Post on 21-Jan-2015
description
Regional Universities & Regional Development:Leadership transcending the HE ‘Flatlands’
Regional Universities & Regional Development:Leadership transcending the HE ‘Flatlands’
Dr. Luke van der Laan
University of Southern Queensland
‘Post-normal times for Regional HE’ ‘Post-normal times for Regional HE’
Leadership imperative in HE to transcend dominant short-term paradigms and open up creative emergence in regional
universities that will impact regional development.
$1.5 billion direct economic contribution
(times 3 indirect and induced) (Rolfe etal, 2008)
Post-normal times need post-normal capabilities in HE
Imperative of futures management for a future-orientated environment
• Used Florax 1992, cited in Giesecke Ja & Madden JR, 2006 model for economic impact studies of university expenditure
SustainabilitySustainability
• Ability of systems and organizations to continue indefinitely while consistently exercising provident care (Senge et al, 2006)
• Common counter-intuitive responses to the future– Reductionist thinking to make sense of complexity? – Short-termism to manage complexity?
“you will realise that you cannot reduce your risk by simply letting the long term take care of itself … for in complex systems, even doing nothing
could have escalating consequences” (Stacey 1992)
Flatlands – Higher Educational FuturesFlatlands – Higher Educational Futures
‘Flatlands’• Reductionist frameworks for thinking about the future in HE • confounded by regulatory inconsistency and the changing
nature of knowledge $’s
Implication: • Insufficiently understood and problematised change.• Technology-LED paradigms remaining dominant.
Consequence:• Constrained sustainable development: limited foresight /
strategic thinking / strategy.
Flatlands: Higher Education FuturesFlatlands: Higher Education Futures
• Possible examples of constrained strategic thinking:– ‘Technology led’ as opposed to technology enabled– ‘Universal Connectedness’ not really connected– ‘Past Success’ breeding failure– ‘The’ future of education as opposed to innovative alternatives– ‘Dominant Approaches’ to education as espoused by
contextually maligned LOUD opinion– Continued reliance on government funding as primary source
of revenue in a context where this WILL reduce– ‘Generation Theory’ based research being dominant driver– ‘Language / Cultural’ dominance– The market is limited! 165 million HE learners by 2020?
Why the research?Why the research?
“There is an ‘agony’ in HE leaders to be strategic” (Recent comment from HE Senior Leader)
More than 80% of senior executives in Australia acknowledge strategic thinking to be their greatest challenge (Bonn, 2008) (and evidence of the same in other parts of the world)
Regional economies / Regional development is closely linked to ‘substantial contribution’ by regional universities (Rolfe et al. 2008)
Leadership imperative to develop foresight and strategic thinking capabilities in regional universities in order to enhance strategy and sustainable development
Leadership Umbrella (van der Laan, 2011)Leadership Umbrella (van der Laan, 2011)
En
gag
emen
tIn
tern
al /
Ext
ern
al
Se
rvic
e / C
SR
Sys
tem
inte
gra
tion
Man
agem
ent
Go
vern
an
ceA
cco
unt
abi
lity
Co
nt.
Imp
rove
me
nt
Su
stai
nab
ilit
yO
rga
nis
atio
nal
So
cia
l E
nvi
ronm
enta
l
Inn
ova
tio
nR
ele
vant
/Diff
ere
ntia
ting
Te
chno
log
y/
Pe
ople
/Pro
cess
‘The Leadership Umbrella’ (van der Laan, 2011)‘The Leadership Umbrella’ (van der Laan, 2011)
LEADERSHIP
STRATEGY
‘Triple-V Leadership’ Imperative (van der Laan, 2011)‘Triple-V Leadership’ Imperative (van der Laan, 2011)
• Need for broader preferred viable futures for regional universities due to ‘post-normal’ times in the sector (eg. de-regulation / privatisation / competition / internationalisation / cyber-age,…)
… To make strategic thinking more visible and strategy more
valuable.
ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ENABLED BY LEADERS
NEEDNEED
Leaders that can activate the process develop the university’s capability to have;• Future Orientated Thinking (to contextualise)• Foresight capabilities (to visualise)• Strategic Thinking capability (to strategise)
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE;• Valuable Strategic Capabilities in regional universities – by
developing a critical mass of these capabilities amongst strategy-level leaders in the university
Why this research?Why this research?
• Validate the findings of previous research using mixed methods and advanced statistical analysis modelling in the HE context.
• Identify the foresight / strategic thinking / strategy mode profile for regional universities in Queensland.
• Provide evidence to influence.• Provide recommendations and suggest interventions to
address any gaps.
