New Directions: Leading Planning and Change

Note that this essay is one of twenty (20) New Directions in Planning essays, which are an online part of and a companion to the SCUP book, A Guide to Planning for Change (Norris and Poulton, 2008). The essays will eventually be available in their own Web home, but we are sharing them here, now, because we want you to have access to them sooner and because this blog environment will let you post comments, if you wish. Please do!

Leading Planning and Change is written by Samuel A. Kirkpatrick of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University.

A Guide to Planning for Change can be ordered in SCUP's online bookstore or via the order form you can download here (PDF). Why don't you purchase a copy (for yourself or a colleague) and spend the down time over the holidays refreshing your perspective on higher education planning?

Copyright SCUP, 2008, all rights reserved.

Chapter 18: Leading Planning and Change

by Samuel A. Kirkpatrick of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University

Successful campus planning depends on effectively leading and navigating change. Increasing recognition that the primary goal of strategic planning is organizational change and improvement is forgoing a marriage of new and conventional planning strategies with contemporary change management tools. The commonly-used term “change management,” however, can be misleading as it tends to overstate our limited capacity to “manage” change in traditional, routinized ways. In reality, active and insightful leadership is essential to anticipate and navigate the shoals of organizational change. Effective guidance for planning and change in harmony as continuing processes requires transformational leadership characterized by an ability to strike an institutional vision and to sustain, align, and refine strategies and actions across the full range of different campus planning, decision making, and resource allocation processes over time. Planning and change occur as leaders and key stakeholders execute strategy, take expeditionary actions and develop individual and organizational capacity through dynamic, evolutionary processes.

Supple application of change navigation principles is an indispensable element of the toolkit for presidents, provosts and other campus leaders. Successful leadership and change navigation also require development of leadership and change agents at all levels of faculty, staff and administration. New directions in leading and planning change flow from important driving forces in higher education and are likely to place even greater emphasis on a robust fusing of planning and change strategies characterized by new imperatives for pre-planning, implementation, assessment, strategic communication, continuous improvement, navigating change, and linking planning, resource allocation and evidence-based decision making.

I. What Forces Are Driving Leadership for Planning and Change
in Higher Education?

A variety of key changes in the environment of higher education and within the postsecondary sector itself are leading to increased emphasis on planning for change and are shaping the new directions characterizing campus planning. These change drivers reflect fundamental shifts in society, in organizations generally, and within higher education.

At the societal level, a new, diverse workforce reflecting profound demographic shifts coupled with globalism, information technology innovations, lifestyle changes and new forms of consumer behavior are demanding new responses from our postsecondary educational institutions. A knowledge-age economy that accelerates the pace of change; that involves new values, organizational structures and technologies; that emphasizes new forms of communication and bases for collaboration; and that yields productivity enhancements and new forms of competition jolt the status quo in higher education and call for planful approaches to change.

A variety of organizational trends are also at work generally, to which higher education is not immune: entrepreneurship, flattened hierarchies, empowered employees, speedier decisions, new global competitors, increased productivity, transparency, customer focus, downsizing, deregulation and expanded liability are all forces that characterize the contemporary organization and our educational institutions.

These environmental change drivers have shaped new directions for higher education. Demands for accountability and performance results, especially in the context of limited resources, new markets and our conventionally dissociated and decentralized educational structures call for strong leadership, increased institutional focus and prioritization, and a need to be strategic. Accountability and strategic planning are directly linked as universities advocate self regulation and respond to the imperatives of demonstrable change and improvement. Rising costs, reduced financial support and an emphasis on consumer demands and the private benefits that result from advanced education have fundamentally altered the “public good” of higher education. The demands of distributed and perpetual learning, knowledge sharing, and new learning advocates for 24/7 responsiveness and seamless encounters with our organizations threaten educational institutions which must now operate in an international informational space with new forms of competition. Even the speed at which scholarship is changing is a pressure point for institutions that have philosophically embraced innovation but look much like they did hundreds of years ago.

Moreover, the problems that postsecondary institutions must address in response to these various change drivers are inherently more complex than before, requiring cross-functional, team-oriented solutions and an ability to react and effectuate solutions more quickly with plans that work. Equally important, these external and internal changes directly impact people, and as human organizations, our institutions must pay increasing attention to human behavior needs, organizational cultures, and the presence of hurdles, detractors and resistors to change. These forces are leading universities to emphasize capacity-building, leadership development, training and organizational development as they plan strategically and navigate change.

