light of this, it is
significant that only 43% of respondents indicate that they know how they can participate in the
decision-making process for strategic plan development. One faculty member indicated that he
believes the board will consider input from faculty on the strategic plan, “I think there can be
valuable input, valuable, profitable counsel…from the men who are doing it.” Another faculty
member indicated that he believes the strategic planning process will facilitate that he give
feedback to the board for incorporation into the strategic plan, “if it is within the vision,”
otherwise the board may decide, “no we don’t think that’s the best…I think overall the feedback
would be heard.” Another faculty member indicated, “I love to have my input sought, because I
feel like in some areas I have something I can say….” Faculty and staff lack a clear concept of
how they will be included in decision-making processes in an egalitarian manner.
Student-Centeredness
Faculty and staff lack clarity concerning the student-centeredness with relation to the
strategic planning process. According to survey, one participant indicated, “I would hope that
the strategic planning process would enable us to not just improve just how we train [students],
STRATEGIC PLANNING 97
but also help train them as men, followers of Christ, compassionate, caring shepherds.” Another
respondent indicated that the strategic planning process will serve students by increasing,
“…credibility…attract more students” and demonstrate commitment that “sets [Cornerstone]
apart from other institutions….” In reference to the importance of servicing students well in the
classroom, one professor indicated that he could make adjustments to accommodate the strategic
planning process into his schedule, “…if this doesn’t end up being something that is a time-eater
with no observable benefit to it…because in some ways it takes me away from what I am really
called to do.” In the focus group, one member expressed, “While the culture may be changing,
we need to maintain a distinctiveness for all of the right reasons, and for greater benefit to
students.” Faculty and staff will need to concretely link the strategic planning process to student
outcomes.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organization Needs
The findings from the collected data confirm that there is an organization gap that exists
in order to facilitate 100% active participation of faculty and staff in the strategic planning
process. Faculty and staff will need to overcome cultural models and settings. The present
investigation has indicated a need for goal alignment, stewardship and faithfulness, enhanced
relationships, healthy competition, willingness to change, consistent communication, clear
performance goals, skilled role models, clear decision-making processes, and student-
centeredness.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 98
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
This study identified and assessed assumed needs for 100% faculty and staff participation
on the basis of a knowledge and skills, motivation and organization framework (Clark & Estes,
2008). Four knowledge types were probed: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.
Assumed motivational needs for this study were coded around themes of task value, self-
efficacy, expectancy outcome, goal orientation, goals, and affect. Assumed external and internal
organizational needs that impacted faculty and staff were also assessed.
Surveys, interviews, and a focus group with sample populations from TCBS faculty and
staff validated several assumed needs. The validated needs and findings presented in this chapter
are organized by category: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization. The
interconnected nature of the categories allows for solutions that address multiple needs for
engaging in strategic planning processes. These recommended solutions will facilitate gap
closure and active faculty participation in strategic planning processes. A successful approach
to strategic planning processes begins with a clear institutional governance model out of which
flow strategic planning processes with consequent change management. Relevant solutions are
built into a synthesized implementation plan.
The findings from the collected data confirm that there is a knowledge gap that could
prevent 100% active participation of faculty and staff in the strategic planning process. Faculty
and staff wish to learn factual knowledge about terminology in order to participate in the process
well. They desire conceptual knowledge about how it works. They desire procedural knowledge
about the “steps” involved in the process. Faculty and staff would also like to gain
metacognitive knowledge of strategic planning processes to be able to alter the concepts and
suggest more creative innovations to fit the TCBS strategic planning needs.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 99
The findings from the data confirm that there is also a gap in motivation that could
present an obstacle to 100% active participation of faculty and staff in the strategic planning
process. Though they are a highly motivated group in some areas, faculty and staff will need
strengthening with relation to goals, affect, and goal orientation.
Along with gaps in knowledge and motivation, organization gaps also exist that pose a
barrier to 100% active participation of faculty and staff in the strategic planning process. They
will need to overcome cultural models and settings. The research has indicated eight areas to be
addressed in order to attain 100% faculty and staff active participation in the strategic planning
process: organizational alignment, stewardship and faithfulness, enhanced relationships, healthy
competition, willingness to change, consistent communication, clear performance goals, skilled
role models, clear decision-making processes, and student-centeredness.
Recommended Solutions
This study has yielded the following 15 recommended target solutions in response to the
validated needs that will assist TCBS in achieving 100% faculty and staff participation in the
strategic planning process.
Table 5
15 Recommended Target Solutions by Validated Need
VALIDATED KNOWLEDGE NEED RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Faculty and staff will need to know the basic
terminology of the strategic planning process to actively
participate in the strategic planning process.

Define terms.

Faculty and staff will need a general understanding of
the component parts involved in the strategic planning
process in order to actively participate.

Facilitate understanding of how strategic planning
works.

Faculty and staff will need understanding of the general
steps involved in the strategic planning process in order
to actively participate.

Provide a step-by-step overview of the strategic
planning process.

STRATEGIC PLANNING 100
Table 5, continued
Faculty and staff need knowledge that supports the
ability to alter its concepts and creatively innovate to
actively participate in the strategic planning process.

Engender flexibility related to strategic planning.
VALIDATED MOTIVATION NEED RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Participants believe that learning motivation and
performance will be enhanced if they have goals.

Provide clear, current, and challenging goals.
Participants indicate that enhanced positive emotions
also enhance their learning and performance.

Boost institutional morale.

Mastery orientation of organizational goals through
strategic planning will enhance learning, motivation,
and performance in the process.

Provide models of conviction in leadership.

VALIDATED ORGANIZATION NEED RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Faculty and staff need explicit pre-teaching concerning
the governance and faculty decision-making model.

Pre-teach the TCBS governance model clearly
delineating responsibilities and limitations.

Prior to pre-planning activities for institutional
effectiveness, faculty and staff need an outlook of
stewardship and faithfulness.

Cultivate stewardship and faithfulness around the innate
worth of the organizational mission.

Faculty and staff need relationships of affirmation,
appreciation, and value that are rooted in social capital
among themselves, the board, and the administration.
Facilitate the building of intentional relationships that
produce dense networks of interaction, increase
relational value, trust, and cooperation.
Faculty and staff need to view change as important.

Faculty and staff need to believe the strategic plan will
lead to sustained and consistent implementation.

Persist in creating a change-oriented culture within daily
work life and learn to operate within the social contracts
of the organization in search of incremental change.
Faculty and staff need to feel like they are meaningfully
being brought into the strategic planning process.

Faculty and staff need to feel like the process is
egalitarian and they are really participating in the
process.

Collaborate in meaningful ways such that faculty and
staff authoritatively participate, take ownership of the
process, and stand on equal footing with leadership.
Faculty and staff need models of individuals that
concentrate on the mission of the institution.
Cultivate mission mindedness by cultivating
camaraderie of community and providing mastery-
oriented role models.
Faculty and staff need communication to flow freely,
consistently, and openly.

Monitor communication for trust-building and useful
feedback from faculty and staff.

Faculty and staff need to link the strategic planning
process to student outcomes.

Link the definition of quality and the innate worth of
institutional improvement to student success.

STRATEGIC PLANNING 101
Recommended Solutions for Knowledge and Skills Gap
The organization solutions in this section are based upon the extensive literature review,
qualitative research, and the experience of the researcher within the day-to-day affairs of the
organization. Anderson et al. (2001) provided a revised framework of the original Bloom’s
taxonomy. The framework classifies four types of knowledge and cognitive processes for
learning, teaching and assessing: factual, procedural, conceptual and metacognitive. Faculty and
staff at TCBS lacked all four kinds of knowledge with relation to strategic planning.
Recommended solutions to address each of these cognitive dimensions are provided.
Knowledge and skill enhancements are recommended based on Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis framework. Four possible solutions exist, which are information, job aids, training, or
education, depending on relevant transferrable skills acquired by faculty and staff from past
experience, expertise, and knowledge.
Solution 1: Define Terms
Faculty and staff need to know terminology pertinent to the strategic planning process in
order to do it well. Prior to the start of strategic planning processes, they will need to receive a
data sheet that defines terminology (Clarke & Estes, 2008; Delprino, 2013c).
Solution 2: Facilitate Understanding of How Strategic Planning Works
Knowledge of the concepts relevant to the strategic planning process will help faculty
and staff understand how it works. Prior to the start of strategic planning processes, they will
receive a general overview with samples of the strategic planning process and self-help
information that will facilitate achieving performance goals in a way that reduces uncertainty
(Clarke & Estes, 2008).
STRATEGIC PLANNING 102
Solution 3: Provide a Step-By-Step Overview of the Strategic Planning Process
An understanding of the strategic planning steps will also aid in carrying out the process.
Prior to beginning strategic planning processes, “how to” training pamphlets will be provided to
indicate the step-by-step process, in addition to guided practice and corrective feedback (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Solution 4: Engender Flexibility Related to Strategic Planning
As faculty and staff learn the strategic planning process well, they will be able to alter the
concepts and suggest more creative innovations to fit TCBS strategic planning needs. They will
need freedom to experiment with the strategic planning processes during team pre-meetings
(Welsh & Metcalf, 2003). This pre-training in strategic planning will establish the boundaries
within which faculty and staff may alter strategic planning concepts to confront novel and
unexpected challenges and problems that will arise during the strategic planning process (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Table 6
Knowledge Needs and Solutions
Knowledge
Category
Assumed Need Validated Solution Literature
Factual Faculty and staff will need
knowledge of specific terminology
pertinent to the strategic planning
process in order to do it well.
Yes

Provide data sheet that
defines terminology in
a manner that is
appropriate to the
audience.
Clarke &
Estes, 2008;
Delprino,
2013c
Conceptual Faculty and staff will need
knowledge of concepts relevant to
the strategic planning process that
will help them understand how it
works.