Foresight / Strategic ThinkingForesight / Strategic Thinking
Previous research:• Investigation of relationship between individual foresight,
strategic thinking and strategy.• Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)• 101 CEOs (34%), 110 Senior Managers (37%) of large
enterprises.
Implications of Previous ResearchImplications of Previous Research
• Rational / transactive strategic modes are likely to suppress the generative / creative strategic thinking of its leadership.
• Those elements of strategic thinking that are creative, innovative, time-orientated, ambiguous and yielding greater levels of emergent strategy are suppressed (-.25 correlation in SEM model)
Consequences:
Innovation / creative emergence is less likely.
Available human capabilities are limited.
Organisational strategy remains static and directive.
Leadership Model for Innovation in HELeadership Model for Innovation in HE
• Significant empirical evidence suggests importance of foresight and strategic thinking in facilitating sound strategy (generative / creative / innovative / emergent)
• Plus: need to transcend ‘flatlands’ of prevailing paradigms.
• Requires a leadership model that enables sound strategy in mapping sustainable HE futures.
• Input: Cognitive propensity to envision possible futures and detect hazards
• Output: Mentally constructed envisioned futures
Foresight (cognitive)
• Input: Contextualisation of all relevant inputs including foresight outcomes in the organisation's strategic context
• Output: Communicating conceptualised longer-term future to dominant coalition
Strategic Thinking(functional) • Input: Emergent and intended
strategic alternatives from strategy-level leaders
• Output: Sound Strategic decisions / Innovative strategy
Strategic decision-making
(formulative)
(van der Laan, L, 2010)
Triple-V ModelTriple-V Model
STRATEGY FORMULATION
FORESIGHT STRATEGIC THINKING
SOUND ORGANISATIONAL
STRATEGY
VIABLE VISIBLE VALUABLE
Orientation to Time
Foresight Style
Analytical / Systems
orientated Cognitions
Creative / Generative Cognitions
Age
Foresight Education
Industry Experience
Education Level
(van der Laan, 2010)
What are we measuring?What are we measuring?
Quantitative:• Orientation to thinking perspectives in time• Disposition to dealing with future (long and short
term) issues• Strategic thinking assessment • Strategy formulation mode(Note all instruments have previously been assessed as having high validity and reliability)
Qualitative:• Causal Layered Analysis of futures thinking• Strategic Thinking dimensions• Strategy formulation and perceived value
Quantitative: Early Foresight Style ProfileQuantitative: Early Foresight Style Profile
•Adjusts to new situations as future demands
•Balances multiples challenges and choices
•Helps others adapt / Is flexible / Activates action
•Flexible leadership / Change Orientated Influencer
•Predilection to past successes
•Paradigm paralysis•Future is evolutionary and loaded by fate
•Preserves own position•Mitigates and resists change
•Seriously Interrogates the future
•Future-time orientated•Interested in the long-term issues that define the future with the view it can be created
•Envisions ‘bigger picture’ futures
•Adopts new trends / Confirms diffusion of innovation theory
•Experiments with new trends when they arise
•Opportunistic•Cognitive trend analysis
TESTER FRAMER
ADAPTERREACTOR
AnalyticalHypothesis driven,
Intent focussed, Systems
Perspective
Careful analysis Requires control
Problem solving Systems thinking
Uses considerable data
GenerativeThinking in Time
Intelligent Opportunism
Creative / generates multiple alternatives Independent thinking
Tolerance for ambiguity
Future / Long-term orientated
Initiates new ideas
Quantitative: Strategic Thinking ProfileQuantitative: Strategic Thinking Profile
Quantitative: Strategy ModesQuantitative: Strategy Modes
• Primarily rational (traditional mode) of strategyBUT• More dynamic• More socialised in dominant coalition• Communication, governance and mainstreaming not
tested
QualitativeQualitativeForesight / Strategic Thinking:• Concepts well understood• Clearly developed foresight / strategic thinking• High capacity and action orientatedFutures / Vision• Clearly formulated future• Technology enabling rather than technology leading• Based on untested assumptions / dominant models• ‘Feared’ and other possible ‘Innovative’ futures and
underlying causal assumptions not developed (no mitigation strategies)
Strategy• Excellent in a traditional mode• Clearly formulated and aligned
Conclusions: initial observationsConclusions: initial observations
• Leadership is generally sound • Regulatory environment is confounding and not optimally
enabling• Strategy is generally very dynamic albeit in traditional
frameworks• Emergent creativity as an input to strategy is limited
• Imperative: Serious political will related to HE role in Regional Development resulting in aligned / enabling environments