II. What Are the Emerging New Directions in Leading Planning and Change?

Recent developments and new emphases characterize the planning and change landscape influenced by the environmental and organizational driving forces discussed above. These trends and newer directions relevant to leading and planning change include the following salient features:

A. Pre-planning.

One of the most significant developments to characterize recent eras in campus planning is the recognized importance of pre-planning as a prelude to operational strategic planning (for broad trends by planning eras see Norris and Poulton, 2008, Figure 6.2). This understanding places an emphasis on steps in advance of more formal planning stages and it is increasingly recognized that campus leaders need to play a vital role at this stage (Kirkpatrick and Loppnow, 2003). Key pre-planning elements include the following:

1. Understanding the institutional culture. Campus leaders must grasp the relationships between organizational culture, defined as attitudes, norms and prevalent practices, leadership, and efforts to navigate or manage change. Increasingly common practices involve a cultural assessment process, such as that derived through elite interviews, focus groups, SWOT exercises, surveys and assessments of organizational strengths. These assessments yield vital information and perspectives on factors that influence how a leader shapes the strategic planning process; factors such as the history of planning, past planning failures, lack of shared vision, episodic and anecdotal decision-making, weak assessment practices, vertical silos, underdeveloped institutional research, disconnects between goals and resource allocation, weak patterns of communication, hostility to new ideas, over-emphasis on process, and conflicting goals which tend to be vertically and horizontally disjointed.

2. Environmental scanning. Although environmental scanning is not new to strategic planning, its more contemporary forms move considerably beyond traditional SWOT analyses that assess institutional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, to consider a broad range of social, demographic, economic, political, and technological trends that impact the organization. This form of robust scanning, and the reports generated by it, make the driving forces of change apparent to campus stakeholders.

3. Peer analysis. Increasingly, institutions are utilizing sophisticated forms of peer and competitor analysis, often for the purpose of developing a list of both current peers as well as aspirational ones. A wide range of methodological techniques and data sources are now available to facilitate this form of benchmarking analysis.

4. Vision casting. Although visioning at various levels has always been an element of planning in its more strategic forms, recent trends are characterized by a recognition that it is a responsibility of a campus leader to develop a brief, powerful and motivational vision from the top as a method for stimulating subsequent visioning at other levels, and in increasing detail. This is a method for getting the campus and the organization ready for vision-driven planning and often now includes a statement of institutional values.

5. Educating for planning. Another pre-planning element clearly recognizes that planning is often alien to the institutional culture or has previously been characterized by failure. As a consequence, a campus leader and his/her team find it useful to develop individual and/or organizational understanding and appreciation for strategic planning. This can be achieved in many different ways, including the use of focus group sessions, small group meetings, individual sessions, workshops and external speakers and facilitators. As this stage of the process, it is important to focus on strategic planning as both a product and a process - - as a way of thinking and organizing for positioning the institution and as a means for creating a vision, developing goals and executing strategy.

6. Development of guiding principles. A helpful pre-planning stage involves developing a set of guiding principles for planning that can be broadly understood and appreciated, to include both content principles and process principles. Content principles, for example, characterize the content of plans, such as those which are strategic, institution-wide, forward-looking, environmentally rich, linked to prior plans, inclusive and cross-sector oriented, assessable, evidence or data-based, providing guidance for resource allocation and budgeting, providing criteria for prioritization, useful for accreditation and government reporting, and linked to prior plans - - all this so that participants can envision both a product and a process, as well as standards for it.

7. Process principles are important so that participants have appropriate and informed expectations about the steps to be followed in the planning cycle. This might include principles that emphasize a broad base of stakeholders; widespread participation; fostering an educational dialogue; use of planning committees; use of existing administrative structures to engage in planning, cycles and adjustable goals; evaluation of plans and the planning process; status reporting and monitoring; budget processes; assignment of responsibilities; the roles of key actors; and implementation strategies. Development of an early campus understanding of the principles applied to the planning process is more likely to ensure its institutional success.