Yes
Provide general
overview samples of
the strategic planning
process.

Clarke &
Estes, 2008

STRATEGIC PLANNING 103
Table 6, continued
Procedural Faculty and staff will need an
understanding of the strategic
planning steps in order to
effectively partner in carrying out
the strategic training process.

Yes
Provide “how to”
guides indicating the
step-by-step process of
strategic planning.
Clark & Estes,
2008
Metacognitive Faculty and staff will need
familiarity with the strategic
planning process to be able to alter
the concepts and suggest more
creative innovations to fit TCBS
strategic planning needs.
Yes
Engender strategic
planning flexibility
within faculty and staff
to alter concepts of the
strategic planning
processes during
small-group pre-
meetings.
Clark & Estes,
2008; Welsh &
Metcalf, 2003

Recommended Solutions for Motivation Gap
Motivation gets one going, keeps one moving, and tells one how much effort to spend on
work tasks. Three types of motivational processes feed performance in the work environment:
(1) active choice to pursue a goal, (2) persistence in undistracted attention by less important
goals, and (3) self-regulated mental effort expended in achieving those goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). These three elements are undergirded by a series of motivational factors such as task
value, expectancy outcome, self-efficacy, attributions, goal orientation, goals, and affect (Clark,
1999; Pintrich, 2003). Goals, affect, and goal orientation form particular needs for faculty and
staff of TCBS. These three solutions are based upon the extensive literature review, the
qualitative research, and the experience of the researcher in the day to days of the organization.
Solution 5: Provide Clear, Current, and Challenging Goals
All participants believe that learning motivation and performance will be enhanced if
they have goals. Prior to the strategic planning process, faculty and staff will receive clear,
current, and challenging performance goals tied to the strategic planning process (Clark & Estes,
2008). As an additional motivating factor, these goals can be rooted in student outcomes that
propagate a student-centered culture (Bellanca & Abernathy, 2014; McPhail, 2006).
STRATEGIC PLANNING 104
Solution 6: Boost Institutional Morale
Participants also indicated that enhanced positive emotions improve their learning and
performance. The CEO, faculty, and staff must learn to work within the politics and social
contracts of the organization to raise morale. The CEO can lead out in boosting affect by (1)
developing transparency and communication mechanisms with faculty and staff (Delprino,
2013c), (2) making faculty and staff feel like they are meaningfully being brought into the
strategic planning process (Stensaker, 2013), and (3) collaborating with faculty and staff in an
egalitarian manner during the strategic planning process (Kezar, 2014).
Solution 7: Provide Models of Conviction in Leadership
Goal orientation must be mastery-oriented instead of performance oriented. Mastery-
oriented individuals are characterized by task-mastery according to self-imposed goals and
standards driven by mission. By providing successful models of mastery-oriented individuals for
faculty and staff, they will have an example of leadership to emulate. The individual can also
come from differing hierarchical levels within TCBS. Principally, they must be individuals who
are driven by the TCBS mission and not the fear of failure (Altbach, 2009; Tiede, 2013).
Mastery orientation during the strategic planning process will result in enhanced learning,
motivation, and performance on the part of faculty and staff.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 105
Table 7
Motivation Needs and Solutions
Motivation
Category
Assumed Need Validated Solution Literature

Goals

Participants believe
that learning
motivation and
performance will be
enhanced if they
have goals.
Yes
Establish clear, current,
and challenging goals for
faculty and staff prior to
the strategic planning
process.
Clark & Estes,
2008

Link strategic planning
goals to the propagation of
a student-centered culture
rooted in student
outcomes.

McPhail, 2006;
Bellanca &
Abernathy,
2014)

Affect

Participants indicate
that enhanced
positive emotions
improve their
learning and
performance.
Yes
Maintain institutional
morale by developing
transparency and
communication
mechanisms, and giving
them equal footing.

Delprino,
2013c

Make faculty and staff
feel like they are
meaningfully being
brought into the strategic
planning process.

Stensaker,
2013
Collaborate with faculty
on equal footing during
the strategic planning
process.
Kezar, 2014
Goal
Orientation
Mastery orientation,
not performance
orientation, during
the strategic
planning process
will result in
enhanced learning,
motivation, and
performance on the
part of faculty and
staff.

Yes
Provide mastery-oriented
models from differing
hierarchical levels within
TCBS who are driven by
mission.
Altbach, 2009;
Tiede, 2013

