Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol11.Issue6.1997:
Strategy, autonomy, planning mode and
ef fectiveness: a contingency study of business
schools
David M . Brock
De partme nt o f Inte rnatio nal Busine ss, Unive rsity o f Auc kland, Auc kland,
Ne w Z e aland
The aim of this project was to
investigate whether combinations of strategies, planning
modes and levels of autonomy
are associated with superior
college effectiveness relative
to other combinations of
these variables. It was
hypothesized that a college
pursuing a prospector strategy – with an emphasis on
continuously seeking new
client segments and/or developing new offerings – would
be more effective with longerterm and more externally
oriented planning, and with
more autonomy for its dean.
Conversely, a college pursuing a defender strategy –
relying on traditional client
segments and offerings –
would be more effective with
shorter-term and more internally oriented planning, and
with less autonomy for its
dean. Generally, the hypotheses pertaining to the prospector-type strategy were supported, while those involving
the defender strategy were
not supported. Discusses
implications for practitioners
and researchers.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [ 1997] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 248 ]
Accor din g to Rober t Bu r ton , “h im th a t m a k es
sh oes go ba r efoot h im self (sic)” (Oxfor d Un iver sity P r ess, 1992). Applyin g th is m a xim to
bu sin ess sch ools on e m ay won der h ow well
m a n a ged th ey m ay be….
Un iver sities cu r r en tly fa ce im m ea su r a ble
com plexities a n d tu r bu len ce in th eir exter n a l
en vir on m en ts (Ca m er on a n d Tsch ir h a r t,
1992; Gu m por t, 1993; Heydin ger, 1994). Th eir
in ter n a l or ga n iza tion s a r e con sequ en tly
u n der pr essu r e to a da pt in a n effective w ay
(Ben sim on , 1993; Br ow n , 1995; Sla u gh ter,
1993). Aca dem ic a dm in istr a tor s fa ce per plexin g pr oblem s; a n d th e a ccom pa n yin g
ch a llen ges for th ose doin g r esea r ch in h igh er
edu ca tion m a n a gem en t a r e th u s especia lly
vexin g.
In eva lu a tin g th e a dm in istr a tive th eor ists
wh o dom in a ted or ga n iza tion a l th eor y du r in g
th e fir st h a lf of th is cen tu r y, Scott (1981, p. 67)
con clu des th a t th e m a jor fa u lt w a s “th eir
fa ilu r e to develop con dition a l gen er a liza tion s
– sta tem en ts th a t specify th e lim its of ...
a pplica bility to pa r ticu la r situ a tion s or types
of or ga n iza tion s”. A con tin gen cy a ppr oa ch to
or ga n iza tion a n d str a te gy r esea r ch h a s
becom e popu la r pa r tly a s a con sequ en ce of
th ese sen tim en ts. In fa ct, qu estion s of con tin gen cy a n d “fit” a bou n ded a s em pir ica l
r esea r ch developed in th e or ga n iza tion a l
str a te gy liter a tu r e fr om th e la te 1970s a n d
th r ou gh th e 1980s. For exa m ple, or ga n iza tion a l str a te gy r esea r ch er s sh owed th a t str a te gy sh ou ld fit th e str u ctu r e (Th or elli, 1977);
th e m a n a ger s (Gu pta a n d Govin da r a ja n ,
1984); sh ou ld fit th e exten t of r esou r ce sh a r in g
(Gu pta a n d Govin da r a ja n , 1986); a n d str a te gy
sh ou ld fit w ith th e sta ge of th e pr odu ct life
cycle (An der son a n d Zeith a m l, 1984). Th is
pr oject in vestiga ted con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips a m on g colle ge str a te gy a n d two in ter n a l va r ia bles – n a m ely a u ton om y a n d pla n n in g.
Au ton om y h a s been ch osen a s th e str u ctu r a l va r ia ble in th is stu dy beca u se it sign ifi ca n tly in flu en ces wor k -r ela ted beh aviou r a n d
h a s sign ifica n t bea r in g on str a te gy im plem en ta tion a n d pla n n in g effectiven ess (Br ock
a n d Zeith a m l, 1988; Wh ite, 1986). A r eview of
liter a tu r e on th e topic of a u ton om y follow s in
th e n ext two section s. F u r th er, pla n n in g h a s
been a con tr over sia l issu e a m on g m a n a ge-
m en t sch ola r s for som e tim e n ow (Ba r r y a n d
E lm es, 1997; F ayol, 1949; Min tzber g, 1994;
Wildavsk y, 1973). Som e of th is con tr over sy
w ill be ou tlin ed a n d a solu tion su ggested a n d
tested.
Autonomy
Au ton om y is th e a m ou n t of day-to-day fr eedom th a t a n or ga n iza tion a l m em ber h a s to
m a k e decision s on th e job a n d is a n a n a logu e
of a u th or ity (In k son et a l., 1970). In th e Aston
stu dies, cen tr a liza tion a n d low a u ton om y
wer e fou n d to be str on gly r ela ted to con cen tr a tion of a u th or ity, sta n da r diza tion of
per son n el pr ocedu r es, low fu n ction a l specia liza tion , per cen ta ge of su per or din a tes a n d
per cen ta ge of n on -wor k flow per son n el (Holdaw ay et a l., 1975).
Ha ck m a n a n d Oldh a m (1976) sh ow th a t
a u ton om y (a lon g w ith oth er cor e job dim en sion s lik e ta sk sign ifica n ce a n d feedba ck )
pr om ote positive m otiva tion , per for m a n ce,
sa tisfa ction , a bsen teeism a n d tu r n over ou tcom es. Wh ite (1986) fou n d th a t cer ta in str a tegies wh ich r equ ir e h igh levels of con tr ol pr odu ce better r esu lts w ith low r a th er th a n h igh
a u ton om y. In a sim ila r vein , Gu pta (1987) a lso
sh owed th a t th ese str a te gies a r e better w ith
cen tr a liza tion (low a u ton om y), wh ile str a tegies wh ich n eed in n ova tion a n d cu stom er
or ien ta tion a r e m or e effective in decen tr a lized (h igh ly a u ton om ou s) con texts.
Planning
P la n n in g seem s lik e su ch a good idea . It
sh ou ld h ave m a n y ben eficia l effects to or ga n iza tion s (An soff, 1977; Br yson , 1988). As F ayol
(1949) h a s sa id, “Th e pr epa r a tion of th e pla n
of a ction is on e of th e m ost difficu lt a n d m ost
im por ta n t m a tter s of ever y bu sin ess…”
(p. 86). Yet m a n y r esea r ch stu dies h ave fa iled
to sh ow th ese ben efits (F u lm er a n d Ru e, 1974;
Gr in yer a n d N or bu r n , 1975; Pea r ce et a l., 1987;
Robin son a n d Pea r ce, 1983). P a r t of th e pr oblem is cer ta in ly m eth odologica l: Pea r ce et a l.
(1987) discu ss th e la ck of a tten tion to con textu a l in flu en ces; in con sisten cies in oper a tion a liza tion of pla n n in g; m ea su r em en t
va lidity; ign or in g im plem en ta tion fa ctor s,
tim e fr a m es a n d size effects a s th e m eth odologica l pr oblem s m a n ifested in th is a r ea of
r esea r ch . However, a n oth er pr oblem w ith
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
m ost of th e r esea r ch in th e a r ea of th e pla n n in g-per for m a n ce lin k a ge is th a t it h a s n ot
discr im in a ted a m on g m odes or a ppr oa ch es to
pla n n in g. Th e a ssu m ption seem s to h ave been
th a t “m or e pla n n in g is better ”, or th a t lon ger ter m , str a te gic pla n n in g sh ou ld wor k in a ll
con texts. We qu estion th is view a n d a sk
wh eth er sim ple, sh or ter -ter m , in ter n a lly
or ien ted pla n n in g m ay be better su ited to
som e con texts th a n m or e ela bor a te
a ppr oa ch es to pla n n in g.
Strategy, autonomy and effectiveness
Au ton om y is a n especia lly im por ta n t issu e in
today’s cu ltu r e of em power m en t, in dividu a l
r igh ts a n d in cr ea sed levels of edu ca tion . For
exa m ple, in th e a ca dem e we ch er ish th e r igh t
to deter m in e ou r ow n cu r r icu la , r esea r ch
a gen da , h ir in g decision s a n d eva lu a tion sta n da r ds. However, a s a str u ctu r a l va r ia ble it is
possible th a t a n in dividu a l’s level of a u ton om y in a n or ga n iza tion m ay be in a ppr opr ia te.
It is com m on to h ea r som eon e com pla in th a t
th ey cou ld h ave m a n a ged a situ a tion m or e
effectively if th ey h a d n ot been bou n d by so
m u ch r ed ta pe – a n exa m ple of too little a u ton om y. Con ver sely, on e ca n en visa ge a situ a tion
wh er e a m a n a ger h a s th e a u th or ity, bu t
m a k es a ser ies of ill-a dvised decision s r esu ltin g in squ a n der ed r esou r ces – a n exa m ple of
too m u ch a u ton om y.
“...It is com m on to h ea r som eon e com pla in th a t th ey cou ld
h a v e m a n a ged a situ a tion m ore effectiv ely if th ey h a d n ot
b een b ou n d b y so m u ch red ta pe...”
For effectiven ess of a n or ga n iza tion , it h elps
if th e str u ctu r e su ppor ts th e str a te gy. For
in sta n ce, a str a te gy th a t em ph a sizes in n ova tion – lik e th e Miles a n d Sn ow (1978)
“pr ospector ” str a te gy – is best im plem en ted
in a str u ctu r e th a t gives or ga n iza tion a l m em ber s th e fr eedom a n d a u th or ity to tr y differ en t a ppr oa ch es. Conver sely, a str a te gy th a t
involves com petin g on th e ba sis of efficien cy
– lik e th e Miles a n d Sn ow (1978) “defen der ”
str a te gy – w ill be best im plem en ted if th e
str u ctu r e r ein for ces str ict con tr ols a n d
a ccou n ta bility over wor k sta n da r ds, pr odu ction , in ven tor ies a n d cu stom er ser vice.
Th ese r ela tion sh ips m ay be r ein for ced by
th e possibility of sh a r in g r esou r ces. A
defen der str a te gy, for exa m ple, m ay ben efi t
fr om th e econ om ies of sca le to be ga in ed on
su ppor t, tech n ica l a n d a dm in istr a tive fu n ction s (lik e da ta pr ocessin g a n d pu r ch a sin g) of
th e or ga n iza tion , th u s cu ttin g costs a n d
in cr ea sin g efficien cy. An em ph a sis on sh a r ed
ser vices a n d r esou r ces, h owever, m ay
in ten sify th e n eed to en su r e con sisten cy
a m on g u n its. Th ese pr essu r es wou ld r equ ir e
th a t u n its be co-or din a ted a n d con tr olled to
en su r e th ese ser vices a n d r esou r ces a r e
sh a r ed a n d u sed efficien tly by a ll. Con ver sely,
beca u se of th e n eed for flexibility a n d a u ton om y, a n em ph a sis on sh a r ed r esou r ces m ay be
n eith er n ecessa r y n or desir a ble for im plem en tin g a pr ospector str a te gy.
Resea r ch fi n din gs h ave fou n d th a t low -cost
str a te gies pr odu ce better r esu lts w ith low
r a th er th a n h igh a u ton om y. Gu pta (1987)
sh owed th a t differ en tia tion str a te gies a r e
a ssocia ted w ith m or e effective im plem en ta tion in decen tr a lized con texts, wh ile low -cost
str a te gies a r e better w ith cen tr a liza tion . Th e
follow in g pa ir of h ypoth eses su m m a r ize th ese
r ela tion sh ips:
H1. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g pr ospector str a te gies, h igh a u ton om y w ill be
a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter effectiven ess
th a n low a u ton om y.
H2. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g
defen der str a te gies, low a u ton om y w ill
be a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter effectiven ess
th a n h igh a u ton om y.
Strategy, planning and effectiveness
P la n n in g is th a t pa r t of th e m a n a gem en t
pr ocess th a t a ttem pts to fin d th e best cou r se
of a ction for a n in stitu tion (Ada m s, 1977).
P la n n in g m ay be sh or t-, m ediu m -, or lon gter m . Da ft (1988) defin es th e sh or t ter m a s
per iods of on e yea r or less; th e in ter m edia te(or m ediu m ) ter m is two yea r s; a n d th e lon g
ter m is th r ee yea r s or m or e. An oth er distin ction in pla n n in g m ode th a t is u sefu l is in ter n a l ver su s exter n a l or ien ta tion (Peter son ,
1980). Tr a dition a l yea r -to-yea r bu dgetin g is a
ba sic for m of in ter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g
th a t is com m on to m a n y in stitu tion s. Mor e
con tem por a r y str a te gic pla n n in g m odes ta k e
exter n a l fa ctor s (lik e dem ogr a ph ic tr en ds,
in du str y developm en ts, com petitor s a n d
politica l tr en ds) in to a ccou n t.
Th e th eor y in th is pr oject is ba sed on th e
in ter n a l ver su s exter n a l or ien ta tion , bu t is
a lso a ppr opr ia te for a sh or t- ver su s lon g-ter m
cla ssifica tion . Th e con tin gen cies a n d cor r ela tes in th is pr oject a r e th e sa m e for in ter n a l
a n d for sh or t-ter m pla n n in g, a s well a s for
exter n a l a n d for lon g-ter m pla n n in g. Gen er a lly, exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g m odes –
lik e str a te gic pla n n in g – ten d to be lon ger
ter m (Br yson , 1988). Con ver sely, in ter n a lly
or ien ted system s – lik e tr a dition a l bu dgetin g
a n d pr oject pla n n in g system s – a r e u su a lly
con fin ed to th e sh or ter ter m . For con ven ien ce
we u se th e ter m s “in ter n a l” to r efer to in ter n a lly or ien ted a n d sh or t-r a n ge pla n n in g
[ 249 ]
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
m odes a n d “exter n a l” to r efer to exter n a lly
or ien ted a n d lon ger -r a n ge pla n n in g.