B. Implementation, assessment and accountability.

A second key direction for leading planning and change is the recent emphasis being placed on implementation, assessment and accountability for achieving success. As Norris and Poulton note, one of the most important over-time trends is the shift in the balance of effort toward execution (Figure 1.3). This is important given the historical tendency for traditional plans to sit on shelves or for there to be a lack of focused implementation strategies to ensure follow-through. As a consequence, contemporary strategic plans now tend to include specific implementable initiatives and associated resource allocations to ensure funding to support them, measurable outcomes, assignment of responsibilities for implementation, and periodic monitoring and evaluation. The focus is on decision making driven by the strategic plan and on making strategic planning a part of “normal administration,” as opposed to something entirely novel or tangential to the organization (Kirkpatrick, 1992).

Related to this direction is one that emphasizes the heightened role of assessment in the planning process. While assessment and benchmarking can be very important during the pre-planning stage as an effort to identify opportunities and weaknesses, it is also becoming increasingly important to both assess the planning process itself and to know when an organization has successfully achieved change (Tromp and Ruben, pp. 21-25). Assessment has become a key pre and post-planning tool utilizing a variety of methodologies, from a comprehensive Baldridge model (Baldridge, 2003; Spangehl, 2004; Ruben 2003), to balanced scorecard and dashboard approaches (Kaplan and Norton, 2001; Tromp and Ruben, 2004) to benchmarking analyses (Schuh and Bender, 2002). In sum, assessment has become important to strategic planning by aiding in the identification of priorities, in assisting in all phases of planning and in assessing the outcomes of the planning process (Tromp and Ruben, 2004, p. 24).

C. Linking planning, budgeting and research

The drive for successful achievements, accountability and effective implementation of plans is increasingly dependent on the development of sound linkages between strategic planning, budgeting and institutional research functions. Planning initiatives and resource allocation cannot afford to be independent processes; indeed, to ensure success and address the tendency for plans to remain on shelves, resources must be allocated to both the planning process itself and to its outcomes. This can be achieved in a variety of ways, from modified program budgeting systems that link programs and institutional goals, to processes which identify (and often reallocate) resources for specific planning initiatives to complement conventional, incremental base budgeting.

Similarly, planning and change efforts are increasingly linked to the development of cost savings, cost reductions, and the reduction of waste and organizational inefficiencies. Campus leaders now tend to view strategic planning as a way to achieve these goals at the same time that new initiatives are developed and supported financially. It is not uncommon, for example, for campus participants and strategic planning team leaders to be asked to identify budget reductions and reallocations as part of the same strategic planning process that identifies new revenue sources and strategies for realizing them in support of new initiatives.

Good information and a culture of evidence-based decision making is now recognized as essential to these linkages between planning and budgeting. As implied in the above treatment of assessment, planning choices are best made in an environment where relevant data are collected for purposes beyond conventional transactions, i.e., collected to support effective decision making. As a consequence, universities are increasingly recognizing the need to migrate from an environment where “institutional research” simply means the collection of data for some purpose other than effective decision making or what is mandated externally (e.g., a state, the federal government, an accrediting body) to an environment where the function is more research intensive and purposive - - defined more by the decision making needs and planning initiatives of the organization. For this to be most effective, comprehensive approaches to “information management” are viewed as increasingly important - - enterprise-wide approaches to data warehouses that combine conventional, mandated data with those that are more specific to good decision making, planning initiatives and outcomes assessment. Indeed, the organizational marriage of information management and institutional research functions is a trend that derives from these imperatives. Furthermore, enterprise technology solutions and their leveraging are increasingly key to process improvements, efficiencies and the ability for organizations to effectuate change (Norris, Kirkpatrick and Baer, 2006).

D. Linking planning and continuous improvement.

Another development of growing salience relates to efforts to combine strategic planning and continuous improvement elements, including institutional research and information management activities, to achieve strategic goals for the institution (Kirkpatrick and Loppnow 2004). Institutional improvement, a primary goal of strategic planning, usually requires a cultural change, often fundamental rather than cosmetic, reflecting important attitudinal shifts. This is most likely realized through systematic, comprehensive and inclusive planning processes. The achievement of continuous improvement through strategic planning requires transformational leadership that involves vision articulation, development of an appropriate culture, and a commitment to change. Many opportunities for improvement occur in the context of institutional mission, values, guiding principles and the strategic plan that includes specific/identified strategic directions and supporting initiatives. Increasingly, one of the most effective ways to ensure continuous improvement is to develop the concept and its operationalization as a “key strategic direction” embedded in the plan. An effective culture of quality requires continuous improvement strategies and a commitment to adaptation through an ongoing cycle of goal setting, planning, implementation and evaluation.