STRATEGIC PLANNING 106
Recommended Solutions for Organization Gap
The core values, beliefs, emotions, and processes inevitably filter and affect all attempts
to improve organization performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational culture can be
divided into cultural models and cultural settings. The phrase cultural models refers to the
invisible values, beliefs, and attitudes a person holds. Cultural settings refer to visible, concrete
manifestations of cultural models that appear within the activity setting (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004). Eight recommended organizational solutions in this section
are based upon the extensive literature review, the qualitative research, and the experience of the
researcher in the day-to-day work of the organization.
Solution 8: Pre-Teach the TCBS Governance Model
The faculty and staff need to understand the governance model in advance of initiating
strategic planning processes. Governance and decision-making can be complex. However,
faculty and staff participation can be enhanced when the administration clearly delineates
responsibilities and limitations, articulates the meaning of shared governance, and utilizes
multiple decision-making venues, such as focus groups and town-hall meetings (Brulette, 2014;
Tierny & Minor, 2003). In the case of part-time faculty, one manner of winning buy-in would be
to communicate the right of participation in governance and consequent strategic planning
(Kezar & Sam, 2014). Finally, administration must not only clearly model the preferred
governance system, but within that system the administration will consider faculty as mid-level
leadership, remain committed to shared values, move from independent to consultative action, be
willing to grant faculty equal, or better information and incentives than administrators or
trustees, and allow faculty members to exert decision control within a predetermined framework
(Brown, 2001; Kezar, 2004; Kurland, 2013). When faculty and staff receive pre-teaching
STRATEGIC PLANNING 107
concerning the interpretation, meaning, and application of the shared governance and faculty
decision-making model, the key concepts can then be embedded into the strategic planning
document itself as the overarching framework to the strategic plan and a means to the end of
accomplishing the TCBS mission (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Solution 9: Cultivate Stewardship and Faithfulness
Stewardship and faithfulness created around the innate worth of the organizational
mission is valuable for active, collegial participation, rather than passivity. As a faith-based
organization, for TCBS shared participation of faculty must be viewed as a spiritual discipline
that leads to shared stewardship (Bassinger, 2009; Tiede, 2009). Faculty and staff who
participate in the educational mission of TCBS will need to be encouraged to respect the separate
fiduciary powers for which various groups are responsible. They will also need to collaborate
with other governance groups to advance the effort strategically, and welcome the input of all
stakeholders in general (Tiede, 2009) out of loyalty to the institutional mission.
Solution 10: Build Intentional Relationships
Meaningful relationships among faculty and staff are critical to their successful
engagement in the strategic planning processes. These relationships between administration,
staff, and faculty must be characterized by intentional mutual affirmation, appreciation, and the
innate value of relationships. Administration, faculty and staff will need to interact on matters
related to their group norms and personal values to produce dense networks of interaction that
increase relational value within TCBS, and increase trust and cooperation that relate to
organizational effectiveness (Birnbaum, 2004). Through these kinds of relationships,
administration can gain buy-in and alleviate faculty frustrations at the planning and
STRATEGIC PLANNING 108
implementation stages as they better understand the key players for proper initiation,
implementation, and sustainability of the strategic plan (Stensaker, 2013; Young, 2011).
Solution 11: Persist in Creating a Change-Oriented Culture
Strategic planning initiatives need to be creatively aligned with continuing institutional
practice, employee performance, and outcomes assessment (Sullivan & Richardson, 2011). The
strategic plan provides opportunity for accountability and outcomes evaluation of an institution
by measuring the ongoing results of a plan against its goals and allowing for corrective action
when necessary (Nauffal & Nasser, 2012). In order for a strategic plan to be successful, faculty
and staff will not only need to be committed to the process and meaningfully contribute to its
development, but they must believe that the strategic plan will lead to sustained and consistent
change orientation through persistent implementation as that plan is integrated into daily work
life (Delprino, 2013a).
Persistent change orientation requires that faculty and staff must not only believe that
change is important, but that they are actually willing to change. This means that prior to
entering into the strategic planning process, the administration, faculty, and staff must learn to
operate within the politics and social contracts of the organization, and not overtly challenge the
social status of participants in that system (Birnbaum, 2004). By taking into account differing
facets of TCBS politics, leadership can exercise more control over the way things get done, and
influence how stakeholders, faculty and staff in particular, will embrace a change-oriented
outcome (Delprino, 2013c). Additionally, by setting short-term goals that are easily achievable,
the faculty and staff may persist in sustained and consistent implementation of the strategic plan
resulting in incremental change (Clark & Estes, 2008).
STRATEGIC PLANNING 109
Solution 12: Link Incentives to Student Outcomes
Engaging faculty and staff in strategic planning processes can be linked to incentives on
the part of administration, such as tenure, reduced teaching loads, and/or monetary compensation
for faculty who are heavily involved in strategic planning processes (Delprino, 2013c; Huyck,
2012; Karmon, & McGilsky, 1997). However, the innate worth of institutional improvement is
the most compelling justification for active participating in strategic planning processes rather
than responsiveness to enticements and external mandates (Welsh & Metcalf, 2003). In
particular, faculty support for strategic planning is bolstered when the definition of quality is tied
to outcomes with regard to students, and not to inputs (Bellanca & Abernathy, 2014; McPhail,
2006). These student outcomes can be structured into the plan that will cultivate a student-
centered culture leading to calculated processes and procedures for student retention
(Washington & McKay, 2005).
Solution 13: Collaborate in Meaningful Ways
Faculty and staff want to feel like they are a meaningful part of the strategic planning
process. They want to be engaged in a way that they authoritatively participate. Administration
must consider how to prudently collaborate with faculty and staff in a way that is meaningful to
them. This can take the form of reaching out to faculty representatives, department chairs,
faculty senates, and/or faculty unions and simply asking them how they would like to be a part
(Huyck, 2012; Kezar, 2014; Olaode, 2011; Tiede, 2009; Young, 2011). The responsibility of
shared governance falls on administration as they encourage faculty awareness of how they
clearly fit into strategic planning processes (Stensaker, 2013). Enough collaboration must exist
between the administration and faculty that disagreements are perceived as useful in creative
problem solving by the team and not simply tolerated (Bulette, 2014; Stensaker, 2013). This
STRATEGIC PLANNING 110
includes encouraging ownership of the process by allowing faculty to experiment with strategic
planning processes and inviting them to be on committees involving strategic planning (Welsh &
Metcalf, 2003).
Administration will also need to collaborate with faculty on equal footing. Unity of
outlook and the effective accomplishment of change requires joint participation of, and trust
between, the administration and faculty. An adequate, balanced, and expeditious response in
keeping the institution’s educational purposes and distinctive mission serve as parameters for
equal footing (Birnbaum, 2004; Bulette, 2014; Zemsky et al., 2006). Seeking and using the
opinions and advice of all members will facilitate and encourage participation while preserving
unity between faculty and administration (Delprino, 2013c). It will also demonstrate the
application of empowerments that flow from academic freedom (Altbach, 2001).
Part-time faculty can be made to feel like a critical part of the team by granting them
academic freedom to speak their thoughts about the direction of the institution. Grant them
access to orientation, mentoring, and professional development opportunities. They can be
included in curriculum design and decision-making, and have access to instructional resources,
and staff support (Kezar et al., 2014). Part-time faculty can also gain a sense of equal footing on
the team by receiving compensation for being in meetings, being afforded voting rights, and by
cultivating a culture of respect for the part-timer (Huyck, 2012). In these ways, all faculty
indiscriminate of status will be drawn into collaborative strategic planning processes.
Solution 14: Cultivate Mission Mindedness
The faculty and staff will also have leadership and mentors who concentrate on the
mission of the institution and not individualism (Altbach, 2009). Cultivating camaraderie of
STRATEGIC PLANNING 111
community across hierarchical levels within the organization can minimize individualism and
create a corporate outlook around mission (Huyck, 2012; Tiede, 2013).
Solution 15: Build Trust Through Communication
Faculty and staff must have communication that flows freely, consistently, and openly so
that their voice is being heard and their sense of trust is strengthened. Consistent communication
and creating conditions for trust are critical to faculty and staff engagement (Tierny & Minor,
2003). Communication will need to be two-way and not a one-time occurrence. Information
about new decisions must be disseminated and consistently monitored for useful feedback to
ensure the information conveyed is reaching its target. This includes using vocabulary
appropriate to the audience to allow for meaningful integration (Delprino, 2013c; Young, 2011).
Table 8
Organization Needs and Solutions
Organization
Category
Assumed Need Validated Solution Literature
Cultural Settings
(Organizational
Alignment)
Faculty and staff need
to clearly understand
the predetermined
governance and
decision-making
model.
Yes
Provide explicit pre-teaching
concerning the interpretation,
meaning, and application of the
institutional governance and
faculty decision-making model.
Embed the model into the
strategic planning document
itself.

Tierny &
Minor, 2003;
Kezar 2004;
Kezar & Sam,
2014
Cultural Models
(Trustworthiness)
Faculty and staff need
an outlook of
stewardship and
faithfulness with regard
to the strategic
planning process.
Yes
Establish the innate worth of the
organizational mission with
relation to active collegial
participation.

Bassinger,
2009; Tiede,
2009
STRATEGIC PLANNING 112
Table 8, continued

Implementation Plan
The gap analysis framework provided a methodology to explore gaps in knowledge,
motivation, and organization within TCBS. Each category was analyzed separately and the
solutions were presented in a targeted manner. The recommended solutions provided will work
together to address the validated needs. These proposed solutions all support the successful
Cultural Settings
(Relationships)
Faculty and staff will need
meaningful relationships in
order to successfully engage in
the strategic planning processes.
Yes
Create relationships of
affirmation, appreciation, and
value that are rooted in
significant relationships among
all stakeholders.

Birnbaum,
2004;
Stensaker,
2013

Cultural Models
(Willingness to
Change)

Faculty and staff need to view
change as important and,
therefore, actually be willing to
change.

Yes
Work within the politics and
social contracts of the
organization.

Set short-term goals that are
easily achievable so that
faculty and staff persist in
sustained and consistent
implementation of the strategic
plan.
Delprino,
2013c

Sullivan &
Richardson,
2011;
Delprino,
2013a
Cultural Settings
(Student-
Centeredness)

Faculty and staff need to link
the strategic planning process to
student outcomes.

Yes
Incentivize and link strategic
planning goals with the
propagation of a student-
centered culture rooted in
student outcomes.

McPhail,
2006;
Bellanca &
Abernathy,
2014)
Cultural Models
(Decision-Making
Processes)
Faculty and staff need to feel
like the process is egalitarian
and they are really participating
in the process.

Yes
Administration engage in
collaborative effort with
faculty on equal footing during
strategic planning process.

Birnbaum
2004;
Zemsky,
Wagner, &
Massy, 2006

Cultural Settings
(Role Models)
Faculty and staff need
enthusiastic role models that
concentrate on the mission of
the institution.

Yes
Select models of mission-
driven individuals from across
hierarchical levels of the
organization.
Altbach,
2009; Tiede,
2013
Cultural Models
(Enhanced
Communication)
Faculty and staff need
communication to flow freely,
consistently, and openly, such
that their voice is being heard
and the sense of trust is
strengthened.

Yes

Clearly disseminate
information about newly made
decisions

Monitor communication
processes for useful feedback.