P la n n in g h a s a n u m ber of a dva n ta ges to th e
or ga n iza tion . For in sta n ce, pla n n in g h elps
th e str a te gy-m a k in g pr ocesses by pr ovidin g a
sou r ce of in for m a tion con cer n in g th e exter n a l en vir on m en t. P la n s a lso ser ve a s sta n da r ds a ga in st wh ich to m ea su r e a n d th u s
con trol, per for m a n ce. Th ese pla n s a r e th u s
in ter n a l a n d a r e gen er a lly sh or t-ter m .
An or ga n ization ’s n eed for in for m ation a n d
con tr ol depen ds u pon its str ategy. For
in sta n ce, a “pr ospector ” or ga n ization – bein g
con sta n tly on th e lookou t for n ew cu stom er s
a n d pr odu cts – h a s a h igh n eed for exter n a l
in for m ation bu t a lesser n eed for con tr ol. F u r th er, lon g-ter m pla n n in g is n eeded to or ga n ize
th e offer in gs of a or ga n ization to m eet th e ever
ch a n gin g n eeds of th ese ch a n gin g m a r kets.
On th e oth er h a n d a “defen der ” str a te gy –
pr eoccu pied w ith ser vin g th e sa m e ta r get
popu la tion better a n d m or e efficien tly – h a s a
h igh n eed for con tr ol over its in ter n a l
pr ocesses. Yea r -to-yea r bu dgetin g pr ocesses –
typica l in ter n a l pla n s – m eet th ese n eeds.
“...a prospector stra teg y is b etter im plem en ted w ith a n
ex ter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g system a n d a d efen d er stra teg y
b etter w ith a n in ter n a l or ien ta tion ...”
Th ese idea s a r e ger m a n e to Miles a n d Sn ow s’
(1978, pp. 43, 61) explica tion of th eir str a te gic
typology. On e wou ld th u s pr edict th a t a
pr ospector str a te gy is better im plem en ted
w ith a n exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g system
a n d a defen der str a te gy better w ith a n in ter n a l or ien ta tion .
H3. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g pr ospector str a te gies, exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g w ill be a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter effectiven ess th a n in ter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g.
H4. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g
defen der str a te gies, in ter n a lly or ien ted
pla n n in g w ill be a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter
effectiven ess th a n exter n a lly or ien ted
pla n n in g.
Strategy, autonomy, planning and
effectiveness
Th e developm en t of or ga n iza tion a l typologies
(Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978), a r ch etypes (Miller
a n d F r iesen , 1977), Gesta lts a n d con figu r a tion s (Miller a n d F r iesen , 1984) h ave been
m a jor bu ildin g block s in th e u n der sta n din g
of or ga n iza tion a l str a te gy. Th is str ea m of
r esea r ch h a s sh ow n th a t cer ta in com bin a tion s of str a te gies, con text a n d or ga n iza tion a l
str u ctu r es a r e m or e via ble th a n oth er s. Th e
lin k a ges descr ibed a bove ca n be com bin ed
[ 250 ]
a n d exten ded by dedu ctive logic to for m a
m or e com pr eh en sive m odel. Th u s, bu ildin g
on th e th eor y developed in th e ea r lier
h ypoth eses on e wou ld expect to fin d a
pr ospector str a te gy im plem en ted m or e effectively w ith a n a u ton om ou s str u ctu r e a n d
exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g; a n d a defen der
str a te gy wou ld be better w ith less a u ton om y
a n d in ter n a l pla n n in g. Th ese r ela tion sh ips
a r e su m m a r ized in H5 a n d H6.
H5. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g
pr ospector str a te gies, h igh a u ton om y
a n d exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g w ill be
a ssocia ted w ith better per for m a n ce th a n
oth er con figu r a tion s.
H6. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g
defen der str a te gies, low a u ton om y a n d
in ter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g w ill be
a ssocia ted w ith better per for m a n ce th a n
oth er con figu r a tion s.
Method
Bu sin ess sch ools wer e ch osen a s sa m plin g
u n its beca u se th ey a r e r ea dily a ccessible,
su fficien tly plen tifu l a n d h ave clea r ly defin ed
for m a l lea der s – dea n s. Su r vey in str u m en ts
wer e sen t to 260 bu sin ess sch ool dea n s, r epr esen tin g a ll MBA pr ogr a m m es a ccr edited by
th e AACSB in 1991. Nin ety-five u sa ble
r espon ses wer e r eceived (36.5 per cen t); wh ile
th is r epon se r a te is low, th u s im pedin g th e
gen er a liza bility of th e fin din gs, th er e w a s n o
eviden ce of th e sa m ple bein g bia sed w ith
r espect to size, type of pr ogr a m m e, or geogr a ph ic r egion a l cover a ge w ith in Nor th
Am er ica . Th e depen den t va r ia ble (effectiven ess) a n d th r ee in depen den t va r ia bles (str a tegy, a u ton om y a n d pla n n in g m ode) wer e m ea su r ed a n d th e h ypoth eses wer e tested u sin g
on e-ta iled tests of gr ou p m ea n s. Notes on
oper a tion a liza tion of th e va r ia bles a ppea r in
Appen dix 1 a n d r eleva n t item s fr om th e su r vey in str u m en t in Appen dix 2. Th e th r ee
in depen den t va r ia bles – str a tegy, a u ton om y
a n d pla n n in g – wer e u sed to cla ssify th e or ga n iza tion s in to gr ou ps. F igu r e 1 illu str a tes h ow
th e sa m ple w a s sepa r a ted in to th e two str a tegies a n d th en in to th e two oth er va r ia bles.
The general tests
All th e h ypoth eses ca lled for dir ection a l com pa r ison s of gr ou p m ea n s of th e depen den t
va r ia ble: effectiven ess. Th e in itia l r ou n d of
a n a lyses con sisted of on e-ta iled z -tests to
com pa r e th ese gr ou p m ea n s. Th e r eleva n t
gr ou ps a r e illu str a ted in F igu r e 1.
Th e a n a lyses wer e a im ed a t testin g for th e
h ypoth esized differ en ces in th e depen den t
va r ia ble between gr ou ps w ith in th e sa m ple.
For exa m ple, in H1, th e n u ll h ypoth esis is th a t
th e m ea n effectiven ess of gr ou ps T+ U is n o
differ en t fr om th a t of gr ou ps V+ W. Th e a lter n a tive h ypoth esis is th a t m ea n effectiven ess
of gr ou ps T+ U is gr ea ter th a n th a t of gr ou ps
V+ W. In h ypoth esis 6, th e n u ll h ypoth esis w ill
be th a t th e m ea n effectiven ess of gr ou p R is
n o differ en t fr om th a t of gr ou ps P + Q+ S. Th e
a lter n a tive h ypoth esis is th a t th e m ea n effectiven ess of gr ou p R is gr ea ter th a n th a t of
gr ou ps P + Q+ S. Th e a ctu a l tests deta ils, sta tistics a n d r esu lts a r e su m m a r ized in Ta ble I.
Gen er a lly th e hypoth eses for th e pr ospector
str ategy (H1, H3 a n d H5) wer e a ll su ppor ted
a n d th ose for th e defen der s wer e n ot. All th r ee
hypoth eses involvin g th e defen der str ategy
m et with n egative r esu lts u sin g th e above ba sic
m eth odology. Th e followin g section descr ibes
som e m or e sen sitive tests of th e hypoth eses.
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
Figure 1
The gro ups into whic h the sample was c lassifie d
Planning type
High
Planning type
Inte rnal
Exte rnal
P
Q
High
Exte rnal
T
U
R
S
Lo w
V
W
Pro spe c to r strate gie s
De fe nde r strate gie s
Th ese sta tistics su ggest th a t h igh a u ton om y
a n d/ or exter n a l/ lon g-r a n ge pla n n in g a r e
gen er a lly a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter or ga n iza tion effectiven ess; a n d th a t th ese ten den cies
m ay be in depen den t of str a te gy a n d oth er
con tin gen cies.
Addition a l tech n iqu es wer e u sed to a ccou n t
for th e a bove ten den cies: in cr em en ta l a n a lyses of cell m ea n s wer e per for m ed. Th ese
a n a lyses a r e discu ssed below.
Incremental tests
An ot h er a p p r oa ch t o exp lor in g t h e t h eor y
d evelop ed in t h is st u dy is t o in vest iga t e t h e
d iffer en ces a m on g gr ou p m ea n s. T h e fir st
a n a ly sis focu ses on t h e fir st t wo h y p ot h eses
a n d t h e st r a t e gy -a u t on om y r ela t ion s h ip s. As
sh ow n in F igu r e 2, t h e sch ools in cell E 1 h ave
h igh er m ea n effect iven ess scor es t h a n t h ose
in cell E 3: t h is is in a ccor d a n ce w it h
Auto no my
Auto no my
Lo w
Inte rnal
The marginal tests
In a ddition to th e gen er a l tests, fu r th er a n a lyses wer e n eeded to explor e th e th eor y in ca ses
wh er e th e gen er a l tests wer e in a dequ a te. Th e
follow in g sta tistics r evea l som e ten den cies
w ith r espect to effectiven ess of cer ta in gr ou ps.
Mea n effectiven ess:
1a for a ll h igh a u ton om y u n its: 5.46
(n = 48)
1b for a ll low a u ton om y u n its: 5.01
(n = 47)
2a for a ll exter n a l/ lon g pla n n er s: 5.48
(n = 39)
2b. for a ll in ter n a l/ sh or t pla n n er s: 5.07
(n = 56)
Table I
Summary o f hypo the se s and te st statistic
Hypothesized effective group
Hypo- Description
thesis of group
x
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
Prospec tor
and high
autonomy
Defender and
low autonomy
Prospec tor
and external
planning
Defender and
internal
planning
Prospec tor,
high autonomy
and external
planning
Defender, low
autonomy
and internal
planning
n
5.38
1.11
29
5.29
1.20
24
5.37
1.11
24
5.30
1.20
28
5.41
1.25
16
5.00
1.19
18
Hypothesized less effective group
Description
of group
x
SD
n
Prospec tor
and low
autonomy
Defender and
high autonomy
Prospec tor
and internal
planning
Defender and
external
planning
Prospec tor,
low autonomy
or internal
planning
Defender, high
high autonomy
or external
planning
z or t
p
4.72
1.11
23
z = 2.14
0.025
5.59
1.06
19
neg.
na
4.84
1.14
28
z = 1.71
0.05
5.64
1.01
15
neg.
na
4.94
1.08
36
z = 1.35
0.10
5.73
1.01
25
neg.
na
[ 251 ]
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Figure 2
Gro up e ffe c tive ne ss me ans, by auto no my
Pro spe c to r
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
High
E1
5 .3 8
E2
5 .5 9
E3
4 .7 2
E4
5 .2 9
H y p ot h esis 1. On t h e ot h er h a n d sch ools in
cell E 4 h ave lesser m ea n effect iven ess scor es
t h a n t h ose in cell E 2: t h is is con t r a r y t o
H y p ot h esis 2.
For sim plicity, th e pa ir of cells com pa r ed in
Hypoth esis 1 (E 1 a n d E 3) w ill be ca lled th e
“pr ospector ” gr ou p a n d th e pa ir in H2 (E 4 a n d
E 2) th e “defen der ” gr ou p. Th e differ en ce
between th e “pr ospector ” gr ou p com pa r ison
(E 1 – E 3) is gr ea ter th a n th e “defen der ” com pa r ison (E 2 – E 4). To expr ess th is a n a lysis
a lgebr a ica lly:
(E 1 – E 3) > (E 2 – E 4)
or 5.38 – 4.72 > 5.59 – 5.29
or 0.66
> 0.30
wh ich is tr u e. Th e differ en ce (between 0.66
a n d 0.30) of 0.36 w a s tested by ca lcu la tin g a
sta n da r d devia tion of 0.453 a n d gen er a tin g a
test sta tistic of 0.80 wh ich is n ot sta tistica lly
sign ifica n t.
Th e fin a l a n a lysis focu ses on th e secon d two
h ypoth eses a n d th e str a te gy-pla n n in g
r ela tion sh ips. Th e gr ou p m ea n s in F igu r e 3
r evea l th a t sch ools in cell E 1 h ave h igh er
m ea n effectiven ess scor es th a n th ose in cell
E 3: th is is in a ccor da n ce w ith H3. On th e
oth er h a n d sch ools in cell E 4 h ave lesser
m ea n effectiven ess scor es th a n th ose in cell
E 2: th is is con tr a r y to H4.
However, th e differ en ce between th e
“pr ospector ” gr ou p com pa r ison (E 1 – E 3) is
gr ea ter th a n th e “defen der ” com pa r ison (E 2 –
E 4). To expr ess th is a n a lysis a lgebr a ica lly:
Figure 3
Gro up e ffe c tive ne ss me ans, by planning mo de
Exte rnal
Pro spe c to r
De fe nde rs
E1
5 .3 7
E2
5 .6 5
E3
4 .8 4
E4
5 .3 0
Planning
Inte rnal
[ 252 ]
(E 2 – E 4 )
5.65 – 5.30
0.35
De fe nde rs
Auto no my
Lo w
(E 1 – E 3 ) >
or 5.37 – 4.84 >
or 0.53
>
wh ich is tr u e. Th e differ en ce (between 0.53
a n d 0.35) of 0.18 w a s tested by ca lcu la tin g a
sta n da r d devia tion of 0.453 a n d gen er a tin g a
test sta tistic of 0.42 wh ich is n ot sta tistica lly
sign ifica n t. Th ese in cr em en ta l a n a lyses sh ow
som e wea k su ppor t for th e u n der lyin g th eor y
beca u se th ey sh ow th a t th e h ypoth esized
differ en ces for pr ospector str a te gies (wh ich
a r e in th e pr edicted dir ection ) a r e gr ea ter
th a n th e differ en ces for defen der str a te gies
(in th e opposite dir ection ).