Success in this improvement endeavor is facilitated by an integrative organizational philosophy for linking planning and continuous improvement - - one that emphasizes priority-setting, the empowerment of others, decentralization, evidence-based decision making, teamwork, continuous processes, benchmarking, shared participation, the management of conflict, regularity of process, professional development, a visible leadership commitment to quality and continuous improvement, and strong linkages among planning, information management, institutional research, budgeting, assessment and continuous improvement. This is a healthy order not easily achieved and is very dependent on leadership modeling from the top of the institution.

Increasingly, the most common model for continuous improvement is Baldrige-based (Baldrige, 2003), emphasizing ever-increasing value to students and stakeholders, improved organizational effectiveness, and both organizational and personal learning. Available alternative models are rooted in new approaches to regional accreditation which require a full cycle of problem identification, measurable objectives, successful implementation and demonstrable change and improvement (Spangehl, 2004).

E. Strategic communication.

There is growing recognition that strategic communication is an essential support for strategic planning. Good planning and good communication work in tandem as leaders increasingly realize that strategic planning leads to change and that leaders play a vital role in creating an organizational culture that recognizes and encourages change (generally see Tromp and Ruben, 2004, pp. 17–19). It is through effective communication that leaders create and sustain a guiding vision for their organization, casting a long-term view, motivating and empowering others to act on a vision, creating short-term wins to facilitate buy-in, addressing fears about change and educating others, creating a sense of urgency and guiding others toward realistic options (Kotter, 1996).

As a consequence of these communication imperatives, leaders and strategic planning team members must strategically select effective messages and associated delivery methods to reach relevant audiences, stakeholders and subcultures in impactful ways. The identification of stakeholders and affected groups, an understanding of attitudes and dispositions, the development of customized messages, and the use of multiple communication channels, such as focus group meetings, formal vision statements, briefings, training sessions, formal meetings, interviews, newsletters, Q&A sessions, reports and memos are strategies that can be used in all phases of planning.

F. Planning as change navigation.

Change is the key byproduct of effective strategic planning, especially efforts that incorporate continuous improvement models, and are much dependent on institutional leadership. These processes are more important to effectuating change than traditional change management per se. While “change management” might be misleading or overstate our capacity to “manage” it, there are many initiatives and approaches that universities are adopting to achieve change objectives. These can be integrated with, and run parallel to, the strategic planning process. Indeed, campus educational and communication strategies are essential for reducing the barriers to change and ensuring successful, enduring impacts. Successful campus leaders use change navigation principles to develop others as “change agents” at all levels of the organization. This leadership and campus educational and communication process involves a variety of efforts to:

1. Understand change in our environment and in organizations generally, as well as one’s own university setting. Campus-wide reflection on such change drivers as societal forces, organizational trends, higher education demands and information and communication technology innovations need to be effectively linked to local strategic planning initiatives.

2. Understand the dynamics of organizational change, including the typical products, stresses, dimensions and benefits of change, as well as the impact of changes in mission, identity, relationships with key stakeholders, in the ways of work, and in the organizational culture. It is also important for key participants to understand natural organizational responses to change and the perspectives of, and impact on, those at all levels, including campus leaders, faculty, middle level managers and staff. When key participants understand both the essential conditions for organizational change and the common causes of change failures and their consequences, adjustments in the campus culture and receptivity to change through systematic strategic planning are enabled.

3. Understand the “human face” of change and how change impacts individuals both within and external to the organization. A deeper appreciation of the psychology of approaching change, how different people have different needs during times of change, the myths and realities of change, the ways individuals respond to stressful environments and change, and effective strategies for coping with change are all components of the institutional leadership toolkit that are frequently ignored, yet vital for lasting change initiatives.