Delprino,
2013c

Tierny &
Minor, 2003
STRATEGIC PLANNING 113
participation of 100% faculty and staff in the strategic planning process. Through
implementation of recommended solutions, TCBS will move one step closer to becoming an
institution that instills within its culture a practice of continuous targeted improvement.
Within TCBS, the bulk of the work of the implementation plan falls on the administrative
team, and the CEO in particular. The team is comprised of a receptionist, an administrative
assistant, an assistant dean, and the CEO himself. The CEO, with support in document
development and communications from the receptionist and administrative assistant, provides
leadership for implementing the strategic planning process. The organization has the capacity to
carry out the aforementioned implementation plan without needing to hire additional staff, re-
structure existent staff, or re-allocate responsibilities of existent staff. Leading data collection
and strategic implementation processes have already been embedded within the assistant Dean
and the CEO job descriptions. The CEO will need to self-regulate to determine at what point the
implementation process will begin to overly detract from other important job responsibilities. He
must be able to discern when soliciting additional internal resources would be needed to ensure
implementation success.
Factors of Influence on Implementation Activities
Governance Decision-Making Structure
At TCBS, institutional governance is based upon the Carver Policy Governance Model
for Non-Profits. The CEO will need to take into account that in the Carver Model, the chairman
holds the board accountable to its own decisions in achieving the mission, and the CEO holds the
organization accountable to the day-to-day effort in achieving that mission. The chairman is not
an authority over the CEO, rather the board is. The CEO is not in a position to influence the
board, since he is a non-voting member, but rather he is the senior executive officer and
STRATEGIC PLANNING 114
employee of the board. The board meets once every two months. The board has delegated final
authority for day-to-day implementation to the CEO. At the time of this study, faculty and staff
have not been explicitly introduced to the TCBS governance structure.
Leadership Instability
TCBS has experienced leadership instability at the board level for three years prior to the
study. The first and only president of TCBS died nine years after founding it in 2004. The
Secretary of the Board, also a founding board member of the organization, died two years after
the president. The Chairman of the Board, who took over when the president died, moved out of
state 6 months prior to this study and was asked to remain a full board member. The board has
since voted to move to the Carver Model of Policy Governance. At the completion of this study,
TCBS still does not have a president, and no acting board member has been appointed to be the
Chairman of the Board. Efforts in the strategic planning process will need to be carefully
nurtured along.
Change Orientation
Key stakeholders in the organization do not perceive a need for strategic differentiation,
nor for the need to foster competition with regard to the theological education market. As a
consequence, key stakeholders have been very slow to change and adapt to trends in education.
This is particularly the case with approximately 80% of faculty who are part-time and have a
long tradition of not participating in the life of TCBS other than in teaching one or two classes.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 115
Implementation Activities
Implementation #1
The CEO will provide pre-teaching to faculty and staff concerning the interpretation,
meaning, and application of the TCBS governance and faculty decision-making model. He will
explain how the governance model fits the mission and then furnish examples of how
governance is embedded into a future strategic planning document. The board’s governance
model will be linked to the TCBS mission. A special meeting of the board will be held to
delineate the relationship of governance to strategic planning. The CEO will then need to craft
the results of the meeting into a governance policy document for board approval.
Upon board approval of the governance policy document, the CEO will hold an all-
faculty and staff meeting to explain the institutional governance model as determined by the
board in light of mission and to answer questions. Board members will need to attend the
meeting to present a united front in defining and clarifying to the faculty and staff its established
governance model. During the meeting, the CEO will discuss governance documents that
illustrate the governance model approved by the board and how this impacts strategic planning
concepts for faculty and staff. The CEO will need to gather faculty and staff feedback from this
meeting and incorporate feedback as determined by the board of directors for the next board
meeting.
Upon sharing the governance policy model, future faculty and staff meetings will be used
to disseminate strategic planning documents for review with embedded governance model and
mission. The administrative assistant will continue to gather faculty and staff suggestions.
Adopted ideas will be incorporated into a revised document for inclusion in the eventual strategic
STRATEGIC PLANNING 116
plan. The final adopted form of strategic planning documents with governance model and
mission embedded into it will comprise the beginning of the strategic planning document.
Implementation #2
The CEO will establish an outlook of faculty and staff stewardship and faithfulness that is
created around the innate worth of the organizational mission prior to pre-planning activities.
This may be done using Qualtrics, or similar survey software, to survey faculty and staff
regarding the definition of the TCBS mission and their perceived roles and responsibilities. This
process includes developing surveys, disseminating surveys, collecting and reading the results,
and reporting interpretation of results back to faculty and staff. This will eventually render a
decision on a course of action.
Stewardship and faithfulness in roles and responsibilities within the governance structure
of the board also can be established by holding a special all-faculty meeting, in which faculty
and staff define what is stewardship and faithfulness in relation to collegial participation in the
life of TCBS. Stewardship and faithfulness responsibilities of faculty and staff will be embedded
in the documents delineating governance structure.
Implementation #3
Before the strategic planning process starts, it is important to create opportunities for
intentional mutual affirmation, appreciation, and value of relationships among administration,
staff, and faculty. For example, the CEO may want to hold organizational luncheons for
administration, faculty, and staff to meet board members in a non-threatening environment. The
administrative assistant will organize three on-campus meetings to facilitate relationship-
building over the course of four months. To do this well, the administrative assistant will need to
promote these meetings through e-mail and internal communiqué’s. The CEO will also need to
STRATEGIC PLANNING 117
work with key faculty members and staff to promote to others the upcoming meetings, as well as
the relationship-building goals for those meetings.
During these meetings, the CEO will conduct team-building activities with cross-
pollinated groups comprised of administration, faculty, and staff. Prior to luncheons, the
administrative assistant will need to provide the CEO with a planned list of board member,
administration, faculty, staff, groupings for tables. During the luncheons, the CEO will model a
team-building activity with a small-group. Table leaders can then lead the same team-building
activity with their own small-group and then report discussion results to the larger group at the
end of the small-group activity.
The CEO will also participate in appropriate social activities with administration, staff,
and faculty to learn and document mutual interests beyond TCBS business. As the CEO learns
about faculty and staff hobbies and interests beyond the institution, he can keep notes on those
relationships. A more personal approach can then be tailored and integrated into individual
discussions and grouping arrangements at meetings. Building relationships will provide an
important relational foundation for trust and the strategic planning processes.
Implementation #4
The CEO will want to lead faculty and staff to embrace the importance of change. He
can do so by furnishing examples of similar institutions that have enacted the same kinds of
change being sought within TCBS. The actual strategic plans of similar organizations can also
be provided for review. Leaders from other similar organizations can be sought out and invited
to give a short talk on how they worked through the discomforts of change and share the benefits
of having personally embraced that change.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 118
The meaning of change with relation to institutional strategic planning processes can also
be discussed during select meetings. The CEO can lead discussions in public and private on
positive change in light of a static, institutional mission that seeks to impact a dynamic and
changing culture. E-mail communiqués can also be used to reinforce these ideas.
Stakeholder management charts will be used to manage change. The CEO will identify
high-powered, high-interest individuals and include them in change processes, but also identify
high-powered, low-interest individuals and keep them updated on “change” processes as well.
Positive statements from stakeholders can be collected and published in newsletters for
encouragement toward positive change.
The CEO may also desire to avoid the sense of competition that strategic change may
create by focusing staff on the positives of strategic planning that interest them as individuals.
During meetings, faculty and staff will perform a group activity in which they identify and list on
paper what strategic planning means to them for submission to a team-leader. The CEO will
collect data, interpret the data, and create a focus-plan around that data.
The CEO can utilize surveys to learn how administration, faculty, and staff believe
strategic planning can serve as a positive accountability measure. In faculty and staff meetings,
participants can also perform a pair and share activity to discuss, identify, and list on paper how
they believe strategic planning can serve as a positive accountability measure for administration,
faculty, and staff in creating change. The CEO may also want to collect the data and create a
focus-plan.
Implementation #5
The CEO will instill confidence in faculty and staff that the final form of a strategic plan
can bring change through sustained and consistent implementation. In staff meetings, he will
STRATEGIC PLANNING 119