Discussion
Deter m in in g wh eth er on e str a te gy is
a bsolu tely m or e effective th a n a n oth er is
beyon d th e scope of th is stu dy. Ra th er, a s a
con tin gen cy stu dy, th e a n a lyses in th is stu dy
wer e gea r ed to test con tin gen cies th a t “fit”
w ith a given str a te gy. Most of th is section
discu sses th e fin din gs r ela tive to th ese con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips. Th e pr em iss of th ese
stu dies is th a t th e str a te gy of th e sch ool or
su bu n it is for m u la ted a t a h igh er level (u n iver sity or cor por a te level). Con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips a r e sou gh t – th r ou gh th eor y bu ildin g a n d em pir ica l a n a lysis – th a t best su ppor t
th e ch osen str a te gy for effective im plem en ta tion by th e su bu n it.
The prospector strategy
H1, H3 a n d H5 dea lin g w ith th e pr ospector
str a te gy wer e su ppor ted by th e da ta a n d
a n a lyses in th is stu dy. Th e ba sic con clu sion s
to be dr aw n fr om th ese a n a lyses a n d discu ssion s of th ese fi n din gs a r e pr esen ted below.
Im plica tion s of th e fin din gs for pr a ctition er s
a n d r esea r ch er s a r e discu ssed la ter in th e
fin a l section of th e pa per.
H1. P r ospector str a te gies a r e a ssocia ted w ith
su per ior per for m a n ce wh en a ccom pa n ied by h igh a u ton om y of th e dea n .
Th ese fin din gs su ppor t th e gen er a l descr iption s of th e pr ospector str a te gy fi r st deta iled
by Miles a n d Sn ow (1978). For exa m ple, Miles
a n d Sn ow sta te th a t th e pr ospector develops
“a low de gr ee of str u ctu r a l for m a liza tion ”, its
“con tr ol system sh ou ld be decen tr a lized”,
a n d “per m its in dividu a ls to exer cise a con sider a ble a m ou n t of self-con tr ol” (1978, p. 62-3).
Th ese con dition s a r e im por ta n t beca u se
pr ospector s n eed to con cen tr a te on exter n a l
clien ts, poten tia l m a r k ets a n d em er gin g
tr en ds; th ey n eed to be fr ee to in n ova te a n d
ta k e ca lcu la ted r isk s. For th ese r ea son s
pr ospector s sh ou ld be a s fr ee a s possible fr om
bu r ea u cr a tic con tr ols – th ey sh ou ld h ave
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
a u ton om y to im plem en t pr ospectin g a ctivities. Th ese idea s a r e sim ila r to Peter s a n d
Wa ter m a n ’s (1980) “excellen ce ch a r a cter istics” of “closen ess to th e cu stom er ” a n d
“a u ton om y a n d en tr epr en eu r sh ip”.
Th ese fin din gs a lso a gr ee w ith r esea r ch
fin din gs in th e bu sin ess str a tegy liter a tu r e.
Gu pta (1987) sh owed th a t differ en tia tion
str a tegies a r e a ssocia ted w ith m or e effective
im plem en ta tion in decen tr a lized con texts,
wh er ea s low -cost str a tegies a r e better w ith
cen tr a liza tion . Differ en tia tion str a tegies
(Por ter, 1980) a r e sim ila r to pr ospector s in th a t
both str a tegies r equ ir e a n ou tw a r d, cu stom er
or ien ta tion . Br ock a n d Zeith a m l (1988) a lso
fou n d sim ila r r esu lts in a stu dy of 50
su per m a r kets a n d th eir m a n a ger s. Th ey fou n d
th a t differ en tia tion str ategies wer e m or e effective w ith h igh a u ton om y th a n w ith low a u ton om y.
H3. P r ospector str a te gies a r e a ssocia ted w ith
su per ior per for m a n ce wh en a ccom pa n ied by exter n a lly or ien ted lon ger -ter m
pla n n in g.
As a r gu ed a bove, a n sch ool’s n eeds for in for m a tion a n d con tr ol depen d on its str a te gy.
Th e pr ospector – bein g con sta n tly on th e
lookou t for n ew cu stom er s a n d pr odu cts – h a s
a h igh er n eed for exter n a l in for m a tion a n d a
lower n eed for con tr ol th a n th e m or e in ter n a lly or ien ted defen der.
“...differen tiation strategies are associated w ith m ore effectiv e
im plem en tation in decen traliz ed con tex ts, w h ereas low -cost
strategies are better w ith cen traliz ation ...”
On ce a ga in th ese fin din gs su ppor t Miles a n d
Sn ow ’s (1978, p. 61) pr escr iption s con cer n in g
pla n n in g for th e pr ospector str a te gy: “con tin u ou sly m on itor s a n eclectic a r r ay of exter n a l
or ga n iza tion s a n d even ts”; “n ecessita tes a
com pr eh en sive pla n n in g a ppr oa ch ”; a n d,
“feedba ck fr om th e m a r k et a n d oth er r eleva n t
en vir on m en ta l elem en ts”.
H5. P r ospector str a te gies a r e a ssocia ted w ith
su per ior effectiven ess wh en a ccom pa n ied by h igh a u ton om y a n d exter n a lly
or ien ted, lon ger -ter m pla n n in g.
In a ddition to th e str a te gy-a u ton om y a n d
str a te gy-pla n n in g fits a ddr essed a bove,
h ypoth esis 5 con fir m s th a t a u ton om y a n d
exter n a l pla n n in g a lso fi t w ith ea ch oth er in
su ppor tin g th e pr ospector str a te gy. Th is
a llow s on e to iden tify th is con fi gu r a tion of
pr ospectin g + h igh a u ton om y + in ter n a l
pla n n in g a s bein g su per ior to oth er
com bin a tion s of th e pr ospector str a te gy,
a u ton om y a n d pla n n in g oper a tion a lized in
th is stu dy.
The defender strategy
Th e th r ee hypoth eses dea lin g with th e
defen der str ategy wer e n ot su ppor ted. In fa ct,
ea ch test of th ese hypoth eses pr odu ced n ega tive test scor es: th e gr ou p effectiven ess m ea n s
wer e opposite to th e h ypoth esized effects.
Possible r ea son s for th ese r esu lts a r e discu ssed
in th e followin g two pa r a gr aph s, a s well u n der
“Recom m en dation s for fu tu r e r esea r ch ”.
H2 . The de fe nde r strate gy and auto no my
As su ggested ea r lier, th er e is som e th eor etica l
a n d em pir ica l su ppor t for a defen der str a tegy
bein g m or e effective if a ccom pa n ied by low
a u ton om y (Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978; Wh ite, 1986).
However, th e da ta a n d a n a lyses in th is stu dy
did n ot con fir m th is r ela tion sh ip. On e r ea son
for th is m ay be th e h igh er edu ca tion con text of
th is stu dy, wh ich is su bsta n tia lly differ en t
fr om th e com m er cia l settin gs of pr ior stu dies.
A m a jor distin gu ish in g fea tu r e of h igh er edu ca tion is th e em ph a sis on a u ton om y, ba sed on
th e va lu e of a ca dem ic fr eedom . Th e a u ton om y
of th e pr ofessor a te, a ca dem ic depa r tm en ts
a n d oth er or ga n iza tion s, is a fu n da m en ta l
ten et of h igh er edu ca tion . So h igh er edu ca tion
con texts in wh ich low a u ton om y a r e a ssocia ted w ith effectiven ess m ay be r a r e. For th is
r ea son , h ypoth eses su ch a s th is wh ich investiga te a low a u ton om y situ a tion m ay n ot be
expected to m eet w ith effectiven ess in sch ools.
H4 : The de fe nde r strate gy and planning
Peter son (1980) distin gu ish es between in ter n a l a n d exter n a l or ien ta tion s in pla n n in g. He
sta tes th a t for “m ost in stitu tion s, pla n n in g
n eeds to be sen sitive to both in ter n a l a n d
exter n a l fa ctor s” (p. 119). Th er e is, h owever, a
fu n da m en ta l disa dva n ta ge a ssocia ted w ith
in ter n a l pla n n in g, n a m ely th a t it la ck s a tten tion to exter n a l fa ctor s. Few or ga n iza tion s
a r e u n a ffected by exter n a l fa ctor s. For th ese
r ea son s, in ter n a l pla n n in g gen er a lly m ay be
less h elpfu l to str a te gy im plem en ta tion –
even of defen der str a te gies – th a n exter n a l
pla n n in g. Th is ten den cy wou ld con tr ibu te to
a n expla n a tion of wh y Hypoth esis 4 w a s
r ejected. Im plica tion s of th is fin din g a r e pu r su ed in th e “Recom m en da tion s for fu tu r e
r esea r ch ” section .
Other conclusions
Strate gy
For th is sa m ple, sch ools cla ssified a s defen der s
h a d a h igh er m ea n effectiven ess scor e th a n
pr ospector s. A sim ila r ten den cy w a s fou n d by
Ha m br ick (1983); n a m ely th a t th e h igh costs
involved w ith pr ospectin g a ctivities m a de
th em less pr ofitable a n d th e secu r e n ich es
occu pied by defen der s r esu lted in gen er a lly
h igh er m a r ket sh a r es, econ om ies of sca le a n d
su per ior efficien cy. In fa ct h e con clu des th a t
th e pr ospector str a tegy is n ot m a in ta in a ble in
[ 253 ]
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
th e lon g ter m for th ese r ea son s a n d th a t
pr ospector s m u st even tu a lly sh ift tow a r ds
som e degr ee of defen din g to su r vive.
Auto no my
As r epor ted ea r lier, th e m ea n effectiven ess of
a ll h igh a u ton om y u n its is sign ifica n tly
gr ea ter th a n th a t of a ll low a u ton om y u n its.
Th is su ggests th a t, oth er th in gs equ a l, h igh
a u ton om y is gen er a lly a ssocia ted w ith su per ior effectiven ess r ela tive to low a u ton om y in
th e sa m ple u sed in th is stu dy. Recom m en da tion s for a dm in istr a tor s a n d r esea r ch er s
ba sed on th ese con clu sion s a r e pr esen ted in
th e fin a l section s of th is ch a pter.
Planning mo de s
F u r th er, th e m ea n effectiven ess of a ll exter n a l
pla n n er s is sign ifica n tly gr ea ter th a n a ll u n its
u sin g in ter n a l pla n n in g m odes. Th is su ggests
th a t, oth er th in gs equ a l, exter n a l pla n n in g is
gen er a lly a ssocia ted w ith su per ior effectiven ess r ela tive to in ter n a l pla n n in g in th e
sa m ple u sed in th is stu dy. Recom m en da tion s
for a dm in istr a tor s a n d r esea r ch er s ba sed on
th ese con clu sion s a r e pr esen ted below.
Recommendations
For m a n a ger s im plem en tin g pr ospector -type
str ategies, th e fin din gs of th is stu dy pr ovide
two m a jor im plication s. Fir st, th e stu dy su ggests th at with r espect to sch ool-level decision
m a ker s sh ou ld be a llowed a s m u ch a u ton om y
a s possible. Th is decision a u ton om y h elps to
save tim e at th e sch ool level. Also, it per m its
m a n a ger s th e flexibility to con cen tr ate on
eva lu atin g th e m yr ia d possibilities with
r espect to developin g poten tia l clien t ta r get
m a r kets a n d pr odu ct/ ser vice offer in gs ava ilable to th e sch ool. Th ese a ctivities a r e fu n da m en ta l to th e im plem en tation of a pr ospector
str ategy. Th e possible disa dva n ta ge of th e
con com ita n t loss of con tr ol by u pper -level
m a n a ger s ca n per h aps be ju stified by th e above
a dva n ta ges. In a ddition , it h a s been a r gu ed
th at th e in n ovation n ecessa r y to im plem en t a
pr ospector str ategy su ccessfu lly is stifled by
bu r ea u cr atic con tr ols (Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978).
“...T h is decision au ton om y h elps to sav e tim e at th e sch ool lev el it
per m its m an a gers th e fl ex ibility to con cen trate on evalu atin g th e
m yriad possibilities w ith respect to dev elopin g poten tial clien t target
m ark ets an d produ ct/ service offerin gs available to th e sch ool...”
Th e secon d r ecom m en da tion involves th e
ch oice of pla n n in g a n d con tr ol system s.
Sch ools im plem en tin g exter n a lly or ien ted
pr ospector str a te gies h ave a r ela tively h igh
n eed for exter n a l in for m a tion – in for m a tion
con cer n in g com petin g sch ools, dem ogr a ph ic
[ 254 ]
tr en ds, econ om ic for eca sts a n d oth er m a r k et
in for m a tion (Kotler a n d Mu r ph ey, 1981). F u r th er, th ese types of in for m a tion a r e best ga th er ed w ith a fu tu r e or ien ta tion (Mor r ison et
a l., 1984). Th is stu dy’s em pir ica l a n a lyses
su ppor t th e th eor y th a t lon ger -ter m a n d
exter n a l pla n n in g m odes a r e ben eficia l to th e
im plem en ta tion of pr ospector -type str a te gies.
Alth ou gh th er e a r e su bsta n tia l costs a ssocia ted w ith th ese pla n n in g system s, th e ga in s
in effectiven ess fin din gs su ggest th a t th e
ben efits ou tweigh th e costs.