4. Understand the processes of “navigating change” - - the evolutionary and expeditionary characteristics inherent in the cycle of change and how change cannot often be directly “managed” but best understood as a process. If there has been any overarching shift across the eras of planning, it is the movement from viewing planning from a “cookbook” perspective to the Norris and Poulton emphasis on planning as a “roadmap.” Revitalized approaches to planning now focus more on strategies and decisions than on the plan itself, and on the expeditionary processes associated with execution strategy. Indeed, it can be quite comforting and liberating when key institutional participants understand the tempo and cycles of change (about which much has been written in the change management literature), such as the process of transition through the various common phases of change, including the dreaded “neutral zone” and the “trough of disillusionment” where anxiety is high and little appears to be on track, as well as the “new beginnings” which typically follow resistance and lead to innovation and collective commitments to work together for a new future (see Norris and Poulton, 2008, Figure 5.4 & 5.5). When campus employees have a “roadmap” for how to get from “here to there,” the journey can begin and leaders can meet individual needs by addressing specific changes, organizational priorities for work to be done, providing resources and supporting policy changes for new initiatives, and training in skills to support leadership, planning and change.

III. How Do New Directions Affect Integrated, Strategic, Aligned Planning?

The foregoing cluster of new directions in leading and planning change are all vital elements in strategic planning and they all place new demands on the role of leadership for change across the newer dimensions of pre-planning, implementation/assessment/accountability, strategic communication, linkages to continuous improvement, linkages among planning, budgeting and research, and change navigation. These newer directions exemplify the institutional context of the SCUP model of strategic planning and change management - - the institutional context characterized by operational planning, leading and navigating change, executing strategy, expeditionary actions and the development of individual and organizational capacity (Norris and Poulton, 2008, Figure 3.2).

These newer directions are also effectively captured by the Norris/Poulton trio of “integrated, strategic, aligned” planning discussed in Chapter 2. Pre-planning, for example, is an important part of the “strategic” element, especially as it relates to environmental forces. Linkages with budgeting and resource allocations are a symbol of the “integrated” imperative. And, the emphasis on linkages among assessment, continuous improvement, information management and institutional research capture activities that are “aligned.”

Leadership is the key to strategic planning and change, and to the relationships between planning and change. In Ruben’s model (Tromp and Ruben, 2004) of strategic planning in higher education, the goal of planning is defined as organizational improvement and change, with success depending on collaborative leadership, effective communication and assessment of the gap between the desired state of the organization and its current situation. Leadership is the key to guiding plan development and implementation strategies from beginning to end. “Simply stated, change management involves a conscious effort to change something about an organization - - in other words, change by design rather than by accident. The ultimate goal of strategic planning is purposeful change…(p. 12). To Ruben, the cross-cutting imperatives or key success factors for achieving organizational change are leadership, competencies to facilitate change, the development and management of communications, understanding and leveraging the organizational culture, assessment as a systematic approach to monitoring progress and outcomes, and planning strategically to ensure goal achievement (Ruben, 2008). Indeed, planning is a systematic effort for anticipating and coordinating change that addresses leadership, communication, culture and assessment in an integrated way.

Effective leadership for planning and change often requires transformational leadership characterized by vision articulation, the development of appropriate supportive cultures and commitment to change. Cultural change itself is best realized through systematic, comprehensive, inclusive, integrated strategic and aligned planning. For change to endure, however, organizations and their leaders must commit to continuous improvement strategies to build a culture of quality reflecting a commitment to adaptation through an on-going cycle of planning, goal setting, implementation and evaluation that is rich in process, stakeholder-oriented, teamwork-based, people-empowering, committed to quality, performance-benchmarked and supportive of continuous professional development. We cannot lose sight of the fact that healthy, mission-driven, environmentally-sensitive and open, thriving organizations are a requisite for cycling change and continuous improvement. Strong higher education institutions effectively link strategically planning, information management, institutional research, assessment and continuous improvement functions as they navigate change.

IV. Resources

Anderson, Linda Ackerman and Dean Anderson. The Change Leader’s Roadmap: How to Navigate Your Organization’s Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Argyris, Chris. Strategy, Change, and Defensive Routines. Marshfield MA: Pitman, 1985.

Baldrige National Quality Program. The 2003 Criteria for Performance Excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST, 2003.