present strategic plans of similar organizations and connect how those plans played into the
present successes of those institutions.
The CEO will identify key implementers within the organization and enlist their
participation. The CEO will then train these key implementers in performance goal evaluation
creation and have them lead implementation groups. The CEO will provide support and
resources to meet needs of these key implementers, thereby encouraging faculty and staff buy-in.
Implementation #6
The CEO will link the strategic planning process to positive student outcomes for faculty
and staff by publishing strategic planning goals in conjunction with student outcomes. Published
goals related to student outcomes will take the form of e-mail, web page, and print media so that
strategic planning and student outcomes become commonly associated. For this to occur
successfully, student services will also want to collect student outcomes data and demonstrate
their links to the student outcome performance goals of the strategic plan. Student services will
then submit these linkages to the CEO for interpretation and framing in overall communications
through the aforementioned media outlets.
Another key way to link strategic planning to student outcomes is to interview and survey
students to identify strategic planning goals that they believe will have the greatest positive
impact on them as students. The collected data can be leveraged in faculty and staff meetings
and organizational communiqués as positive affirmations that the strategic planning process is
having its intended effect.
Implementation #7
The CEO must meaningfully bring faculty and staff into the strategic planning process.
In the same surveys used to probe the understanding of the TCBS mission, questions will be
STRATEGIC PLANNING 120
developed to analyze faculty and staff interest and experience in the strategic planning process.
Based upon data, the CEO can objectively determine future course of action.
The CEO will also want to enhance communication processes through regular circulars
and e-mails. The administrative assistant will produce monthly communiqués for faculty and
staff regarding benchmark completion and progress based upon data from CEO. He will also
produce a quarterly newsletter for faculty and staff that contains a synthesized presentation of
strategic planning process developments. Key faculty leaders will also be asked to validate that
information is reaching other faculty and staff members.
Implementation #8
It is critical that prior to beginning the strategic planning processes, the CEO will help the
faculty and staff feel like they are on equal footing and that they are truly participating in the
outcomes of the process. Faculty and staff leaders will also be making decisions that are being
acted upon during the process. At this stage, the CEO will need to clearly define non-negotiable
implementation limitations for implementers and strategic planning group leaders.
In planned town-hall style meetings, the faculty will be asked to give candid and specific
input into the strategic planning processes. The CEO can define in advance the topics of
discussion for the town-hall meetings with faculty feedback. The administrative assistant will
place town-hall meetings on the institutional master calendar. The CEO will also invite key
stakeholders to each of the town-hall meetings. During the town-hall meetings, a faculty leader
will elicit candid and specific feedback from all involved. The administrative assistant will
collect data from town-hall meeting for future decision-making purposes.
It will also be important to recognize the contributions of members who get things done.
The CEO will want to identify and invite model faculty and staff from other organizations who
STRATEGIC PLANNING 121
have played major roles in the strategic planning successes of their own organizations to come
and share their successes with faculty and staff in TCBS town-hall meetings.
Implementation #9
The CEO will set forth role models of individuals who set goals and standards that
concentrate on the mission of the institution. Mission-driven, mastery-oriented role models can
be nominated by faculty in anonymous surveys. The CEO can then inquire of nominees their
prior strategic planning experience for consideration as strategic planning leaders.
The CEO will then recruit qualified nominated individuals to serve as mentors during the
strategic planning process. He will provide training for those nominees who do not have prior
experience in strategic planning processes. Implementers will then be deployed to guide
strategic planning committees.
Implementation #10
The CEO will ensure that communication flows freely, consistently, and openly to
strengthen the power of voice and the sense of trust among faculty and staff. He will also create
a communications plan for implementation prior to and during strategic planning processes.
Strategic planning leaders will provide the CEO with weekly updates. The administrative staff
will prepare bi-weekly e-mail communiqué for faculty and staff updates giving public attention
to the strategic planning process in all organizational discourses.
The administrative assistant will also create a strategic planning calendar that includes
dates of all meetings. The implementers will be expected to be present throughout key phases of
planning. This calendar will then be published on the website for all stakeholders. Visuals of
percentage to completion of the strategic planning process will be utilized in all communications
for all stakeholders to see.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 122
Evaluation Plan
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) in their work, Evaluating Training Programs: The
Four Levels, provide a sequential framework to program evaluation. Each level within the
framework is important and has an impact on the next level. The four-level evaluation process
stands or falls as a unit. None of the levels can be skipped to get to a level that the evaluator may
consider more important. After implementation, the proposed solutions will be evaluated to
determine if they were effective in closing the TCBS knowledge, motivation, and organizational
performance gaps. Kirkpatrick’s (2006) framework will form the basis of this evaluation plan:
reactions, learning, behavior, and results.
Reactions
Level one measures reactions, or how individuals respond to a change or program
(Kirkpatrick, 2006). TCBS can design basic and simple response mechanisms in advance of
initiating strategic planning processes to quickly register responses, collect feedback, and take
into account specific elements with regard to what has been the typical participant reaction to the
change, or program and frame data needed to evaluate reaction or awareness. After strategic
planning trainings, for example, an anonymous response form can be designed that quantifies
reactions to strategic planning training. Additionally, on that form, one can encourage written
comments and suggestions about impressions of the strategic planning seminar for immediate
and honest feedback. The trainer will then develop acceptable standards, such as a numerical
tabulation, by which to measure reactions to the strategic planning training. Reactions can then
be measured against prior standards and appropriate action can be taken.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 123
Learning
Level two measures learning, or the impact of the program on participants and what
principles, facts, or techniques they understood, or what change in knowledge, skills or attitude is
observed (Kirkpatrick, 2006). TCBS cannot assume that the proper approach will produce the
intended result. As a consequence, TCBS will want to gauge learning through changes in faculty
and staff behavior compared to previously collected baseline data that will help determine to
what extent they have understood, responded to, and actively engaged in, the strategic planning
process. Informal or structured surveying may also be utilized for learning assessment.
Behavior
Level three measures behavior, which is going beyond reaction and learning to determine
if the participant is actually utilizing and applying new learning in the strategic planning process,
and whether the gains made are lasting (Kirkpatrick, 2006). In this case, TCBS will want to
understand how, and to what extent, the new faculty and staff learning has led to sustained
application within the TCBS environment and resulted in knowledge transfer. Faculty and staff
can be assessed on their ability to alter strategic planning concepts, as well as whether or not they
begin to utilize knowledge of goals setting for self-regulation in the work place.
Results
The final level measures results, which goes back to the original goal and gap, to
determine if the solutions implemented produced the intended results (Kirkpatrick, 2006). The
results level assesses whether the behavior changed as a consequence of the intervention. In the
case of TCBS, one would want to assess, at multiple intervals, how the implementation of
multiple solutions increased overall faculty and staff active participation during the strategic
planning process. As a part of that assessment, the evaluator will seek to identify how changes
STRATEGIC PLANNING 124
in faculty and staff behavior after engagement positively impacted the organization, yielding
improved results. Positive evaluation in this level would reflect an enhanced governance
decision-making structure, stability of leadership, and positive change orientation within the
organization.
Future Research
The literature concerning shared governance and strategic planning, as independent
disciplines of one another is exhaustive, but literature specifically targeting the relationship of
shared governance to strategic planning is less so. During the study, a gap in literature was
exposed with regard to this relationship between shared governance and the strategic planning
process. Though researchers allude to the importance of clarity on governance models with
regard to shared responsibility in institutional governance and consequent strategic change
management, the processes for carrying this out are not delineated, nor are any models provided.
Often, when alluded to in the literature, the concept of explicit pre-teaching, followed by
embedding prior to pre-planning, is dismissed in light of budgetary constraints or other
mitigating factors, and therefore laid aside in the discussion. In light of the power and
implementation stressors between administration and faculty/staff that are extensively
highlighted in the research and directly linked to shared governance and strategic planning
processes as major factors for implementation failure and consequent ill use of fiscal capital,
more research and practice devoted to addressing this gap would actually be a wise use of
resources and a very helpful targeted tool for improving overall institutional effectiveness (Table
9).
STRATEGIC PLANNING 125

