Regional Universities & Regional Development:Leadership transcending the HE ‘Flatlands’

Regional Universities & Regional Development:Leadership transcending the HE ‘Flatlands’

Dr. Luke van der Laan

University of Southern Queensland

‘Post-normal times for Regional HE’ ‘Post-normal times for Regional HE’

Leadership imperative in HE to transcend dominant short-term paradigms and open up creative emergence in regional

universities that will impact regional development.

$1.5 billion direct economic contribution

(times 3 indirect and induced) (Rolfe etal, 2008)

Post-normal times need post-normal capabilities in HE

Imperative of futures management for a future-orientated environment

• Used Florax 1992, cited in Giesecke Ja & Madden JR, 2006 model for economic impact studies of university expenditure

SustainabilitySustainability

• Ability of systems and organizations to continue indefinitely while consistently exercising provident care (Senge et al, 2006)

• Common counter-intuitive responses to the future– Reductionist thinking to make sense of complexity? – Short-termism to manage complexity?

“you will realise that you cannot reduce your risk by simply letting the long term take care of itself … for in complex systems, even doing nothing

could have escalating consequences” (Stacey 1992)

Flatlands – Higher Educational FuturesFlatlands – Higher Educational Futures

‘Flatlands’• Reductionist frameworks for thinking about the future in HE • confounded by regulatory inconsistency and the changing

nature of knowledge $’s

Implication: • Insufficiently understood and problematised change.• Technology-LED paradigms remaining dominant.

Consequence:• Constrained sustainable development: limited foresight /

strategic thinking / strategy.

Flatlands: Higher Education FuturesFlatlands: Higher Education Futures

• Possible examples of constrained strategic thinking:– ‘Technology led’ as opposed to technology enabled– ‘Universal Connectedness’ not really connected– ‘Past Success’ breeding failure– ‘The’ future of education as opposed to innovative alternatives– ‘Dominant Approaches’ to education as espoused by

contextually maligned LOUD opinion– Continued reliance on government funding as primary source

of revenue in a context where this WILL reduce– ‘Generation Theory’ based research being dominant driver– ‘Language / Cultural’ dominance– The market is limited! 165 million HE learners by 2020?

Why the research?Why the research?

“There is an ‘agony’ in HE leaders to be strategic” (Recent comment from HE Senior Leader)

More than 80% of senior executives in Australia acknowledge strategic thinking to be their greatest challenge (Bonn, 2008) (and evidence of the same in other parts of the world)

Regional economies / Regional development is closely linked to ‘substantial contribution’ by regional universities (Rolfe et al. 2008)

Leadership imperative to develop foresight and strategic thinking capabilities in regional universities in order to enhance strategy and sustainable development

Leadership Umbrella (van der Laan, 2011)Leadership Umbrella (van der Laan, 2011)

En

gag

emen

tIn

tern

al /

Ext

ern

al

Se

rvic

e / C

SR

Sys

tem

inte

gra

tion

Man

agem

ent

Go

vern

an

ceA

cco

unt

abi

lity

Co

nt.

Imp

rove

me

nt

Su

stai

nab

ilit

yO

rga

nis

atio

nal

So

cia

l E

nvi

ronm

enta

l

Inn

ova

tio

nR

ele

vant

/Diff

ere

ntia

ting

Te

chno

log

y/

Pe

ople

/Pro

cess

‘The Leadership Umbrella’ (van der Laan, 2011)‘The Leadership Umbrella’ (van der Laan, 2011)

LEADERSHIP

STRATEGY

‘Triple-V Leadership’ Imperative (van der Laan, 2011)‘Triple-V Leadership’ Imperative (van der Laan, 2011)

• Need for broader preferred viable futures for regional universities due to ‘post-normal’ times in the sector (eg. de-regulation / privatisation / competition / internationalisation / cyber-age,…)

… To make strategic thinking more visible and strategy more

valuable.

ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ENABLED BY LEADERS

NEEDNEED

Leaders that can activate the process develop the university’s capability to have;• Future Orientated Thinking (to contextualise)• Foresight capabilities (to visualise)• Strategic Thinking capability (to strategise)

IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE;• Valuable Strategic Capabilities in regional universities – by

developing a critical mass of these capabilities amongst strategy-level leaders in the university

Why this research?Why this research?

• Validate the findings of previous research using mixed methods and advanced statistical analysis modelling in the HE context.

• Identify the foresight / strategic thinking / strategy mode profile for regional universities in Queensland.

• Provide evidence to influence.• Provide recommendations and suggest interventions to

address any gaps.

