The top-down approach

The findings of the study showed that the model of strategic management adopted by HEIs (the College) differs from the model used by business organisations in various aspects. Given the importance of a collaborative management approach in the management of HEIs (the College), faculty participation and

99

reaching a consensus from the outset are important for strategic planning management based in the College, as a higher education (the College) faculty cannot be directed in the same way as the members in other commercial organisations.

The literature review suggests that primary understanding of strategy formulation and implementation is a formal process from the top down through application of various forms of controlling techniques (Mintzberg et al., 1998; Van der Maas, 2008). One of the respondents mentioned that:

You know… strategic planning is a higher management function… only the very major parts, which must be made known to the public are made known to the general public, like vision and may be mission… In fact, forget about the discussion, higher management is even not answerable to justify their strategic decisions to the other members of the College, who are not in the executive ranking… they can only pass [on] the message that it is a strategic decision and the others should work for it. (SM12)

However, Hinton (2012) and Paris (2003, 2004) argued that the top-down approach of strategy formulation and implementation rarely works in higher education institutions because of the loose control, freedom of the academicians and conservative nature of these organisations.

The findings of the study also showed that the strategic plan, which was formulated by executive managers without the participation of those members involved in its implementation, is prone to face challenges during the implementation phase. Dandira (2012) argued that the strategy often arises from initiatives adopted from the middle-level management and its operations in the organisation; in addition, strategic management was more successful when middle-level management and staff were actively involved. Therefore, successful formulation and implementation of a strategic plan should aim at providing support for and provoking enthusiasm in staff all over the institution, which can be achieved by involving those members of the institution who are expected to participate in the strategy implementation process to actively participate in the strategy formulation process (Piderit, 2000; Dandira, 2011).

The central power in higher education institutions is not very strong. Higher education management is involved in long-term investment, in education of people, which is totally different from the business approach, which looks for short- and mid-term investment in order to generate higher revenue and

100

income. Higher education institutions pursue different approaches to strategic planning due to the difference in their value systems, as was the case in the College’s situation, where the members are conserving their organisational identity values. As has been suggested in this study, higher education institutions cannot specifically specify their clients, as it is not possible to consider that students are the only clients; the College members, government and the community as a whole can also be considered as clients of the higher education institution. One of the respondents argued that:

Of course, our values are very important; they are the mirror reflecting our image through which outsiders see us… we should maintain our values mentioned in the strategic plan. (SM10)

However, to “…maintain our values mentioned in the strategic plan” will require setting objectives and evaluating effectiveness according to the higher education institution’s (the College) mission, which can be challenging, as it is also difficult to accept changes, especially in HEIs, because their nature is inclined towards conservation.

In addition, higher management in HEIs are required to secure the participation of managers and employees at a lower level; executive managers should be able to function on formulation and implementation of a strategy in which the goals of the institution and its members’ are aligned as closely as possible (Van der Maas, 2008). Moreover, members of the institution will be more interested in their self-interest, than by the goals of the institution if the two are not in congruence (Pearce and Robinson, 2011). The goals (strategic plan) of the organisation should be in congruence with the organisational

identity of the members in order to mitigate resistance, where the organisational identity of members

involves the alignment of internal organisational regulations with the commitments of its members, constructed over a period of time (Hatch & Schultz, 2002).

One of the respondents suggested that:

Over the years the College has built its own values which people trust in, so if you say ‘I am working in the College it gives a different perception to the people and it also gives us privilege to be College members… it also gives privilege to our graduates; therefore, you see, all of our graduates are employed, so we should strongly preserve our values. (SM6)

The organisational identity of the members is fundamentally related to the nature of those aspects which the institution’s members perceive as having a direct and important influence on their daily working

101

(Albert and Whetten, 1985). The personal values (organisational identity) of organisational members help to shape organisational culture (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2007).

We all accept that we should preserve our core organisational value as much as possible, because these are the core values that we have developed over the time and through which people see us.