Figure 2. Explicit Pre-teaching and Embedding Prior to Pre-Planning
Conclusion
A properly defined, mutual understanding of shared governance and mission cannot be
assumed, but rather must be taught and embedded in writing prior to institutional pre-planning
activities in order to achieve enhanced TCBS performance through 100% active participation of
faculty and staff in the strategic planning process. This mutual understanding must be clearly
articulated in a board approved document and explicitly taught to all faculty to develop shared
responsibility for change prior to initiating strategic planning processes. It is out of these twin
pillars of governance and faculty/staff participation in strategic planning processes, rightly joined
together at the outset, that the institutional performance gap will be closed and implementation
success will find its proper, peaceful, and contextually particular institutional expression built
upon the necessary foundation of trust and collaboration.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 126
References
Abdallah, C., & Langley, A. (2014). The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning. Journal
of Management Studies, 51(2), 235-264. doi:10.1111/joms.12002
Achampong, F. K. (2010). Integrating risk management and strategic planning: Integrated risk
management and strategic planning leverages the benefits of both processes and makes them
mutually reinforcing. Planning for Higher Education, 38(2), 22.
Agnew, M. (2013). Strategic planning: An examination of the role of disciplines in sustaining
internationalization of the university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2),
183-202.
Aleshire, D. (2009). Governance and the future of theological education. Theological
Education, 44(2), 11-20.
Al-Omari, A., & Salameh, K. (2009). Strategic planning effectiveness in Jordanian universities:
Faculty members' and academic administrators' perspectives. Research in Post-Compulsory
Education, 14(4), 415-428. doi:10.1080/13596740903360976
Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher
Education, 41(1/2, Changing Academic Workplace: Comparative Perspectives), 205-219.
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E.,
Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York:
Longman.
Association of Theological Schools. (2015). Commission on accrediting: standards of
accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.ats.edu/uploads/accrediting/documents/
standards-of-accreditation.pdf
STRATEGIC PLANNING 127
Barker, T. S., & Smith Jr, H. W. (1997). Strategic planning: Evolution of a model. Innovative
Higher Education, 21(4), 287-306. doi:10.1007/BF01192277
Barker, T., & Smith, H. (1998). Integrating accreditation into strategic planning. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(8), 741-750. doi:10.1080/1066892980220803
Basinger, R. B. (2009). More than Simply Getting Along: The Goal of Shared Governance in
Theological Schools. Theological Education, 44(2), 39-49.
Birnbaum, R. (1981). University governance, academic bargaining, and catastrophe theory. The
Review of Higher Education,4(2), 1.
Birnbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. New
Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), 5-22. doi:10.1002/he.152
Braun, D. & Merrien, F.-X. (1999). Towards a New Model of Governance for Universities? A
Comparative View. London et al.: Jessica Kingsley.
Bronzetti, G., Mazzotta, R., & Nardo, M. T. (2012). Strategic planning dimensions in Italian
universities. Business Education & Accreditation, 4(1), 61-72.
Brown, W. O. (2001). Faculty participation in university governance and the effects on
university performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44(2), 129-143.
doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00136-0
Bryson, J. M. (2010). The future of public and nonprofit strategic planning in the united states.
Public Administration Review, 70(S1), s255-s267. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02285.x
Bulette, E. A. (2014). Shared governance in a planning culture: Collaboration for success
(Order No. 3635729). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1617518674).
STRATEGIC PLANNING 128
California Community College Classified Senate. (2012). California statute 1988.
http://www.ccccs.org/helpful_links/ab1725.html
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clagett, C. A. (2004). Strategic planning at Carroll Community College. New Directions for
Institutional Research. 2004 (123), 113-119. doi: 10.1002.1r.125
Conway, T., Mackay, S., & Yorke, D. (1994). Strategic planning in higher education.
International Journal of Educational Management, 8(6), 29-36.
doi:10.1108/09513549410069202
Cox, A. M. (2000). Professors and deans praise shared governance, but criticize corporate model.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(12), A20.
Delprino, R. P. (2013a). The human side of the strategic planning process in higher education.
Planning for Higher Education, 41(2), 194-204.
Delprino, R. P. (2013b). The human side of the strategic planning process in higher education.
Planning for Higher Education, 41(3), 78-98.
Delprino, R. P. (2013c). The human side of the strategic planning process in higher education.
Planning for Higher Education, 41(4), 138-154.
Domański, J. (2009). Value management in non-profit organizations - the first step. Foundations
of Management, 1(1), 83-94. doi:10.2478/v10238-012-0006-y
Dooris, M. J., Kelley, J. M., & Trainer, J. F. (2004). Strategic planning in higher education. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(123), 5-11.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 129
Drew, S., & Klopper, C. (2014). Evaluating faculty pedagogic practices to inform strategic
academic professional development: A case of cases. Higher Education, 67(3), 349-367.
doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9657-1
Duncan-Hall, T. L. (1993). Faculty participation in institutional planning in California
community colleges: Theory and reality
Ecung, A. B. (2007). A California community college district planning committee's perceptions
of the effects of the shared governance approach on the strategic planning process
Edgar, T. R. (1996). Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit: affirming the fullness of God's
provision for spiritual living. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic.
Edwards, J. (1754). A dissertation concerning the end for which God created the world.
Retrieved from https://www.monergism.com/dissertation-concerning-end-which-god-
created-world-jonathan-edwards.
Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. (2014). ECFA 3
rd
Annual nonprofit
governance survey-executive summary. Retrieved from
http://www.ecfa.org/Content/Nonprofit-Governance-Survey-2014.
Evon, W. W., & McKay, S. (2005). Strategic planning and retention within the community
college setting. College Student Affairs Journal, 25(1), 50-63.
Fathi, M., & Wilson, L. (2009). Strategic planning in colleges and universities. Business
Renaissance Quarterly, 4(1), 91. One page only?
Gioia, D. A., Nag, R., & Corley, K. G. (2012). Visionary ambiguity and strategic change: The
virtue of vagueness in launching major organizational change. Journal of Management Inquiry,
21(4), 364-375.
Graham, S. (2009). Editor’s Introduction. Theological Education, 44(2), iii-v.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 130
Grudem, W. A. (1994). Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Zondervan.
Griffin, D. R., Cobb, J. B., & Pinnock, C. H. (2000). Searching for an adequate God: A dialogue
between process and free will theists. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Hayward, F. M. (2008). Strategic planning for higher education in developing countries:
Challenges and lessons. Planning for Higher Education, 36(3), 5-21
Holdaway, E. A., & Peter Meekison, J. (1990). Strategic planning at a Canadian university. Long
Range Planning, 23(4), 104-113. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(90)90158-Z
Huyck, K. J. (2012). Incentives for part-time faculty to participate in the shared governance
process within the institution of California community colleges (CCC). (Doctoral
dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (3543522)
Kaiser Jr, W. C. (2009). The promise-plan of God: A biblical theology of the Old and New
Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Karmon, D., & McGilsky, D. E. (1997). Strategic planning for program improvement: A case
study of faculty involvement in the process. Journal of Accounting Education, 15(1),
133-143. doi:10.1016/S0748-5751(96)00043-7
Kettunen, J. (2015). Stakeholder relationships in higher education. Tertiary Education and
Management, 21(1), 56-65. doi:10.1080/13583883.2014.997277
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 2(4).
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today's governance challenges: A synthesis of the
literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher
Education, 75(4), 371
Kezar, A. (2012). Toward high-impact non-tenure-track faculty. Peer Review, 14(3), 31.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 131
Kezar, A., Maxey, D., & Eaton, J. (2014). An examination of the changing faculty: Ensuring
institutional quality and achieving desired student learning outcomes. Washington, DC:
Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2014). Governance as a catalyst for policy change: Creating a contingent
faculty friendly academy. Educational Policy, 28(3), 425-462.
doi:10.1177/0895904812465112
Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Ginder, S. A. (2010). Employees in postsecondary
institutions, fall 2009, and salaries of full-time instructional staff, 2009-10 (NCES 2011-
150). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011150
Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. Drori,
J. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and Organization: World Society and
Organizational Change (pp. 241-257). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
B. Kurland, N. (2013; 2014). Shared governance and the sustainable college. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(1), 63-83. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-01-
2013-0007
Lewis, G. (2009). Governance: What is it? Theological Education, 44(2), 21-28.
Locke, W., Cummings, W. K., & Fisher, D. (Eds.). (2011). Changing governance and
management in higher education: The perspectives of the academy (Vol. 2). New York,
NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Machado, M. D., & Taylor, J. S. (2010). The struggle for strategic planning in European higher
education: The case of Portugal. Research in Higher Education Journal, 6, 44-64.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 132
McCloy, F. D. (1962). The history of theological education in America. Church History: Studies
in Christianity and Culture, 31(4), 449-453. doi:10.2307/3162747
McPhail-Naples, F. (2006). Aspirations of community college leadership: A study of talent
engagement and the barriers and motivation for faculty leadership development
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (AAT
3251464).
Minor, J. T. (2003). Assessing the senate: Critical issues considered. American Behavioral
Scientist, 46(7), 960-977. doi:10.1177/0002764202250122
Morrison, J., Bellanca, R., Abernethy, B. (2014). Leading strategic planning through faculty
engagement. Retrieved from http://cop.hlcommission.org/Leadership/morrison.html
Nauffal, D. I., & Nasser, R. N. (2012). Strategic planning at two levels. Planning for Higher
Education, 40(4), 32-39.
Naylor, N. A. (1977). The theological seminary in the configuration of American higher
education: The ante-bellum years. History of Education Quarterly, 17(1), 17-30.
Nezakati, H., Harati, A., & Elahi, R. (2014). Effective attributes of successful strategic
information systems planning for public organizations in middle east-preliminary study.
Journal of Applied Sciences, 14(15), 1701-1710.
Orians, E. L., & Bergerson, A. A. (2014). Lessons learned: Mountain college in the midst of
change. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 17(3), 59-69.
doi:10.1177/1555458914543374
Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 133
Rhoades, G. (2000). Who’s doing it right? Strategic activity in public research universities. The
Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 41-66. doi:10.1353/rhe.2000.0025
Rhoades, G. & Sporn, B. (2002). New Models of Management and Shifting Modes and Costs of
Production: Europe and the United States. Tertiary Education and Management, 8, 3-28.
Richardson, R. C. (1988). Improving effectiveness through strategic planning. Community
College Review, 15(4), 28-34. doi:10.1177/009155218801500406
Ross, M., Grace, D., & Shao, W. (2013). Come on higher ed...get with the programme! A study
of market orientation in international student recruitment. Educational Review, 65(2), 219-
240.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sanday, W., & Headlam, A. C. (1898). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of
the Romans (Vol. 4). C. Scribner's sons.
Society for College and University Planning. (2014). Report on trends in higher education
planning 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.scup.org/page/resources/books/rotihep2014?utm_campaign=report-on-trends-in-
higher-education-planning-2014&utm_medium=Ad%20-%20External&utm_source=link-
to-dean-and-provost-TrendReport2014
Stensaker, B., & Vabø, A. (2013). Re-inventing shared governance: Implications for
organisational culture and institutional leadership. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(3), 256-
274. doi:10.1111/hequ.12019
Suklev, B., & Debarliev, S. (2012). Strategic planning effectiveness comparative analysis of the
Macedonian context. Economic and Business Review, 14(1), 63-93.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 134
Sullivan, T. M., & Richardson, E. C. (2011). Living the plan: Strategic planning aligned with
practice and assessment. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 2-9.
Sweet, W. W. (1937). The rise of theological schools in America. Church History: Studies in
Christianity and Culture, 6(3), 260-273. doi:10.2307/3160828
Taylor, J.S., De Lourdes Machado, M., & Peterson, M.W. (2008). Leadership and strategic
management: Keys to institutional priorities and planning. European Journal of Education,
43(3), 369-386. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.00363.x
Tiede, D. (2009). Faculty powers in shared governance. Theological Education, 44(2), 29-38.
Tierney, W. G. (2003). Academic governance in a protean environment. introduction. American
Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 859-864.
Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. T. (2003). Challenges for Governance: A National Report.
Thomas, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse-by-verse Study of 1
Corinthians 12-14. Kregel Academic.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2010a). Strategic planning-
concept and rationale: Working paper 1. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001897/189757e.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2010b). Strategic planning
techniques and methods: working paper 3. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001897/189759e.pdf
Ware, B. A. (2002). Defining Evangelicalism's Boundaries Theologically: Is Open Theism
Evangelical? Journal-Evangelical Theological Society, 45(2), 193-212.
Walters, E. W., & McKay, S. (2005). Strategic planning and retention within the community
college setting. College Student Affairs Journal, 25(1), 50.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 135
Welsh, J. F., Nunez, W. J., & Petrosko, J. (2005). Faculty and administrative support for strategic
planning: A comparison of two- and four-year institutions. Community College Review,
32(4), 20-39. doi:10.1177/009155210503200403
Winney, G. T. (2014). Strategic planning and pastoral ministry
Wu, C. (2012). J. Douglas Toma: Building organizational capacity: Strategic management in
higher education. Higher Education, 63(1), 153. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9418-y
Zemsky, R., Wegner, G. R., & Massy, W. F. (2005). Remaking the American university:
Market-Smart and mission-centered. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