Foresight / Strategic ThinkingForesight / Strategic Thinking

Previous research:• Investigation of relationship between individual foresight,

strategic thinking and strategy.• Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)• 101 CEOs (34%), 110 Senior Managers (37%) of large

enterprises.

Implications of Previous ResearchImplications of Previous Research

• Rational / transactive strategic modes are likely to suppress the generative / creative strategic thinking of its leadership.

• Those elements of strategic thinking that are creative, innovative, time-orientated, ambiguous and yielding greater levels of emergent strategy are suppressed (-.25 correlation in SEM model)

Consequences:

Innovation / creative emergence is less likely.

Available human capabilities are limited.

Organisational strategy remains static and directive.

Leadership Model for Innovation in HELeadership Model for Innovation in HE

• Significant empirical evidence suggests importance of foresight and strategic thinking in facilitating sound strategy (generative / creative / innovative / emergent)

• Plus: need to transcend ‘flatlands’ of prevailing paradigms.

• Requires a leadership model that enables sound strategy in mapping sustainable HE futures.

• Input: Cognitive propensity to envision possible futures and detect hazards

• Output: Mentally constructed envisioned futures

Foresight (cognitive)

• Input: Contextualisation of all relevant inputs including foresight outcomes in the organisation's strategic context

• Output: Communicating conceptualised longer-term future to dominant coalition

Strategic Thinking(functional) • Input: Emergent and intended

strategic alternatives from strategy-level leaders

• Output: Sound Strategic decisions / Innovative strategy

Strategic decision-making

(formulative)

(van der Laan, L, 2010)

Triple-V ModelTriple-V Model

STRATEGY FORMULATION

FORESIGHT STRATEGIC THINKING

SOUND ORGANISATIONAL

STRATEGY

VIABLE VISIBLE VALUABLE

Orientation to Time

Foresight Style

Analytical / Systems

orientated Cognitions

Creative / Generative Cognitions

Age

Foresight Education

Industry Experience

Education Level

(van der Laan, 2010)

What are we measuring?What are we measuring?

Quantitative:• Orientation to thinking perspectives in time• Disposition to dealing with future (long and short

term) issues• Strategic thinking assessment • Strategy formulation mode(Note all instruments have previously been assessed as having high validity and reliability)

Qualitative:• Causal Layered Analysis of futures thinking• Strategic Thinking dimensions• Strategy formulation and perceived value

Quantitative: Early Foresight Style ProfileQuantitative: Early Foresight Style Profile

•Adjusts to new situations as future demands

•Balances multiples challenges and choices

•Helps others adapt / Is flexible / Activates action

•Flexible leadership / Change Orientated Influencer

•Predilection to past successes

•Paradigm paralysis•Future is evolutionary and loaded by fate

•Preserves own position•Mitigates and resists change

•Seriously Interrogates the future

•Future-time orientated•Interested in the long-term issues that define the future with the view it can be created

•Envisions ‘bigger picture’ futures

•Adopts new trends / Confirms diffusion of innovation theory

•Experiments with new trends when they arise

•Opportunistic•Cognitive trend analysis

TESTER FRAMER

ADAPTERREACTOR

AnalyticalHypothesis driven,

Intent focussed, Systems

Perspective

Careful analysis Requires control

Problem solving Systems thinking

Uses considerable data

GenerativeThinking in Time

Intelligent Opportunism

Creative / generates multiple alternatives Independent thinking

Tolerance for ambiguity

Future / Long-term orientated

Initiates new ideas

Quantitative: Strategic Thinking ProfileQuantitative: Strategic Thinking Profile

Quantitative: Strategy ModesQuantitative: Strategy Modes

• Primarily rational (traditional mode) of strategyBUT• More dynamic• More socialised in dominant coalition• Communication, governance and mainstreaming not

tested

QualitativeQualitativeForesight / Strategic Thinking:• Concepts well understood• Clearly developed foresight / strategic thinking• High capacity and action orientatedFutures / Vision• Clearly formulated future• Technology enabling rather than technology leading• Based on untested assumptions / dominant models• ‘Feared’ and other possible ‘Innovative’ futures and

underlying causal assumptions not developed (no mitigation strategies)

Strategy• Excellent in a traditional mode• Clearly formulated and aligned

Conclusions: initial observationsConclusions: initial observations

• Leadership is generally sound • Regulatory environment is confounding and not optimally

enabling• Strategy is generally very dynamic albeit in traditional

frameworks• Emergent creativity as an input to strategy is limited

• Imperative: Serious political will related to HE role in Regional Development resulting in aligned / enabling environments