Th e su ffix “-type” w a s pu r posely a dded to
“pr ospector ” in th is section to br oa den th e
str a tegic con cept a t th is sta ge. Th er e is su ppor t in th e or ga n iza tion a l str ategy liter a tu r e
th a t a few str ategic types beh ave in a sim ila r
w ay w ith r espect to th eir con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips. Gu pta (1987) lin k s th e “differ en tia tion ”
str a tegy a n d th e “bu ild” str ategy. He th en
sh ow s th a t both th ese str a tegies h ave sim ila r
con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips w ith th r ee str u ctu r a l va r ia bles (open n ess, su bjectivity a n d
decen tr a liza tion ) a n d w ith bu sin ess effectiven ess a s th e depen den t va r ia ble. Th ese two
str a tegic types h ave m u ch in com m on w ith
ea ch oth er a n d th e “pr ospector ” type; im por ta n tly, th e em ph a sis on fin din g n ew (a dded)
ba ses for com petition . Also, a ll th r ee str a tegies
a r e a ssocia ted w ith a cu stom er or ien ta tion .
Th u s th er e is som e r ea son to expect th a t differ en tia tion a n d bu ild str a tegies m ay be im plem en ted better w ith h igh a u ton om y a n d w ith
exter n a l pla n n in g system s.
For m a n a ger s im plem en tin g defen der
str a tegies, th e im plica tion s a r e less obviou s.
Th e em pir ica l fin din gs in th is stu dy con tr a dict
th e h ypoth esized r ela tion sh ips. In fa ct, th e
da ta su ggest th a t th e opposite m ay be tr u e; to
w it, defen der str a tegies m ay be im plem en ted
better w ith lon ger -ter m a n d exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g a n d w ith h igh a u ton om y.
Th ese fin din gs seem to con fir m wh a t som e
a u th or s h ave m a in ta in ed a bou t pla n n in g,
n a m ely th a t lon ger -ter m str ategic pla n n in g is
r ecom m en ded for a ll situ a tion s (Br yson , 1988;
Mor r ison et al., 1984; Sh ir ley, 1983).
Con cer n in g a u ton om y, th e fin din g th a t
h igh er levels of a u ton om y a r e a ssocia ted w ith
su per ior levels of effectiven ess fits w ith wh a t
som e w r iter s in th e h igh er edu ca tion a r en a
h ave m a in ta in ed; n a m ely th a t h igh er
edu ca tion is a n a r ea in wh ich a u ton om y is
im por ta n t for execu tion of th e a ca dem ic m ission (Bess, 1988; Ch a ffee a n d Tier n ey, 1988).
Recommendations for future research
Validity o f the the o ry
Is th er e a con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ip between
str a te gy, a u ton om y a n d effectiven ess? Th e
th eor y seem s com pellin g, bu t th e da ta a n d
a n a lyses in th is stu dy len d su ppor t on ly in
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
som e con texts. Som e r ea son s for th is cou ld
involve th e sa m ple of colle ges u sed in th is
stu dy. Aca dem ic fr eedom is su ch a n im por ta n t va lu e th a t a n y dim in u tion of a dea n ’s
a u ton om y m ay be cou n ter -pr odu ctive in th ese
con texts. Or ga n iza tion a l th eor ists con cer n ed
w ith or ga n iza tion s ou tside h igh er edu ca tion
a r e en cou r a ged to test th e sa m e th eor y w ith a
differ en t sa m ple. For h igh er edu ca tion , on e
wou ld lik e to eva lu a te th e effects of va r yin g
levels of a u ton om y, for exa m ple, u sin g th e
m ea su r e in th is stu dy (wh ich gave a n a u ton om y scor e of zer o to 18). Per h a ps sch ools w ith
a scor e of 18 differ fr om th ose w ith 16; per h a ps th e scor e of 7.5 u sed to bifu r ca te th is
sa m ple w a s in a ppr opr ia te. Gr ou pin g h a lf th e
sa m ple in to a “low a u ton om y” cell m ay well
h ave been gr ossly in a ccu r a te; per h a ps fou r
gr ou ps, “low ”, “m oder a te”, “h igh ” a n d “ver y
h igh ” wou ld h ave better r epr esen ted th e
a ctu a l exten t of a u ton om y in th is sa m ple.
Th er e m ay a lso be a sign ifica n t bia s tow a r ds
h igh a u ton om y in h er en t in th e m ea su r e of
effectiven ess in th is stu dy. Assu m in g th a t
dea n s pr efer a u ton om y a n d con tr ol over th eir
sch ool, th ey a r e likely to: r ate th eir sch ools
m or e effective if th ey h ave h a d th e per son a l
a u ton om y to pu r su e th eir ow n idea s a n d
im plem en t str a tegies of th eir ow n ch oice; a n d
con sider th eir sch ools less effective if th ey feel
u n a ble to m a ke th eir ow n decision s, or a r e
fr u str a ted by in stitu tion a l in er tia . Th ese
pr oblem s cou ld be a ddr essed w ith a la r ger
sa m ple, w ith m or e discr im in a tin g in str u m en tation a n d m or e soph istica ted sta tistica l tech n iqu es.
“...On ly th e m ost w ell-establish ed sch ools m ay b e able to effectiv ely
im plem en t a d efen d er stra teg y w ith ou t a n ex ter n a l pla n n in g
or ien ta tion ; ex ter n a l pla n n in g of va r iou s for m s m ay b e n eed ed for
th e m a jor ity of in stitu tion s...”
Is th er e a con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ip between
str a te gy, pla n n in g a n d effectiven ess? On ce
a ga in , th e th eor y seem s com pellin g, bu t th is
stu dy w a s a ble to su ppor t it for som e str a tegies on ly. On e r ea son m ay be th a t exter n a l
pla n n in g is su ch a n essen tia l m a n a ger ia l
pr ocess th a t it is n ecessa r y in th e va st
m a jor ity of con texts. Or, on ce a ga in , it m ay be
th a t th is pa r ticu la r set of bu sin ess sch ool
con texts in th e cu r r en t com petitive envir on m en t gen er a lly r equ ir e a n exter n a l or ien ta tion .
P la n n in g ta k in g both in ter n a l a n d exter n a l
fa ctor s in to a ccou n t is m ost com pr eh en sive
a n d is lik ely to be m ost effective in m ost con texts (Mor r ison et a l., 1984; Peter son , 1980). To
fin d th e r ela tively r a r e con texts in wh ich
in ter n a l types of pla n n in g m ay be pr efer a ble
wou ld r equ ir e a m or e com plex th eor y, a
la r ger sa m ple a n d pr oba bly a w ider r a n ge of
m ea su r es a n d a n a lyses. For in sta n ce, a cceptin g th a t a ll pr ospector s n eed exter n a l pla n n in g, on e m ay distin gu ish between th e pla n n in g con tin gen cies of va r iou s defen der s on
th e ba sis of oth er va r ia bles. On ly th e m ost
well-esta blish ed sch ools m ay be a ble to effectively im plem en t a defen der str a te gy w ith ou t
a n exter n a l pla n n in g or ien ta tion ; exter n a l
pla n n in g of va r iou s for m s m ay be n eeded for
th e m a jor ity of in stitu tion s. It is lik ely th a t
m ea n GMAT scor es cou ld h elp distin gu ish
a m on g th ose sch ools th a t r equ ir e exter n a l
pla n n in g m or e th a n oth er s. Gen er a lly,
sch ools w ith th e h igh est GMAT scor es a r e
better esta blish ed a n d ca n m or e sa fely con cen tr a te on in ter n a l clien t ba ses. Oth er
sch ools pr oba bly still r equ ir e exter n a l,
lon ger -r a n ge pla n n in g, even wh en im plem en tin g a defen der str a te gy. Th u s th e decision between pla n n in g m odes sh ou ld pr oba bly be on e of r ela tive em ph a sis, n ot a n
“eith er -or ” ch oice: som e in ter n a lly or ien ted
pla n n in g a n d som e exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g is pr oba bly n eeded in m ost con texts.
F u r th er stu dy is n eeded to explor e th ese r ela tive em ph a ses in va r iou s con texts.
In cr em en ta l a n a lyses (r em ovin g m a in
effects of gr ou p m em ber sh ip) su ggest th a t
th er e m ay be som e va lidity to th ese th eor ies
th a t th e cu r r en t oper a tion a liza tion s, sa m ple
a n d sta tistica l tech n iqu es h ave fa iled to
u n cover. Th ese a n a lyses a r e n ot con clu sive
bu t do sh ow a ten den cy (a lbeit sta tistica lly
in sign ifi ca n t) su ppor tin g th e th eor ized r ela tion sh ips, n a m ely:
• h igh a u ton om y h a s a r ela tively str on ger
positive in flu en ce on th e effectiven ess
of pr ospector s th a n it h a s on defen der s;
and
• exter n a l pla n n in g h a s a r ela tively str on ger
positive in flu en ce on th e effectiven ess of
pr ospector s th a n it h a s on defen der s.
Th ese tests su ggest th a t th er e m ay be ca ses in
wh ich H2, H4 a n d H6 wou ld be su ppor ted.
Th e ch a llen ge for r esea r ch er s is to fin d a
su ita ble sa m ple a n d to em ploy fin er
m ea su r es a n d a n a lyses th a n wer e u sed in th is
stu dy.
Other methodological issues
Th is r esea r ch design obviou sly exclu ded m a n y
va r iables th at cou ld h ave h a d a bea r in g on th e
fin din gs. Am on g th ese, th er e m ay well be som e
“m eta -con tin gen cy va r iables” th at play a
deter m in in g r ole. For in sta n ce, ta k in g th e
econ om ic cycle a s su ch a m eta -con tin gen cy
va r iable, in tim es of r ecession a n d con sequ en t
r edu ction s of fu n din g to h igh er edu ca tion ,
a ggr essive exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g m ay
[ 255 ]
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
be n eeded for a ll str ategies. Sim ila r ly, sch ools
with establish ed r esou r ce pools – typica lly
defen der s – a r e h a r m ed less by th ese con texts
a n d wou ld th u s be m or e effective.
Th er e cou ld a lso be a ca se of r ever se ca u sa lity a m on g som e of th e va r ia bles. For exa m ple,
a sch ool th a t – for a n y r ea son – per for m s
effectively m ay be a llowed th e leew ay to
pr ospect a n d m ay be gr a n ted h igh er a u ton om y. Th is wou ld a ccou n t for th e r ela tively
la r ge n u m ber s of effective sch ools clu ster ed
in th e pr ospector a n d h igh a u ton om y
cells.
Th e a bility to distin gu ish pr ospector s – or
de gr ee of pr ospectin g – cou ld be en h a n ced by
r ecor din g th e r a te of in n ova tion s by th e
sch ool. E xa m ples of su ch in n ova tion s wou ld
be n ew pr ogr a m m es a n d differ en t stu den t (or
oth er clien t) m a r k ets ta r geted.
Th e low r espon se r a te pr om pts qu estion s
a bou t th e gen er a liza bility of th e fi n din gs. For
exa m ple, th e sa m ple con sists of a sign ifi ca n t
n u m ber of pr iva te colle ges: 31 of 95, or 32.6
per cen t (sim ila r to th e 29.9 per cen t in th e
popu la tion ). However, it is possible th a t th e
in ter n a l str u ctu r a l r ela tion sh ips – lik e a u ton om y – of pr iva te colle ges differ fr om th ose of
pu blic colle ges. So, for exa m ple, a “pr iva te”
pr ospector w ith low a u ton om y m ay be m or e
effective th a t a “pu blic” pr ospector w ith sim ila r a u ton om y.
Th is stu dy m ea su r es a u ton om y of th e dea n
of a n sch ool. However, it m ay be r eleva n t to
n ote to wh a t exten t ch a ir per son s, depa r tm en ts h ea ds, fa cu lty a n d sta ff w ith in th e
sch ool a r e a u ton om ou s. For exa m ple, it wou ld
be in ter estin g to m ea su r e wh eth er on e pr ogr a m m e w ith in a sch ool is m or e a u ton om ou s
th a n a n oth er ; a n d to en qu ir e wh a t th e cor r ela tes of th ese differ en ces a r e.
F in a lly, it is u n k n ow n wh eth er bu sin ess
sch ools a r e typica l of oth er colle ges w ith in
u n iver sities. Th u s th e gen er a liza bility of
th ese fin din gs to or ga n iza tion s w ith in th e
h igh er edu ca tion sector n eeds to be
qu estion ed.
References
Ada m s, J .J . (1977), “Th e m a n a gem en t of pla n n in g”, in Row la n d, A.W. (E d.), Ha n d b ook of
In stitu tion a l A dva n cem en t, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n
F r a n cisco, CA, pp. 455-63.
An der son , C.R. a n d Zeith a m l, C.P. (1984), “Sta ge of
th e pr odu ct life cycle, bu sin ess str a te gy a n d
bu sin ess per for m a n ce”, A ca d em y of M a n a gem en t J ou r n a l, Vol. 27, pp. 5-24.
An soff, H.I. (1977), “Th e sta te of pr a ctice in pla n n in g system s”, S loa n M a n a gem en t R eview ,
Win ter, pp. 1-24.
Ba r r y, D. a n d E lm es, M. (1997), “Str a te gy r etold:
tow a r d a n a r r a tive view of str a te gic
[ 256 ]
discou r se”, A ca d em y of M a n a gem en t R eview ,
Vol. 22 N o. 2, pp. 429-52.
Ben sim on , E .M. (1993), “N ew pr esiden t’s in itia l
a ction : tr a n sa ction a l a n d tr a n sfor m a tion a l
lea der sh ip”, J ou r n a l for High er Ed u ca tion
ef fectiveness: a contingency study of business
schools
David M . Brock
De partme nt o f Inte rnatio nal Busine ss, Unive rsity o f Auc kland, Auc kland,
Ne w Z e aland
The aim of this project was to
investigate whether combinations of strategies, planning
modes and levels of autonomy
are associated with superior
college effectiveness relative
to other combinations of
these variables. It was
hypothesized that a college
pursuing a prospector strategy – with an emphasis on
continuously seeking new
client segments and/or developing new offerings – would
be more effective with longerterm and more externally
oriented planning, and with
more autonomy for its dean.
Conversely, a college pursuing a defender strategy –
relying on traditional client
segments and offerings –
would be more effective with
shorter-term and more internally oriented planning, and
with less autonomy for its
dean. Generally, the hypotheses pertaining to the prospector-type strategy were supported, while those involving
the defender strategy were
not supported. Discusses
implications for practitioners
and researchers.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [ 1997] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 248 ]
Accor din g to Rober t Bu r ton , “h im th a t m a k es
sh oes go ba r efoot h im self (sic)” (Oxfor d Un iver sity P r ess, 1992). Applyin g th is m a xim to
bu sin ess sch ools on e m ay won der h ow well
m a n a ged th ey m ay be….
Un iver sities cu r r en tly fa ce im m ea su r a ble
com plexities a n d tu r bu len ce in th eir exter n a l
en vir on m en ts (Ca m er on a n d Tsch ir h a r t,
1992; Gu m por t, 1993; Heydin ger, 1994). Th eir
in ter n a l or ga n iza tion s a r e con sequ en tly
u n der pr essu r e to a da pt in a n effective w ay
(Ben sim on , 1993; Br ow n , 1995; Sla u gh ter,
1993). Aca dem ic a dm in istr a tor s fa ce per plexin g pr oblem s; a n d th e a ccom pa n yin g
ch a llen ges for th ose doin g r esea r ch in h igh er
edu ca tion m a n a gem en t a r e th u s especia lly
vexin g.
In eva lu a tin g th e a dm in istr a tive th eor ists
wh o dom in a ted or ga n iza tion a l th eor y du r in g
th e fir st h a lf of th is cen tu r y, Scott (1981, p. 67)
con clu des th a t th e m a jor fa u lt w a s “th eir
fa ilu r e to develop con dition a l gen er a liza tion s
– sta tem en ts th a t specify th e lim its of ...
a pplica bility to pa r ticu la r situ a tion s or types
of or ga n iza tion s”. A con tin gen cy a ppr oa ch to
or ga n iza tion a n d str a te gy r esea r ch h a s
becom e popu la r pa r tly a s a con sequ en ce of
th ese sen tim en ts. In fa ct, qu estion s of con tin gen cy a n d “fit” a bou n ded a s em pir ica l
r esea r ch developed in th e or ga n iza tion a l
str a te gy liter a tu r e fr om th e la te 1970s a n d
th r ou gh th e 1980s. For exa m ple, or ga n iza tion a l str a te gy r esea r ch er s sh owed th a t str a te gy sh ou ld fit th e str u ctu r e (Th or elli, 1977);
th e m a n a ger s (Gu pta a n d Govin da r a ja n ,
1984); sh ou ld fit th e exten t of r esou r ce sh a r in g
(Gu pta a n d Govin da r a ja n , 1986); a n d str a te gy
sh ou ld fit w ith th e sta ge of th e pr odu ct life
cycle (An der son a n d Zeith a m l, 1984). Th is
pr oject in vestiga ted con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips a m on g colle ge str a te gy a n d two in ter n a l va r ia bles – n a m ely a u ton om y a n d pla n n in g.
Au ton om y h a s been ch osen a s th e str u ctu r a l va r ia ble in th is stu dy beca u se it sign ifi ca n tly in flu en ces wor k -r ela ted beh aviou r a n d
h a s sign ifica n t bea r in g on str a te gy im plem en ta tion a n d pla n n in g effectiven ess (Br ock
a n d Zeith a m l, 1988; Wh ite, 1986). A r eview of
liter a tu r e on th e topic of a u ton om y follow s in
th e n ext two section s. F u r th er, pla n n in g h a s
been a con tr over sia l issu e a m on g m a n a ge-
m en t sch ola r s for som e tim e n ow (Ba r r y a n d
E lm es, 1997; F ayol, 1949; Min tzber g, 1994;
Wildavsk y, 1973). Som e of th is con tr over sy
w ill be ou tlin ed a n d a solu tion su ggested a n d
tested.
Autonomy
Au ton om y is th e a m ou n t of day-to-day fr eedom th a t a n or ga n iza tion a l m em ber h a s to
m a k e decision s on th e job a n d is a n a n a logu e
of a u th or ity (In k son et a l., 1970). In th e Aston
stu dies, cen tr a liza tion a n d low a u ton om y
wer e fou n d to be str on gly r ela ted to con cen tr a tion of a u th or ity, sta n da r diza tion of
per son n el pr ocedu r es, low fu n ction a l specia liza tion , per cen ta ge of su per or din a tes a n d
per cen ta ge of n on -wor k flow per son n el (Holdaw ay et a l., 1975).
Ha ck m a n a n d Oldh a m (1976) sh ow th a t
a u ton om y (a lon g w ith oth er cor e job dim en sion s lik e ta sk sign ifica n ce a n d feedba ck )
pr om ote positive m otiva tion , per for m a n ce,
sa tisfa ction , a bsen teeism a n d tu r n over ou tcom es. Wh ite (1986) fou n d th a t cer ta in str a tegies wh ich r equ ir e h igh levels of con tr ol pr odu ce better r esu lts w ith low r a th er th a n h igh
a u ton om y. In a sim ila r vein , Gu pta (1987) a lso
sh owed th a t th ese str a te gies a r e better w ith
cen tr a liza tion (low a u ton om y), wh ile str a tegies wh ich n eed in n ova tion a n d cu stom er
or ien ta tion a r e m or e effective in decen tr a lized (h igh ly a u ton om ou s) con texts.
Planning
P la n n in g seem s lik e su ch a good idea . It
sh ou ld h ave m a n y ben eficia l effects to or ga n iza tion s (An soff, 1977; Br yson , 1988). As F ayol
(1949) h a s sa id, “Th e pr epa r a tion of th e pla n
of a ction is on e of th e m ost difficu lt a n d m ost
im por ta n t m a tter s of ever y bu sin ess…”
(p. 86). Yet m a n y r esea r ch stu dies h ave fa iled
to sh ow th ese ben efits (F u lm er a n d Ru e, 1974;
Gr in yer a n d N or bu r n , 1975; Pea r ce et a l., 1987;
Robin son a n d Pea r ce, 1983). P a r t of th e pr oblem is cer ta in ly m eth odologica l: Pea r ce et a l.
(1987) discu ss th e la ck of a tten tion to con textu a l in flu en ces; in con sisten cies in oper a tion a liza tion of pla n n in g; m ea su r em en t
va lidity; ign or in g im plem en ta tion fa ctor s,
tim e fr a m es a n d size effects a s th e m eth odologica l pr oblem s m a n ifested in th is a r ea of
r esea r ch . However, a n oth er pr oblem w ith
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
m ost of th e r esea r ch in th e a r ea of th e pla n n in g-per for m a n ce lin k a ge is th a t it h a s n ot
discr im in a ted a m on g m odes or a ppr oa ch es to
pla n n in g. Th e a ssu m ption seem s to h ave been
th a t “m or e pla n n in g is better ”, or th a t lon ger ter m , str a te gic pla n n in g sh ou ld wor k in a ll
con texts. We qu estion th is view a n d a sk
wh eth er sim ple, sh or ter -ter m , in ter n a lly
or ien ted pla n n in g m ay be better su ited to
som e con texts th a n m or e ela bor a te
a ppr oa ch es to pla n n in g.
Strategy, autonomy and effectiveness
Au ton om y is a n especia lly im por ta n t issu e in
today’s cu ltu r e of em power m en t, in dividu a l
r igh ts a n d in cr ea sed levels of edu ca tion . For
exa m ple, in th e a ca dem e we ch er ish th e r igh t
to deter m in e ou r ow n cu r r icu la , r esea r ch
a gen da , h ir in g decision s a n d eva lu a tion sta n da r ds. However, a s a str u ctu r a l va r ia ble it is
possible th a t a n in dividu a l’s level of a u ton om y in a n or ga n iza tion m ay be in a ppr opr ia te.
It is com m on to h ea r som eon e com pla in th a t
th ey cou ld h ave m a n a ged a situ a tion m or e
effectively if th ey h a d n ot been bou n d by so
m u ch r ed ta pe – a n exa m ple of too little a u ton om y. Con ver sely, on e ca n en visa ge a situ a tion
wh er e a m a n a ger h a s th e a u th or ity, bu t
m a k es a ser ies of ill-a dvised decision s r esu ltin g in squ a n der ed r esou r ces – a n exa m ple of
too m u ch a u ton om y.
“...It is com m on to h ea r som eon e com pla in th a t th ey cou ld
h a v e m a n a ged a situ a tion m ore effectiv ely if th ey h a d n ot
b een b ou n d b y so m u ch red ta pe...”
For effectiven ess of a n or ga n iza tion , it h elps
if th e str u ctu r e su ppor ts th e str a te gy. For
in sta n ce, a str a te gy th a t em ph a sizes in n ova tion – lik e th e Miles a n d Sn ow (1978)
“pr ospector ” str a te gy – is best im plem en ted
in a str u ctu r e th a t gives or ga n iza tion a l m em ber s th e fr eedom a n d a u th or ity to tr y differ en t a ppr oa ch es. Conver sely, a str a te gy th a t
involves com petin g on th e ba sis of efficien cy
– lik e th e Miles a n d Sn ow (1978) “defen der ”
str a te gy – w ill be best im plem en ted if th e
str u ctu r e r ein for ces str ict con tr ols a n d
a ccou n ta bility over wor k sta n da r ds, pr odu ction , in ven tor ies a n d cu stom er ser vice.
Th ese r ela tion sh ips m ay be r ein for ced by
th e possibility of sh a r in g r esou r ces. A
defen der str a te gy, for exa m ple, m ay ben efi t
fr om th e econ om ies of sca le to be ga in ed on
su ppor t, tech n ica l a n d a dm in istr a tive fu n ction s (lik e da ta pr ocessin g a n d pu r ch a sin g) of
th e or ga n iza tion , th u s cu ttin g costs a n d
in cr ea sin g efficien cy. An em ph a sis on sh a r ed
ser vices a n d r esou r ces, h owever, m ay
in ten sify th e n eed to en su r e con sisten cy
a m on g u n its. Th ese pr essu r es wou ld r equ ir e
th a t u n its be co-or din a ted a n d con tr olled to
en su r e th ese ser vices a n d r esou r ces a r e
sh a r ed a n d u sed efficien tly by a ll. Con ver sely,
beca u se of th e n eed for flexibility a n d a u ton om y, a n em ph a sis on sh a r ed r esou r ces m ay be
n eith er n ecessa r y n or desir a ble for im plem en tin g a pr ospector str a te gy.
Resea r ch fi n din gs h ave fou n d th a t low -cost
str a te gies pr odu ce better r esu lts w ith low
r a th er th a n h igh a u ton om y. Gu pta (1987)
sh owed th a t differ en tia tion str a te gies a r e
a ssocia ted w ith m or e effective im plem en ta tion in decen tr a lized con texts, wh ile low -cost
str a te gies a r e better w ith cen tr a liza tion . Th e
follow in g pa ir of h ypoth eses su m m a r ize th ese
r ela tion sh ips:
H1. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g pr ospector str a te gies, h igh a u ton om y w ill be
a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter effectiven ess
th a n low a u ton om y.
H2. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g
defen der str a te gies, low a u ton om y w ill
be a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter effectiven ess
th a n h igh a u ton om y.
Strategy, planning and effectiveness
P la n n in g is th a t pa r t of th e m a n a gem en t
pr ocess th a t a ttem pts to fin d th e best cou r se
of a ction for a n in stitu tion (Ada m s, 1977).
P la n n in g m ay be sh or t-, m ediu m -, or lon gter m . Da ft (1988) defin es th e sh or t ter m a s
per iods of on e yea r or less; th e in ter m edia te(or m ediu m ) ter m is two yea r s; a n d th e lon g
ter m is th r ee yea r s or m or e. An oth er distin ction in pla n n in g m ode th a t is u sefu l is in ter n a l ver su s exter n a l or ien ta tion (Peter son ,
1980). Tr a dition a l yea r -to-yea r bu dgetin g is a
ba sic for m of in ter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g
th a t is com m on to m a n y in stitu tion s. Mor e
con tem por a r y str a te gic pla n n in g m odes ta k e
exter n a l fa ctor s (lik e dem ogr a ph ic tr en ds,
in du str y developm en ts, com petitor s a n d
politica l tr en ds) in to a ccou n t.
Th e th eor y in th is pr oject is ba sed on th e
in ter n a l ver su s exter n a l or ien ta tion , bu t is
a lso a ppr opr ia te for a sh or t- ver su s lon g-ter m
cla ssifica tion . Th e con tin gen cies a n d cor r ela tes in th is pr oject a r e th e sa m e for in ter n a l
a n d for sh or t-ter m pla n n in g, a s well a s for
exter n a l a n d for lon g-ter m pla n n in g. Gen er a lly, exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g m odes –
lik e str a te gic pla n n in g – ten d to be lon ger
ter m (Br yson , 1988). Con ver sely, in ter n a lly
or ien ted system s – lik e tr a dition a l bu dgetin g
a n d pr oject pla n n in g system s – a r e u su a lly
con fin ed to th e sh or ter ter m . For con ven ien ce
we u se th e ter m s “in ter n a l” to r efer to in ter n a lly or ien ted a n d sh or t-r a n ge pla n n in g
[ 249 ]
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
m odes a n d “exter n a l” to r efer to exter n a lly
or ien ted a n d lon ger -r a n ge pla n n in g.
P la n n in g h a s a n u m ber of a dva n ta ges to th e
or ga n iza tion . For in sta n ce, pla n n in g h elps
th e str a te gy-m a k in g pr ocesses by pr ovidin g a
sou r ce of in for m a tion con cer n in g th e exter n a l en vir on m en t. P la n s a lso ser ve a s sta n da r ds a ga in st wh ich to m ea su r e a n d th u s
con trol, per for m a n ce. Th ese pla n s a r e th u s
in ter n a l a n d a r e gen er a lly sh or t-ter m .
An or ga n ization ’s n eed for in for m ation a n d
con tr ol depen ds u pon its str ategy. For
in sta n ce, a “pr ospector ” or ga n ization – bein g
con sta n tly on th e lookou t for n ew cu stom er s
a n d pr odu cts – h a s a h igh n eed for exter n a l
in for m ation bu t a lesser n eed for con tr ol. F u r th er, lon g-ter m pla n n in g is n eeded to or ga n ize
th e offer in gs of a or ga n ization to m eet th e ever
ch a n gin g n eeds of th ese ch a n gin g m a r kets.
On th e oth er h a n d a “defen der ” str a te gy –
pr eoccu pied w ith ser vin g th e sa m e ta r get
popu la tion better a n d m or e efficien tly – h a s a
h igh n eed for con tr ol over its in ter n a l
pr ocesses. Yea r -to-yea r bu dgetin g pr ocesses –
typica l in ter n a l pla n s – m eet th ese n eeds.
“...a prospector stra teg y is b etter im plem en ted w ith a n
ex ter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g system a n d a d efen d er stra teg y
b etter w ith a n in ter n a l or ien ta tion ...”
Th ese idea s a r e ger m a n e to Miles a n d Sn ow s’
(1978, pp. 43, 61) explica tion of th eir str a te gic
typology. On e wou ld th u s pr edict th a t a
pr ospector str a te gy is better im plem en ted
w ith a n exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g system
a n d a defen der str a te gy better w ith a n in ter n a l or ien ta tion .
H3. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g pr ospector str a te gies, exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g w ill be a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter effectiven ess th a n in ter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g.
H4. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g
defen der str a te gies, in ter n a lly or ien ted
pla n n in g w ill be a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter
effectiven ess th a n exter n a lly or ien ted
pla n n in g.
Strategy, autonomy, planning and
effectiveness
Th e developm en t of or ga n iza tion a l typologies
(Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978), a r ch etypes (Miller
a n d F r iesen , 1977), Gesta lts a n d con figu r a tion s (Miller a n d F r iesen , 1984) h ave been
m a jor bu ildin g block s in th e u n der sta n din g
of or ga n iza tion a l str a te gy. Th is str ea m of
r esea r ch h a s sh ow n th a t cer ta in com bin a tion s of str a te gies, con text a n d or ga n iza tion a l
str u ctu r es a r e m or e via ble th a n oth er s. Th e
lin k a ges descr ibed a bove ca n be com bin ed
[ 250 ]
a n d exten ded by dedu ctive logic to for m a
m or e com pr eh en sive m odel. Th u s, bu ildin g
on th e th eor y developed in th e ea r lier
h ypoth eses on e wou ld expect to fin d a
pr ospector str a te gy im plem en ted m or e effectively w ith a n a u ton om ou s str u ctu r e a n d
exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g; a n d a defen der
str a te gy wou ld be better w ith less a u ton om y
a n d in ter n a l pla n n in g. Th ese r ela tion sh ips
a r e su m m a r ized in H5 a n d H6.
H5. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g
pr ospector str a te gies, h igh a u ton om y
a n d exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g w ill be
a ssocia ted w ith better per for m a n ce th a n
oth er con figu r a tion s.
H6. For or ga n iza tion s im plem en tin g
defen der str a te gies, low a u ton om y a n d
in ter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g w ill be
a ssocia ted w ith better per for m a n ce th a n
oth er con figu r a tion s.
Method
Bu sin ess sch ools wer e ch osen a s sa m plin g
u n its beca u se th ey a r e r ea dily a ccessible,
su fficien tly plen tifu l a n d h ave clea r ly defin ed
for m a l lea der s – dea n s. Su r vey in str u m en ts
wer e sen t to 260 bu sin ess sch ool dea n s, r epr esen tin g a ll MBA pr ogr a m m es a ccr edited by
th e AACSB in 1991. Nin ety-five u sa ble
r espon ses wer e r eceived (36.5 per cen t); wh ile
th is r epon se r a te is low, th u s im pedin g th e
gen er a liza bility of th e fin din gs, th er e w a s n o
eviden ce of th e sa m ple bein g bia sed w ith
r espect to size, type of pr ogr a m m e, or geogr a ph ic r egion a l cover a ge w ith in Nor th
Am er ica . Th e depen den t va r ia ble (effectiven ess) a n d th r ee in depen den t va r ia bles (str a tegy, a u ton om y a n d pla n n in g m ode) wer e m ea su r ed a n d th e h ypoth eses wer e tested u sin g
on e-ta iled tests of gr ou p m ea n s. Notes on
oper a tion a liza tion of th e va r ia bles a ppea r in
Appen dix 1 a n d r eleva n t item s fr om th e su r vey in str u m en t in Appen dix 2. Th e th r ee
in depen den t va r ia bles – str a tegy, a u ton om y
a n d pla n n in g – wer e u sed to cla ssify th e or ga n iza tion s in to gr ou ps. F igu r e 1 illu str a tes h ow
th e sa m ple w a s sepa r a ted in to th e two str a tegies a n d th en in to th e two oth er va r ia bles.
The general tests
All th e h ypoth eses ca lled for dir ection a l com pa r ison s of gr ou p m ea n s of th e depen den t
va r ia ble: effectiven ess. Th e in itia l r ou n d of
a n a lyses con sisted of on e-ta iled z -tests to
com pa r e th ese gr ou p m ea n s. Th e r eleva n t
gr ou ps a r e illu str a ted in F igu r e 1.
Th e a n a lyses wer e a im ed a t testin g for th e
h ypoth esized differ en ces in th e depen den t
va r ia ble between gr ou ps w ith in th e sa m ple.
For exa m ple, in H1, th e n u ll h ypoth esis is th a t
th e m ea n effectiven ess of gr ou ps T+ U is n o
differ en t fr om th a t of gr ou ps V+ W. Th e a lter n a tive h ypoth esis is th a t m ea n effectiven ess
of gr ou ps T+ U is gr ea ter th a n th a t of gr ou ps
V+ W. In h ypoth esis 6, th e n u ll h ypoth esis w ill
be th a t th e m ea n effectiven ess of gr ou p R is
n o differ en t fr om th a t of gr ou ps P + Q+ S. Th e
a lter n a tive h ypoth esis is th a t th e m ea n effectiven ess of gr ou p R is gr ea ter th a n th a t of
gr ou ps P + Q+ S. Th e a ctu a l tests deta ils, sta tistics a n d r esu lts a r e su m m a r ized in Ta ble I.
Gen er a lly th e hypoth eses for th e pr ospector
str ategy (H1, H3 a n d H5) wer e a ll su ppor ted
a n d th ose for th e defen der s wer e n ot. All th r ee
hypoth eses involvin g th e defen der str ategy
m et with n egative r esu lts u sin g th e above ba sic
m eth odology. Th e followin g section descr ibes
som e m or e sen sitive tests of th e hypoth eses.
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
Figure 1
The gro ups into whic h the sample was c lassifie d
Planning type
High
Planning type
Inte rnal
Exte rnal
P
Q
High
Exte rnal
T
U
R
S
Lo w
V
W
Pro spe c to r strate gie s
De fe nde r strate gie s
Th ese sta tistics su ggest th a t h igh a u ton om y
a n d/ or exter n a l/ lon g-r a n ge pla n n in g a r e
gen er a lly a ssocia ted w ith gr ea ter or ga n iza tion effectiven ess; a n d th a t th ese ten den cies
m ay be in depen den t of str a te gy a n d oth er
con tin gen cies.
Addition a l tech n iqu es wer e u sed to a ccou n t
for th e a bove ten den cies: in cr em en ta l a n a lyses of cell m ea n s wer e per for m ed. Th ese
a n a lyses a r e discu ssed below.
Incremental tests
An ot h er a p p r oa ch t o exp lor in g t h e t h eor y
d evelop ed in t h is st u dy is t o in vest iga t e t h e
d iffer en ces a m on g gr ou p m ea n s. T h e fir st
a n a ly sis focu ses on t h e fir st t wo h y p ot h eses
a n d t h e st r a t e gy -a u t on om y r ela t ion s h ip s. As
sh ow n in F igu r e 2, t h e sch ools in cell E 1 h ave
h igh er m ea n effect iven ess scor es t h a n t h ose
in cell E 3: t h is is in a ccor d a n ce w it h
Auto no my
Auto no my
Lo w
Inte rnal
The marginal tests
In a ddition to th e gen er a l tests, fu r th er a n a lyses wer e n eeded to explor e th e th eor y in ca ses
wh er e th e gen er a l tests wer e in a dequ a te. Th e
follow in g sta tistics r evea l som e ten den cies
w ith r espect to effectiven ess of cer ta in gr ou ps.
Mea n effectiven ess:
1a for a ll h igh a u ton om y u n its: 5.46
(n = 48)
1b for a ll low a u ton om y u n its: 5.01
(n = 47)
2a for a ll exter n a l/ lon g pla n n er s: 5.48
(n = 39)
2b. for a ll in ter n a l/ sh or t pla n n er s: 5.07
(n = 56)
Table I
Summary o f hypo the se s and te st statistic
Hypothesized effective group
Hypo- Description
thesis of group
x
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
Prospec tor
and high
autonomy
Defender and
low autonomy
Prospec tor
and external
planning
Defender and
internal
planning
Prospec tor,
high autonomy
and external
planning
Defender, low
autonomy
and internal
planning
n
5.38
1.11
29
5.29
1.20
24
5.37
1.11
24
5.30
1.20
28
5.41
1.25
16
5.00
1.19
18
Hypothesized less effective group
Description
of group
x
SD
n
Prospec tor
and low
autonomy
Defender and
high autonomy
Prospec tor
and internal
planning
Defender and
external
planning
Prospec tor,
low autonomy
or internal
planning
Defender, high
high autonomy
or external
planning
z or t
p
4.72
1.11
23
z = 2.14
0.025
5.59
1.06
19
neg.
na
4.84
1.14
28
z = 1.71
0.05
5.64
1.01
15
neg.
na
4.94
1.08
36
z = 1.35
0.10
5.73
1.01
25
neg.
na
[ 251 ]
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Figure 2
Gro up e ffe c tive ne ss me ans, by auto no my
Pro spe c to r
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
High
E1
5 .3 8
E2
5 .5 9
E3
4 .7 2
E4
5 .2 9
H y p ot h esis 1. On t h e ot h er h a n d sch ools in
cell E 4 h ave lesser m ea n effect iven ess scor es
t h a n t h ose in cell E 2: t h is is con t r a r y t o
H y p ot h esis 2.
For sim plicity, th e pa ir of cells com pa r ed in
Hypoth esis 1 (E 1 a n d E 3) w ill be ca lled th e
“pr ospector ” gr ou p a n d th e pa ir in H2 (E 4 a n d
E 2) th e “defen der ” gr ou p. Th e differ en ce
between th e “pr ospector ” gr ou p com pa r ison
(E 1 – E 3) is gr ea ter th a n th e “defen der ” com pa r ison (E 2 – E 4). To expr ess th is a n a lysis
a lgebr a ica lly:
(E 1 – E 3) > (E 2 – E 4)
or 5.38 – 4.72 > 5.59 – 5.29
or 0.66
> 0.30
wh ich is tr u e. Th e differ en ce (between 0.66
a n d 0.30) of 0.36 w a s tested by ca lcu la tin g a
sta n da r d devia tion of 0.453 a n d gen er a tin g a
test sta tistic of 0.80 wh ich is n ot sta tistica lly
sign ifica n t.
Th e fin a l a n a lysis focu ses on th e secon d two
h ypoth eses a n d th e str a te gy-pla n n in g
r ela tion sh ips. Th e gr ou p m ea n s in F igu r e 3
r evea l th a t sch ools in cell E 1 h ave h igh er
m ea n effectiven ess scor es th a n th ose in cell
E 3: th is is in a ccor da n ce w ith H3. On th e
oth er h a n d sch ools in cell E 4 h ave lesser
m ea n effectiven ess scor es th a n th ose in cell
E 2: th is is con tr a r y to H4.
However, th e differ en ce between th e
“pr ospector ” gr ou p com pa r ison (E 1 – E 3) is
gr ea ter th a n th e “defen der ” com pa r ison (E 2 –
E 4). To expr ess th is a n a lysis a lgebr a ica lly:
Figure 3
Gro up e ffe c tive ne ss me ans, by planning mo de
Exte rnal
Pro spe c to r
De fe nde rs
E1
5 .3 7
E2
5 .6 5
E3
4 .8 4
E4
5 .3 0
Planning
Inte rnal
[ 252 ]
(E 2 – E 4 )
5.65 – 5.30
0.35
De fe nde rs
Auto no my
Lo w
(E 1 – E 3 ) >
or 5.37 – 4.84 >
or 0.53
>
wh ich is tr u e. Th e differ en ce (between 0.53
a n d 0.35) of 0.18 w a s tested by ca lcu la tin g a
sta n da r d devia tion of 0.453 a n d gen er a tin g a
test sta tistic of 0.42 wh ich is n ot sta tistica lly
sign ifica n t. Th ese in cr em en ta l a n a lyses sh ow
som e wea k su ppor t for th e u n der lyin g th eor y
beca u se th ey sh ow th a t th e h ypoth esized
differ en ces for pr ospector str a te gies (wh ich
a r e in th e pr edicted dir ection ) a r e gr ea ter
th a n th e differ en ces for defen der str a te gies
(in th e opposite dir ection ).
Discussion
Deter m in in g wh eth er on e str a te gy is
a bsolu tely m or e effective th a n a n oth er is
beyon d th e scope of th is stu dy. Ra th er, a s a
con tin gen cy stu dy, th e a n a lyses in th is stu dy
wer e gea r ed to test con tin gen cies th a t “fit”
w ith a given str a te gy. Most of th is section
discu sses th e fin din gs r ela tive to th ese con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips. Th e pr em iss of th ese
stu dies is th a t th e str a te gy of th e sch ool or
su bu n it is for m u la ted a t a h igh er level (u n iver sity or cor por a te level). Con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips a r e sou gh t – th r ou gh th eor y bu ildin g a n d em pir ica l a n a lysis – th a t best su ppor t
th e ch osen str a te gy for effective im plem en ta tion by th e su bu n it.
The prospector strategy
H1, H3 a n d H5 dea lin g w ith th e pr ospector
str a te gy wer e su ppor ted by th e da ta a n d
a n a lyses in th is stu dy. Th e ba sic con clu sion s
to be dr aw n fr om th ese a n a lyses a n d discu ssion s of th ese fi n din gs a r e pr esen ted below.
Im plica tion s of th e fin din gs for pr a ctition er s
a n d r esea r ch er s a r e discu ssed la ter in th e
fin a l section of th e pa per.
H1. P r ospector str a te gies a r e a ssocia ted w ith
su per ior per for m a n ce wh en a ccom pa n ied by h igh a u ton om y of th e dea n .
Th ese fin din gs su ppor t th e gen er a l descr iption s of th e pr ospector str a te gy fi r st deta iled
by Miles a n d Sn ow (1978). For exa m ple, Miles
a n d Sn ow sta te th a t th e pr ospector develops
“a low de gr ee of str u ctu r a l for m a liza tion ”, its
“con tr ol system sh ou ld be decen tr a lized”,
a n d “per m its in dividu a ls to exer cise a con sider a ble a m ou n t of self-con tr ol” (1978, p. 62-3).
Th ese con dition s a r e im por ta n t beca u se
pr ospector s n eed to con cen tr a te on exter n a l
clien ts, poten tia l m a r k ets a n d em er gin g
tr en ds; th ey n eed to be fr ee to in n ova te a n d
ta k e ca lcu la ted r isk s. For th ese r ea son s
pr ospector s sh ou ld be a s fr ee a s possible fr om
bu r ea u cr a tic con tr ols – th ey sh ou ld h ave
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
a u ton om y to im plem en t pr ospectin g a ctivities. Th ese idea s a r e sim ila r to Peter s a n d
Wa ter m a n ’s (1980) “excellen ce ch a r a cter istics” of “closen ess to th e cu stom er ” a n d
“a u ton om y a n d en tr epr en eu r sh ip”.
Th ese fin din gs a lso a gr ee w ith r esea r ch
fin din gs in th e bu sin ess str a tegy liter a tu r e.
Gu pta (1987) sh owed th a t differ en tia tion
str a tegies a r e a ssocia ted w ith m or e effective
im plem en ta tion in decen tr a lized con texts,
wh er ea s low -cost str a tegies a r e better w ith
cen tr a liza tion . Differ en tia tion str a tegies
(Por ter, 1980) a r e sim ila r to pr ospector s in th a t
both str a tegies r equ ir e a n ou tw a r d, cu stom er
or ien ta tion . Br ock a n d Zeith a m l (1988) a lso
fou n d sim ila r r esu lts in a stu dy of 50
su per m a r kets a n d th eir m a n a ger s. Th ey fou n d
th a t differ en tia tion str ategies wer e m or e effective w ith h igh a u ton om y th a n w ith low a u ton om y.
H3. P r ospector str a te gies a r e a ssocia ted w ith
su per ior per for m a n ce wh en a ccom pa n ied by exter n a lly or ien ted lon ger -ter m
pla n n in g.
As a r gu ed a bove, a n sch ool’s n eeds for in for m a tion a n d con tr ol depen d on its str a te gy.
Th e pr ospector – bein g con sta n tly on th e
lookou t for n ew cu stom er s a n d pr odu cts – h a s
a h igh er n eed for exter n a l in for m a tion a n d a
lower n eed for con tr ol th a n th e m or e in ter n a lly or ien ted defen der.
“...differen tiation strategies are associated w ith m ore effectiv e
im plem en tation in decen traliz ed con tex ts, w h ereas low -cost
strategies are better w ith cen traliz ation ...”
On ce a ga in th ese fin din gs su ppor t Miles a n d
Sn ow ’s (1978, p. 61) pr escr iption s con cer n in g
pla n n in g for th e pr ospector str a te gy: “con tin u ou sly m on itor s a n eclectic a r r ay of exter n a l
or ga n iza tion s a n d even ts”; “n ecessita tes a
com pr eh en sive pla n n in g a ppr oa ch ”; a n d,
“feedba ck fr om th e m a r k et a n d oth er r eleva n t
en vir on m en ta l elem en ts”.
H5. P r ospector str a te gies a r e a ssocia ted w ith
su per ior effectiven ess wh en a ccom pa n ied by h igh a u ton om y a n d exter n a lly
or ien ted, lon ger -ter m pla n n in g.
In a ddition to th e str a te gy-a u ton om y a n d
str a te gy-pla n n in g fits a ddr essed a bove,
h ypoth esis 5 con fir m s th a t a u ton om y a n d
exter n a l pla n n in g a lso fi t w ith ea ch oth er in
su ppor tin g th e pr ospector str a te gy. Th is
a llow s on e to iden tify th is con fi gu r a tion of
pr ospectin g + h igh a u ton om y + in ter n a l
pla n n in g a s bein g su per ior to oth er
com bin a tion s of th e pr ospector str a te gy,
a u ton om y a n d pla n n in g oper a tion a lized in
th is stu dy.
The defender strategy
Th e th r ee hypoth eses dea lin g with th e
defen der str ategy wer e n ot su ppor ted. In fa ct,
ea ch test of th ese hypoth eses pr odu ced n ega tive test scor es: th e gr ou p effectiven ess m ea n s
wer e opposite to th e h ypoth esized effects.
Possible r ea son s for th ese r esu lts a r e discu ssed
in th e followin g two pa r a gr aph s, a s well u n der
“Recom m en dation s for fu tu r e r esea r ch ”.
H2 . The de fe nde r strate gy and auto no my
As su ggested ea r lier, th er e is som e th eor etica l
a n d em pir ica l su ppor t for a defen der str a tegy
bein g m or e effective if a ccom pa n ied by low
a u ton om y (Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978; Wh ite, 1986).
However, th e da ta a n d a n a lyses in th is stu dy
did n ot con fir m th is r ela tion sh ip. On e r ea son
for th is m ay be th e h igh er edu ca tion con text of
th is stu dy, wh ich is su bsta n tia lly differ en t
fr om th e com m er cia l settin gs of pr ior stu dies.
A m a jor distin gu ish in g fea tu r e of h igh er edu ca tion is th e em ph a sis on a u ton om y, ba sed on
th e va lu e of a ca dem ic fr eedom . Th e a u ton om y
of th e pr ofessor a te, a ca dem ic depa r tm en ts
a n d oth er or ga n iza tion s, is a fu n da m en ta l
ten et of h igh er edu ca tion . So h igh er edu ca tion
con texts in wh ich low a u ton om y a r e a ssocia ted w ith effectiven ess m ay be r a r e. For th is
r ea son , h ypoth eses su ch a s th is wh ich investiga te a low a u ton om y situ a tion m ay n ot be
expected to m eet w ith effectiven ess in sch ools.
H4 : The de fe nde r strate gy and planning
Peter son (1980) distin gu ish es between in ter n a l a n d exter n a l or ien ta tion s in pla n n in g. He
sta tes th a t for “m ost in stitu tion s, pla n n in g
n eeds to be sen sitive to both in ter n a l a n d
exter n a l fa ctor s” (p. 119). Th er e is, h owever, a
fu n da m en ta l disa dva n ta ge a ssocia ted w ith
in ter n a l pla n n in g, n a m ely th a t it la ck s a tten tion to exter n a l fa ctor s. Few or ga n iza tion s
a r e u n a ffected by exter n a l fa ctor s. For th ese
r ea son s, in ter n a l pla n n in g gen er a lly m ay be
less h elpfu l to str a te gy im plem en ta tion –
even of defen der str a te gies – th a n exter n a l
pla n n in g. Th is ten den cy wou ld con tr ibu te to
a n expla n a tion of wh y Hypoth esis 4 w a s
r ejected. Im plica tion s of th is fin din g a r e pu r su ed in th e “Recom m en da tion s for fu tu r e
r esea r ch ” section .
Other conclusions
Strate gy
For th is sa m ple, sch ools cla ssified a s defen der s
h a d a h igh er m ea n effectiven ess scor e th a n
pr ospector s. A sim ila r ten den cy w a s fou n d by
Ha m br ick (1983); n a m ely th a t th e h igh costs
involved w ith pr ospectin g a ctivities m a de
th em less pr ofitable a n d th e secu r e n ich es
occu pied by defen der s r esu lted in gen er a lly
h igh er m a r ket sh a r es, econ om ies of sca le a n d
su per ior efficien cy. In fa ct h e con clu des th a t
th e pr ospector str a tegy is n ot m a in ta in a ble in
[ 253 ]
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
th e lon g ter m for th ese r ea son s a n d th a t
pr ospector s m u st even tu a lly sh ift tow a r ds
som e degr ee of defen din g to su r vive.
Auto no my
As r epor ted ea r lier, th e m ea n effectiven ess of
a ll h igh a u ton om y u n its is sign ifica n tly
gr ea ter th a n th a t of a ll low a u ton om y u n its.
Th is su ggests th a t, oth er th in gs equ a l, h igh
a u ton om y is gen er a lly a ssocia ted w ith su per ior effectiven ess r ela tive to low a u ton om y in
th e sa m ple u sed in th is stu dy. Recom m en da tion s for a dm in istr a tor s a n d r esea r ch er s
ba sed on th ese con clu sion s a r e pr esen ted in
th e fin a l section s of th is ch a pter.
Planning mo de s
F u r th er, th e m ea n effectiven ess of a ll exter n a l
pla n n er s is sign ifica n tly gr ea ter th a n a ll u n its
u sin g in ter n a l pla n n in g m odes. Th is su ggests
th a t, oth er th in gs equ a l, exter n a l pla n n in g is
gen er a lly a ssocia ted w ith su per ior effectiven ess r ela tive to in ter n a l pla n n in g in th e
sa m ple u sed in th is stu dy. Recom m en da tion s
for a dm in istr a tor s a n d r esea r ch er s ba sed on
th ese con clu sion s a r e pr esen ted below.
Recommendations
For m a n a ger s im plem en tin g pr ospector -type
str ategies, th e fin din gs of th is stu dy pr ovide
two m a jor im plication s. Fir st, th e stu dy su ggests th at with r espect to sch ool-level decision
m a ker s sh ou ld be a llowed a s m u ch a u ton om y
a s possible. Th is decision a u ton om y h elps to
save tim e at th e sch ool level. Also, it per m its
m a n a ger s th e flexibility to con cen tr ate on
eva lu atin g th e m yr ia d possibilities with
r espect to developin g poten tia l clien t ta r get
m a r kets a n d pr odu ct/ ser vice offer in gs ava ilable to th e sch ool. Th ese a ctivities a r e fu n da m en ta l to th e im plem en tation of a pr ospector
str ategy. Th e possible disa dva n ta ge of th e
con com ita n t loss of con tr ol by u pper -level
m a n a ger s ca n per h aps be ju stified by th e above
a dva n ta ges. In a ddition , it h a s been a r gu ed
th at th e in n ovation n ecessa r y to im plem en t a
pr ospector str ategy su ccessfu lly is stifled by
bu r ea u cr atic con tr ols (Miles a n d Sn ow, 1978).
“...T h is decision au ton om y h elps to sav e tim e at th e sch ool lev el it
per m its m an a gers th e fl ex ibility to con cen trate on evalu atin g th e
m yriad possibilities w ith respect to dev elopin g poten tial clien t target
m ark ets an d produ ct/ service offerin gs available to th e sch ool...”
Th e secon d r ecom m en da tion involves th e
ch oice of pla n n in g a n d con tr ol system s.
Sch ools im plem en tin g exter n a lly or ien ted
pr ospector str a te gies h ave a r ela tively h igh
n eed for exter n a l in for m a tion – in for m a tion
con cer n in g com petin g sch ools, dem ogr a ph ic
[ 254 ]
tr en ds, econ om ic for eca sts a n d oth er m a r k et
in for m a tion (Kotler a n d Mu r ph ey, 1981). F u r th er, th ese types of in for m a tion a r e best ga th er ed w ith a fu tu r e or ien ta tion (Mor r ison et
a l., 1984). Th is stu dy’s em pir ica l a n a lyses
su ppor t th e th eor y th a t lon ger -ter m a n d
exter n a l pla n n in g m odes a r e ben eficia l to th e
im plem en ta tion of pr ospector -type str a te gies.
Alth ou gh th er e a r e su bsta n tia l costs a ssocia ted w ith th ese pla n n in g system s, th e ga in s
in effectiven ess fin din gs su ggest th a t th e
ben efits ou tweigh th e costs.
Th e su ffix “-type” w a s pu r posely a dded to
“pr ospector ” in th is section to br oa den th e
str a tegic con cept a t th is sta ge. Th er e is su ppor t in th e or ga n iza tion a l str ategy liter a tu r e
th a t a few str ategic types beh ave in a sim ila r
w ay w ith r espect to th eir con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips. Gu pta (1987) lin k s th e “differ en tia tion ”
str a tegy a n d th e “bu ild” str ategy. He th en
sh ow s th a t both th ese str a tegies h ave sim ila r
con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ips w ith th r ee str u ctu r a l va r ia bles (open n ess, su bjectivity a n d
decen tr a liza tion ) a n d w ith bu sin ess effectiven ess a s th e depen den t va r ia ble. Th ese two
str a tegic types h ave m u ch in com m on w ith
ea ch oth er a n d th e “pr ospector ” type; im por ta n tly, th e em ph a sis on fin din g n ew (a dded)
ba ses for com petition . Also, a ll th r ee str a tegies
a r e a ssocia ted w ith a cu stom er or ien ta tion .
Th u s th er e is som e r ea son to expect th a t differ en tia tion a n d bu ild str a tegies m ay be im plem en ted better w ith h igh a u ton om y a n d w ith
exter n a l pla n n in g system s.
For m a n a ger s im plem en tin g defen der
str a tegies, th e im plica tion s a r e less obviou s.
Th e em pir ica l fin din gs in th is stu dy con tr a dict
th e h ypoth esized r ela tion sh ips. In fa ct, th e
da ta su ggest th a t th e opposite m ay be tr u e; to
w it, defen der str a tegies m ay be im plem en ted
better w ith lon ger -ter m a n d exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g a n d w ith h igh a u ton om y.
Th ese fin din gs seem to con fir m wh a t som e
a u th or s h ave m a in ta in ed a bou t pla n n in g,
n a m ely th a t lon ger -ter m str ategic pla n n in g is
r ecom m en ded for a ll situ a tion s (Br yson , 1988;
Mor r ison et al., 1984; Sh ir ley, 1983).
Con cer n in g a u ton om y, th e fin din g th a t
h igh er levels of a u ton om y a r e a ssocia ted w ith
su per ior levels of effectiven ess fits w ith wh a t
som e w r iter s in th e h igh er edu ca tion a r en a
h ave m a in ta in ed; n a m ely th a t h igh er
edu ca tion is a n a r ea in wh ich a u ton om y is
im por ta n t for execu tion of th e a ca dem ic m ission (Bess, 1988; Ch a ffee a n d Tier n ey, 1988).
Recommendations for future research
Validity o f the the o ry
Is th er e a con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ip between
str a te gy, a u ton om y a n d effectiven ess? Th e
th eor y seem s com pellin g, bu t th e da ta a n d
a n a lyses in th is stu dy len d su ppor t on ly in
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
som e con texts. Som e r ea son s for th is cou ld
involve th e sa m ple of colle ges u sed in th is
stu dy. Aca dem ic fr eedom is su ch a n im por ta n t va lu e th a t a n y dim in u tion of a dea n ’s
a u ton om y m ay be cou n ter -pr odu ctive in th ese
con texts. Or ga n iza tion a l th eor ists con cer n ed
w ith or ga n iza tion s ou tside h igh er edu ca tion
a r e en cou r a ged to test th e sa m e th eor y w ith a
differ en t sa m ple. For h igh er edu ca tion , on e
wou ld lik e to eva lu a te th e effects of va r yin g
levels of a u ton om y, for exa m ple, u sin g th e
m ea su r e in th is stu dy (wh ich gave a n a u ton om y scor e of zer o to 18). Per h a ps sch ools w ith
a scor e of 18 differ fr om th ose w ith 16; per h a ps th e scor e of 7.5 u sed to bifu r ca te th is
sa m ple w a s in a ppr opr ia te. Gr ou pin g h a lf th e
sa m ple in to a “low a u ton om y” cell m ay well
h ave been gr ossly in a ccu r a te; per h a ps fou r
gr ou ps, “low ”, “m oder a te”, “h igh ” a n d “ver y
h igh ” wou ld h ave better r epr esen ted th e
a ctu a l exten t of a u ton om y in th is sa m ple.
Th er e m ay a lso be a sign ifica n t bia s tow a r ds
h igh a u ton om y in h er en t in th e m ea su r e of
effectiven ess in th is stu dy. Assu m in g th a t
dea n s pr efer a u ton om y a n d con tr ol over th eir
sch ool, th ey a r e likely to: r ate th eir sch ools
m or e effective if th ey h ave h a d th e per son a l
a u ton om y to pu r su e th eir ow n idea s a n d
im plem en t str a tegies of th eir ow n ch oice; a n d
con sider th eir sch ools less effective if th ey feel
u n a ble to m a ke th eir ow n decision s, or a r e
fr u str a ted by in stitu tion a l in er tia . Th ese
pr oblem s cou ld be a ddr essed w ith a la r ger
sa m ple, w ith m or e discr im in a tin g in str u m en tation a n d m or e soph istica ted sta tistica l tech n iqu es.
“...On ly th e m ost w ell-establish ed sch ools m ay b e able to effectiv ely
im plem en t a d efen d er stra teg y w ith ou t a n ex ter n a l pla n n in g
or ien ta tion ; ex ter n a l pla n n in g of va r iou s for m s m ay b e n eed ed for
th e m a jor ity of in stitu tion s...”
Is th er e a con tin gen cy r ela tion sh ip between
str a te gy, pla n n in g a n d effectiven ess? On ce
a ga in , th e th eor y seem s com pellin g, bu t th is
stu dy w a s a ble to su ppor t it for som e str a tegies on ly. On e r ea son m ay be th a t exter n a l
pla n n in g is su ch a n essen tia l m a n a ger ia l
pr ocess th a t it is n ecessa r y in th e va st
m a jor ity of con texts. Or, on ce a ga in , it m ay be
th a t th is pa r ticu la r set of bu sin ess sch ool
con texts in th e cu r r en t com petitive envir on m en t gen er a lly r equ ir e a n exter n a l or ien ta tion .
P la n n in g ta k in g both in ter n a l a n d exter n a l
fa ctor s in to a ccou n t is m ost com pr eh en sive
a n d is lik ely to be m ost effective in m ost con texts (Mor r ison et a l., 1984; Peter son , 1980). To
fin d th e r ela tively r a r e con texts in wh ich
in ter n a l types of pla n n in g m ay be pr efer a ble
wou ld r equ ir e a m or e com plex th eor y, a
la r ger sa m ple a n d pr oba bly a w ider r a n ge of
m ea su r es a n d a n a lyses. For in sta n ce, a cceptin g th a t a ll pr ospector s n eed exter n a l pla n n in g, on e m ay distin gu ish between th e pla n n in g con tin gen cies of va r iou s defen der s on
th e ba sis of oth er va r ia bles. On ly th e m ost
well-esta blish ed sch ools m ay be a ble to effectively im plem en t a defen der str a te gy w ith ou t
a n exter n a l pla n n in g or ien ta tion ; exter n a l
pla n n in g of va r iou s for m s m ay be n eeded for
th e m a jor ity of in stitu tion s. It is lik ely th a t
m ea n GMAT scor es cou ld h elp distin gu ish
a m on g th ose sch ools th a t r equ ir e exter n a l
pla n n in g m or e th a n oth er s. Gen er a lly,
sch ools w ith th e h igh est GMAT scor es a r e
better esta blish ed a n d ca n m or e sa fely con cen tr a te on in ter n a l clien t ba ses. Oth er
sch ools pr oba bly still r equ ir e exter n a l,
lon ger -r a n ge pla n n in g, even wh en im plem en tin g a defen der str a te gy. Th u s th e decision between pla n n in g m odes sh ou ld pr oba bly be on e of r ela tive em ph a sis, n ot a n
“eith er -or ” ch oice: som e in ter n a lly or ien ted
pla n n in g a n d som e exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g is pr oba bly n eeded in m ost con texts.
F u r th er stu dy is n eeded to explor e th ese r ela tive em ph a ses in va r iou s con texts.
In cr em en ta l a n a lyses (r em ovin g m a in
effects of gr ou p m em ber sh ip) su ggest th a t
th er e m ay be som e va lidity to th ese th eor ies
th a t th e cu r r en t oper a tion a liza tion s, sa m ple
a n d sta tistica l tech n iqu es h ave fa iled to
u n cover. Th ese a n a lyses a r e n ot con clu sive
bu t do sh ow a ten den cy (a lbeit sta tistica lly
in sign ifi ca n t) su ppor tin g th e th eor ized r ela tion sh ips, n a m ely:
• h igh a u ton om y h a s a r ela tively str on ger
positive in flu en ce on th e effectiven ess
of pr ospector s th a n it h a s on defen der s;
and
• exter n a l pla n n in g h a s a r ela tively str on ger
positive in flu en ce on th e effectiven ess of
pr ospector s th a n it h a s on defen der s.
Th ese tests su ggest th a t th er e m ay be ca ses in
wh ich H2, H4 a n d H6 wou ld be su ppor ted.
Th e ch a llen ge for r esea r ch er s is to fin d a
su ita ble sa m ple a n d to em ploy fin er
m ea su r es a n d a n a lyses th a n wer e u sed in th is
stu dy.
Other methodological issues
Th is r esea r ch design obviou sly exclu ded m a n y
va r iables th at cou ld h ave h a d a bea r in g on th e
fin din gs. Am on g th ese, th er e m ay well be som e
“m eta -con tin gen cy va r iables” th at play a
deter m in in g r ole. For in sta n ce, ta k in g th e
econ om ic cycle a s su ch a m eta -con tin gen cy
va r iable, in tim es of r ecession a n d con sequ en t
r edu ction s of fu n din g to h igh er edu ca tion ,
a ggr essive exter n a lly or ien ted pla n n in g m ay
[ 255 ]
David M. Bro c k
Strate gy, auto no my, planning
mo de and e ffe c tive ne ss:
a c o ntinge nc y study o f
busine ss sc ho o ls
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 6 [1 9 9 7 ] 2 4 8 –2 5 9
be n eeded for a ll str ategies. Sim ila r ly, sch ools
with establish ed r esou r ce pools – typica lly
defen der s – a r e h a r m ed less by th ese con texts
a n d wou ld th u s be m or e effective.
Th er e cou ld a lso be a ca se of r ever se ca u sa lity a m on g som e of th e va r ia bles. For exa m ple,
a sch ool th a t – for a n y r ea son – per for m s
effectively m ay be a llowed th e leew ay to
pr ospect a n d m ay be gr a n ted h igh er a u ton om y. Th is wou ld a ccou n t for th e r ela tively
la r ge n u m ber s of effective sch ools clu ster ed
in th e pr ospector a n d h igh a u ton om y
cells.
Th e a bility to distin gu ish pr ospector s – or
de gr ee of pr ospectin g – cou ld be en h a n ced by
r ecor din g th e r a te of in n ova tion s by th e
sch ool. E xa m ples of su ch in n ova tion s wou ld
be n ew pr ogr a m m es a n d differ en t stu den t (or
oth er clien t) m a r k ets ta r geted.
Th e low r espon se r a te pr om pts qu estion s
a bou t th e gen er a liza bility of th e fi n din gs. For
exa m ple, th e sa m ple con sists of a sign ifi ca n t
n u m ber of pr iva te colle ges: 31 of 95, or 32.6
per cen t (sim ila r to th e 29.9 per cen t in th e
popu la tion ). However, it is possible th a t th e
in ter n a l str u ctu r a l r ela tion sh ips – lik e a u ton om y – of pr iva te colle ges differ fr om th ose of
pu blic colle ges. So, for exa m ple, a “pr iva te”
pr ospector w ith low a u ton om y m ay be m or e
effective th a t a “pu blic” pr ospector w ith sim ila r a u ton om y.
Th is stu dy m ea su r es a u ton om y of th e dea n
of a n sch ool. However, it m ay be r eleva n t to
n ote to wh a t exten t ch a ir per son s, depa r tm en ts h ea ds, fa cu lty a n d sta ff w ith in th e
sch ool a r e a u ton om ou s. For exa m ple, it wou ld
be in ter estin g to m ea su r e wh eth er on e pr ogr a m m e w ith in a sch ool is m or e a u ton om ou s
th a n a n oth er ; a n d to en qu ir e wh a t th e cor r ela tes of th ese differ en ces a r e.
F in a lly, it is u n k n ow n wh eth er bu sin ess
sch ools a r e typica l of oth er colle ges w ith in
u n iver sities. Th u s th e gen er a liza bility of
th ese fin din gs to or ga n iza tion s w ith in th e
h igh er edu ca tion sector n eeds to be
qu estion ed.
References
Ada m s, J .J . (1977), “Th e m a n a gem en t of pla n n in g”, in Row la n d, A.W. (E d.), Ha n d b ook of
In stitu tion a l A dva n cem en t, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n
F r a n cisco, CA, pp. 455-63.
An der son , C.R. a n d Zeith a m l, C.P. (1984), “Sta ge of
th e pr odu ct life cycle, bu sin ess str a te gy a n d
bu sin ess per for m a n ce”, A ca d em y of M a n a gem en t J ou r n a l, Vol. 27, pp. 5-24.
An soff, H.I. (1977), “Th e sta te of pr a ctice in pla n n in g system s”, S loa n M a n a gem en t R eview ,
Win ter, pp. 1-24.
Ba r r y, D. a n d E lm es, M. (1997), “Str a te gy r etold:
tow a r d a n a r r a tive view of str a te gic
[ 256 ]
discou r se”, A ca d em y of M a n a gem en t R eview ,
Vol. 22 N o. 2, pp. 429-52.
Ben sim on , E .M. (1993), “N ew pr esiden t’s in itia l
a ction : tr a n sa ction a l a n d tr a n sfor m a tion a l
lea der sh ip”, J ou r n a l for High er Ed u ca tion