STRATEGIC PLANNING 136
Appendix A
Summary of Assumed Needs

Sources
(What made you
decide to focus on
these specific
variables?)
SUMMARY OF ASSUMED NEEDS
Knowledge
(indicate for each if
it is (F)actual,
(C)onceptual,
(P)rocedural, or
(M)etacognitive)
Motivation
Self-efficacy
Task value
Expectancy Outcome
Attributions
Goal Orientation

Organizational
Cultural models
Cultural settings
(including
Motivation
killers, goals, etc.)
Scanning
interviews,
personal
knowledge
I will need
knowledge of
specific terminology
pertinent to the
strategic planning
process in order to
do it well. (F)

I believe the LORD
will give me the
strength to
meaningfully
participate in
culminating the
strategic planning
process (Mental
Effort)
Competition
between TCBS
and other
theological
seminaries is
healthy. (M)

TCBS is built
upon an openness
to change. (M)

Quicker
implementation of
new innovations
within TCBS is
needed. (M)

I know of at least
one fellow faculty
member who has
been through a
strategic planning
process. (S)

The
organizational
governance model
is clear to me (S)
Learning and
motivation theory
I will need
knowledge of
concepts relevant to
the strategic
planning process
that will help me
I believe the strategic
plan will be useful to
me in setting goals for
my students. (Mental
Effort)

I am confident
that I am not
considered
disrespectful
when I share
TCBS
STRATEGIC PLANNING 137
understand how it
works. (C)

I will need “how to”
guides in order to
effectively partner
in carrying out the
strategic training
process. (P)

I would like to
know the strategic
planning process
well enough to be
able to alter the
concepts and
suggest more
creative innovations
to fit TCBS strategic
planning needs (M)

I am confident that I
possess the skills
necessary to persist in
carrying out the
strategic planning
process. (Persistence)

I am confident that
faculty and staff will
be able to hold each
other accountable to
the completion of
TCBS strategic
planning performance
goals. (Persistence)

I want to continue to
learn about how to do
strategic planning
(Mental Effort)

If I do not complete
my performance goals,
I believe that my peers
will be gracious and
forgiving in helping
me to overcome my
failure. (Persistence)
improvement
needs with its
leadership. (M)

I appreciate open
feedback on my
performance of
TCBS
commitments (S)

When I have done
a good job, I like
to know this. (S)

I learn well from
role models who
are like me. (S)

I look forward to
accomplishing
strategic planning
goals set with my
peers and
administration.
(S)

Background and
review of the
literature
It is important to me to
participate in the
strategic planning
process (Mental
Effort) (Lit.)

I am willing to free up
time to be engaged in
the strategic planning
process (Choice)

I believe that
developing the first
TCBS strategic plan in
ts10-year history is
important to exalt
I view the
strategic planning
process as a team
effort between
faculty, staff, and
administration (S)

I view the
strategic planning
process as a team
effort between
faculty, staff, and
administration (S)
(Lit.)

Once established,
STRATEGIC PLANNING 138

Christ in more fruitful
student outcomes.
(Mental Effort)

I look forward to
accomplishing
strategic planning
goals set with my
peers and
administration.
(Mental Effort)

I will experience
increased value in
participating in the
strategic planning
process when I am
able to articulate how
faculty input is
processed
through/relates to the
TCBS governance
model of TCBS (Task
Value)

I will experience
increased value in
participating in the
strategic planning
process when the
governance and
decision-making
processes of the
organization are
embedded into the
plan itself (Task
Value)

the strategic plan
will be followed.
(S)

The strategic plan
will be the fruit of
a transparent
organizational
self-study (S)

STRATEGIC PLANNING 139
Appendix B
Survey Protocol

KNOWLEDGE

1. I will need knowledge of specific terminology pertinent to the strategic planning process
in order to do it well. (F)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
2. I will need knowledge of concepts relevant to the strategic planning process to help me
understand how it works. (C)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
3. I will need “how to” guides in order to effectively carry out the strategic training process.
(P)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
4. I would like to know the strategic planning process well enough to be able to alter the
concepts and suggest more creative innovations to fit TCBS strategic planning needs (M)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
MOTIVATION
5. I believe the LORD will give me the strength to meaningfully participate in completing
the strategic planning process. (persistence).
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
6. It is important to me to participate in the strategic planning process (Mental Effort) (Lit.)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
7. I am willing to free up time to be engaged in the strategic planning process (Choice) (Lit)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
STRATEGIC PLANNING 140

8. I believe the strategic plan will be useful to me in setting goals for my students. (Mental
Effort)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
9. I am confident that I possess the skills necessary to carry out the strategic planning
process. (Persistence)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
10. I am confident that I will be able to hold myself and others accountable to the completion
of TCBS strategic planning performance goals. (Persistence)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
11. I want to continue to learn about how to do strategic planning (Mental Effort)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
12. I look forward to accomplishing strategic planning goals set with my peers and
administration. (Mental Effort) (Lit.)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
13. I will value the strategic planning process when the governance and decision-making
processes of the organization are embedded into the strategic plan itself.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

14. I am more likely to participate in the strategic planning process when I am able to
articulate how faculty input relates to the TCBS governance model.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

ORGANIZATION
15. Competition between TCBS and other theological seminaries is healthy. (M)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
STRATEGIC PLANNING 141
16. TCBS is built upon an openness to change. (M)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
17. Implementation of creative innovations within TCBS is needed. (M)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
18. I am confident that I am not considered disrespectful when I share TCBS improvement
needs with leadership. (M)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
19. Once established, the strategic plan will be followed. (S) (Lit.)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
20. The strategic plan will be the outcome of a transparent organizational self-study (S) (Lit).
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
21. I appreciate open feedback on my work at TCBS. (S)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
22. When I have done a good job, I like to know this. (S)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
23. I would like to understand the organization governance model in order to better
participate in the strategic planning processes. (S)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
24. I know how I can participate in the decision-making process for strategic plan
development. (S)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
25. I know of at least one fellow faculty member who has been through a strategic planning
process. (S)
STRATEGIC PLANNING 142
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
26. A faculty role model will be important to my participation in the strategic planning
process. (S)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
27. I view the strategic planning process as a team effort between faculty, staff, and
administration (S) (Lit.)
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

STRATEGIC PLANNING 143
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
KNOWLEDGE

1. Do you bring any prior knowledge of strategic planning with you to this process?
2. What knowledge and skills do you think you will need in order for TCBS to support you
in the strategic planning process?
MOTIVATION

1. How will participating in the strategic planning process honor the LORD?
2. Can you discuss why long-term goals are important in the life of the ministry?
3. How can TCBS best support you during the strategic planning process?

ORGANIZATION

1. Can you discuss your understanding of our TCBS governance model?
a. Follow up: How do you perceive your decision-making influence in the strategic
planning process with relation to our governance model.
2. Can you explain how you see the strategic planning process fitting into your normal
routine?
3. What are some positive qualities you would look for in a role model for the strategic
planning process?
4. What do you hope TCBS will accomplish by the strategic planning process?

STRATEGIC PLANNING 144
Appendix D
Focus Group Protocol
KNOWLEDGE

1. What kinds of prior knowledge do you bring with you to the TCBS strategic planning
process that you think will be useful to the organization? (M)
2. What kinds of new knowledge do you think you will need in order to make the TCBS
strategic planning process successful for you and for the organization? (M)
3. Working as a group, talk about what you believe to be important steps for involving
faculty in strategic planning. (P)
MOTIVATION

1. How valuable is the strategic planning process for you? (persistence)
2. Discuss some of your reasons for deciding to participate in setting strategic planning
goals? (Will)
3. Discuss with a partner what are ways that you foresee maintaining sustained engagement
in the strategic planning process.
ORGANIZATION

1. Discuss your understanding of the TCBS organizational governance model and how you
hope leadership will use your feedback?
2. Could you discuss your ideas about how an organization like TCBS might change in the
face of embracing new challenges? (Organization Models)
3. What are some ways that TCBS administration can support you in your non-teaching
responsibilities in order to facilitate your participation in the strategic planning process?
(Organization Settings)
STRATEGIC PLANNING 145
4. Discuss with a partner how other TCBS faculty members might help you to succeed in
the strategic planning process. (Organization Settings)