Barger, Nancy J. The Challenge of Change in Organizations. Palo Alto: Davies-Black Publishing, 1997.

Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1992.

Beckhard, Richard and Wendy Pritchard. Changing the Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading Fundamental Change in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.

Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Bridges, William. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.

Bryson, John M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Cameron, Esther and Mike Green. Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change. London: Kogan Page, 2004.

Conger, Jay A. and Gretchen M. Spreitzer. The Leader’s Change Handbook: An Essential Guide to Setting Direction and Taking Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

Dolence, Michael D. and Donald M. Norris. Transforming Higher Education. Ann Arbor: SCUP, 1995.

Drucker, Peter F. Managing in a Time of Great Change. Dutton, 1995.

Floyd, Pete. Change Management. New York: Capstone, 2002.

Galpin, Timothy. The Human Side of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Goman, Carol. Adapting to Change: Making it Work for You. Menlo Park: Crisp Publications, 1993.

Hayes, John. The Theory and Practice of Change Management. New York: Palgrave, 2002.

Hollowell, David, Michael Middaugh, and E. Sibolski. Integrating Higher Education Planning and Assessment. Ann Arbor: SCUP, 2006.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. The Challenge of Organizational Change. New York: Free Press, 1992.

Kaplan, R.S., and D.P. Norton. The Strategy-Focused Organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2001.

Kirkpatrick, Samuel A. and Donald M. Loppnow. Accomplishing Strategic Goals Through Planning and Continuous Improvement Processes. SCUP Annual Conference, 2004.

Kirkpatrick, Samuel A. and Donald M. Loppnow. Institutionalizing a Planning Culture: A Model for Strategic Planning and Continuous Improvement. SCUP Annual Conference, 2003.

Kirkpatrick, Samuel A. Strategic Planning As Normal Administration. SCUP Annual Conference, 1992.

Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.

Larkin, T.J. and Sandra Larkin. Communicating Change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

Nadler, David, R. Shaw and A. Walton. Discontinuous Change: Leading Organizational Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Norris, Donald and Nick Poulton. A Guide to Planning for Change. Ann Arbor: SCUP, 2008.

Norris, Donald L., Samuel A. Kirkpatrick, and Linda Baer. Leveraging Technology Through Comprehensive Change Management. SCUP Annual Conference, 2006.

Nutt, Paul C. Managing Planned Change. New York: Macmillan, 1992.

Pendlebury, John, Benoit Grouard and Francis Meston. The Ten Keys to Successful Change Management. New York: Wiley, 1998.

Peterson, Marvin, David D. Dill, Lisa A. Mets and Associates. Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Pritchett, Price and Ron Pound. A Survival Guide to the Stress of Organizational Change. Dallas: Pritchett and Associates, 1995.

Raelin, Joseph J. Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to Bring Out Leadership in Everyone. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2003.

Rowley, Daniel J. and Herbert Sherman. From Strategy to Change: Implementing the Plan in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Rowley, Daniel J., Herman Lujan and Michael Dolence. Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Ruben, Brent D. Understanding, Planning, and Leading Social and Organizational Change. Washington, DC: NACUBO, 2008

Ruben, Brent D. Excellence in Higher Education Guide: An Integrated Approach to Assessment, Planning, and Improvement in Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: NACUBO, 2007.

Ruben, Brent D. Excellence in Higher Education: A Baldrige-Based Guide to Organizational Assessment, Improvement and Leadership. Washington, DC: NACUBO, 2003.

Schuh, J. and B. Bender. Benchmarking in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Scott, Cynthia D. and Dennis T. Jaffee. Managing Organizational Change: A Practical Guide for Managers. Menlo Park: Crisp Publications, 1989.

Sevier, R.A. Strategic Planning in Higher Education. Washington, DC: CASE, 2000.

Smith, Douglas K. Taking Charge of Change: Ten Principles for Managing People and Performance. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.

Spangehl, Steven D. “The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Academic Quality Improvement Project (AQIP).” In Pursing Excellence in Higher Education, Brent D. Ruben, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Tromp, Sherrie A. and Brent D. Ruben. Strategic Planning in Higher Education: A Guide for Leaders. Washington, DC: NACUBO, 2004.