STRATEGIC PLANNING 146
Appendix E
Metaphysical Underpinnings of Strategic Planning
Leaders of theological institutions for higher education underpin the conceptual
framework of strategic planning and shared governance by the theological framework of Divine
sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Though Scripture does not prescribe only one model of
planning for the theological institution of higher education, it does teach two truths that are self-
evident and clear that demand such activities, (1) God is the ultimate planner and man freely
operates within the universe as one created in His image and (2) shared governance is rooted in
the spiritual reality of the Holy Spirit’s operation within the actors of the theological institution
for higher education. It is important to review these theological foundations as a way of
underscoring the unique mission and environment of TCBS.
Divine Sovereignty. God has revealed to humanity that He is the One who sovereignly
creates, plans, and brings the universe to its proper end (Grudem, 1994). God is the Planner.
After being introduce as such in Genesis 1:1 (Gen. 1:1 New American Standard), He reveals His
manner of enacting the plan of creation in six literal 24-hour days (Gen. 1:3-31 New American
Standard). This description culminates in an inclusio in Genesis 2:1 that links back to Genesis
1:1, “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts” (Gen. 2:1 New
American Standard). The book of Colossians picks upon this Truth when the LORD states that
Jesus Christ is the only true God by whom all things were created, both in the heavens and on
earth, visible and invisible (Col. 1:15-16 New American Standard). The nature of planning is
linked back to the order of creation.
God is not only the sovereign Creator of the universe, but He also has a very specific plan
designed into His universe (Kaiser, 2009). God the Father will accomplish his plan through Israel
STRATEGIC PLANNING 147
as he actively brings His predetermined will to pass (Jer. 29:11 New American Standard). His
plan has at its center that Jesus Christ is the universal blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant given
two thousand years before His arrival (Gen. 12:1-3; Luke 1:32 New American Standard). This
future and hope is inextricably linked to the universal blessing that would come to the nation and
to the world at the proper time that is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the second person of the
Trinity (Kaiser, 2009). In accomplishing His promises, he unveils that planning is not only
rooted in his nature, but that His plan will be carried out strategically.
God is not only Creator and Planner of the universe, but He is also the Culminator of the
universe (Edwards, 1754). He is actively bringing the universe to its appointed end (2 Peter 3:3-
10 New American Standard). This will not happen until His full grace has been shown to
humanity (2 Pet. 3:3-10 New American Standard). Romans 11:26 teaches states, “For from Him
and through Him and to Him are all things…” (Rom. 11:36 New American Standard). The
prepositional phrases, “from…through…to” speak of origination, medium, and final end, to
describe one overarching, closed, divine design carried out strategically from beginning to end
(Sanday & Headlam, 1898).
The concept of planning by man flows out of these two realities that God is by nature the
Creator, Planner, and Culminator of the universe and that all men are created in the image of
God. As finite individuals created in the image of the infinite One who gives the universe
meaning (epistemology, ethics, metaphysics) man is able to reason, to will, and consequently to
anticipate, to strategize, to execute (Bahnsen, 1998). Since all things are moving to a
predetermined and designed end, as a corollary, seeking to plan in accordance with God’s plan is
a must for the theological seminary as it tenaciously holds these truths about God as self-evident
STRATEGIC PLANNING 148
by the light of Scripture. In their work entitled, Strategic Planning in Higher Education, Dooris,
Kelley, & Trainer (2004) stated,
Homo sapiens is the classical term used by philosophers to elevate humankind from the
remainder of creation. The term, of course, refers to our ability to think, conceptualize,
mull, peruse, and innovate. It also extends to other defining functions and faculties, such
as problem solving and imagination. Rationality certainly characterizes most jobs and
professions, but it crescendos in the world of strategic planning.

The plans of men are carried out in accordance with God’s sovereignty. Proverbs 16:9
(New American Standard) states, “The mind of man plans his way, but the LORD directs his
steps.” God is sovereign, and man is responsible for his actions, so man must imitate His Creator
and plan, though finitely, which means that unlike the Creator’s plans, man’s plans at times fail
as was the case with Haman (Esther 7:9-10, New American Standard). Planning is premised
upon the reality that all individuals are created in the image of God. It is individuals who
comprise organizations, institutions, and governments; hence, as embedded in the order of
creation, all of these will practice some form of planning, though the title given it (strategic
planning, strategic implementation, goal setting), and the model chosen (collaborative, guided
incrementalism, hybrids), may differ (Bryson, 2010).
Role of the Holy Spirit. Collaborative models of strategic planning within institutions of
higher education are preferred (Bryson, 2010) and are actually legislated in the state of
California (AB1725). These collaborative models are premised upon some concept of shared
governance in which faculty participate with administration in planning and implementing
institutional vision, mission, and goals. Though the definition of shared governance varies from
institutional culture to institutional culture, within the theological institutions for higher
education, the concept collaboration in planning processes is not a matter of legislation but
Biblical wisdom.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 149
The biblical teaching concerning the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer
necessitates collaboration with relation to strategic planning and 100% faculty participation
within the theological institution of higher education (Grudem, 1994). The LORD teaches that
the Holy Spirit indwells everyone who believes on Christ alone, by grace alone through faith
alone (Ephesians 2:8-9 New American Standard). In order to hold a faculty position at TCBS,
one must be a believer and hold to the institutional doctrinal statement. It is theologically
understood and embraced that the Holy Spirit gives every believer the wisdom of understanding
concerning the meaning of Scripture and its application to life circumstances (Ephesians 1:16-19
New American Standard). It is by His Spirit that the LORD gives understanding to each believer
in everything pertaining to the exaltation of Christ in His Church (2 Timothy 2:7 New American
Standard). The book of Proverbs instructs that there is wisdom with many counselors (Proverbs
11:14; 15:22; 20:18; 24:6 New American Standard). The more crucial the decision, the more
appropriate is corporate wisdom of individuals who know Scripture. Consequently, embedded in
the life of the theological institution is a wealth of wisdom tied to the doctrine of the priesthood
of the believer that renders all faculty and administration as co-equals motivated in the work.
This corporate wisdom is not tied to faculty position, as is the legislation of AB1725, but to
one’s spiritual state as indwelt and informed by the Holy Spirit.
That planning is rooted in the order of God’s created universe and must be performed by
man as image bearer in microcosm within each one’s organization in some form as an expression
of His practical presence within the operational life of the theological seminary through the
internal working of the Holy Spirit elevates all the more the need for 100% faculty and staff
participation.
STRATEGIC PLANNING 150
The biblical teaching concerning the sovereign distribution of spiritual gifts by the Holy
Spirit necessitates collaboration with relation to strategic planning and 100% faculty
participation within the theological institution of higher education is (Thomas, 1999; Edgar,
1996; Tiede, 2009). The Scriptures teach that when a person becomes a Christian the Holy Spirit
indwells the individual (1 Corinthians 12:11 New American Standard) and actually gifts them
with unique desires for serving in particular ways in the Christain life (1 Peter 4:10 New
American Standard). Serving as a faculty member within a theological seminary for higher
education is a spiritual service. Each faculty member not only is able to think through the
meaning and application of Scripture for the life of the seminary, but each faculty member also
has an internal drive to be used in different ways within the life of the school, whether it is in
some capacity of service beyond the teaching responsibilities, or simply in the teaching
responsibilities (1 Peter 4:11 New American Standard).

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This case study used a gap analysis framework to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs in achieving 100% faculty and staff active participation in the strategic planning process. The perspectives of 20 faculty and staff of a private religious school were examined. Data were collected through surveys, interviews, and a focus group meeting. The study revealed that administrative leadership held undefined operating assumptions about the relationship between governance and strategic planning that adversely affect institutional effectiveness. The study also found that administrative leadership will need to provide faculty and staff with basic definitions, steps, “how-to” knowledge, and the capacity for altering strategic planning concepts. The study confirmed that faculty and staff are highly motivated to participate in strategic planning processes, but they can experience yet higher motivation levels when administrative leadership ensures they have clear, current, and challenging goals, feel valued, and have peer-models of conviction in strategic planning leadership. Organizational needs findings indicated that administrative leadership may want to engage faculty and staff by pre-teaching the adopted organizational governance model, cultivating a stewardship and faithfulness mindset, building intentional relationships, creating a change-oriented culture, linking incentives to student outcomes, providing opportunities for meaningful collaboration, cultivating mission-mindedness, and building trust through communication. The paper concludes with a detailed implementation plan and evaluation framework for monitoring the effectiveness of actively engaging 100% of faculty and staff in the strategic planning process.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Increasing faculty engagement in entrepreneurial behavior to advance regional economic development: an innovation study

PDF

Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study

PDF

Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study

PDF

Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing Emiratisation in engineering faculty position at the higher colleges of technology

PDF

A California community college's climate action plan: an evaluation study

PDF

Using strategic planning to excel in a changing higher education environment: examining promising practices at an independent liberal arts college

PDF

Optimizing leadership and strategy to develop an expenditure-reduction plan: an improvement study

PDF

The emerging majority in the United States health professions: a gap analysis innovation model for Latinx recruitment planning within higher education

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis

PDF

Establishing domestic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs in the global market: an innovation study

PDF

Child-centered, play-based curriculum at a Hong Kong kindergarten and nursery: a gap analysis

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Improved student success at California State University, Dominguez Hills: a promising practice study

PDF

Diversity initiatives in a California independent school: from plans to reality

PDF

Creating a comprehensive professional development program for MBA students: a needs analysis

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Donato, Adrian Jesse (author)

Core Title Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 07/08/2016

Defense Date 05/11/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag faculty involvement,gap analysis,innovation,institutional effectiveness activities,OAI-PMH Harvest,shared governance,strategic planning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence (committee member), Robison, Mark P. (committee member)

Creator Email adonato@usc.edu,adriandonato@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-262645

Unique identifier UC11280674

Identifier etd-DonatoAdri-4520.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-262645 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DonatoAdri-4520.pdf

Dmrecord 262645

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Donato, Adrian Jesse

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA