192 Strategic Leadership
As we have suggested above and in our earlier description of the role of the
SPC, recommendations for academic programs that emerge from the strategy
process will eventually have to be shaped, considered, and approved by the appro-
priate faculty committees and decision-making bodies in order to be implemented.
In this case, its consideration will have the benefit of the analysis to which it
has been subjected in the planning process. The recommendation comes to the
academic decision-making body accompanied by a clear strategic rationale, with
many of the essential issues already addressed. By returning to the example of
Monnet University, we can expand on the case in terms of the way the creation
of an enlarged interdisciplinary major in international studies would be appropri-
ately fashioned.
After the governing board endorses the strategic plan, the president asks the
provost to send the recommendation to the Monnet University curriculum com-
mittee, along with the report of the SPC task force on international education.
The provost calls the committee’s attention to the strategic initiative on inter-
national education, and in particular to the rationale and the goal related to the
proposed new multi-track interdisciplinary major. Since the curriculum committee
has been involved in deliberations about the strategic plan and is considering
other interdisciplinary programs based on it, it is well versed in the general issues.
The strategic plan’s goal concerning the proposed major reads as follows: “The
curriculum committee should develop the requirements for an enlarged and refor-
mulated interdisciplinary program major in international studies that will include
six new concentrations. In collaboration with the interdisciplinary international
studies faculty group and the dean of global studies, it should consider the rationale
and characteristics described in the enclosed report. The proposal is expected to
be ready for final action by the end of the current academic year, at which time
the curriculum committee and the dean of global studies will present the recom-
mendations to the faculty.”
In some colleges and universities, the statement of a goal in this way would be
novel since it involves a formal authoritative recommendation on a curricular
question initially coming to, rather than from, a faculty committee. Moreover,
it establishes explicit accountabilities and deadlines for a faculty committee and
for named academic officers. Although these steps may not appear customary, in
point of fact, administrative and faculty leaders often use parallel but less formal
methods of leadership, consensus building, problem solving, and political influence
to move issues onto the agendas of academic decision-making bodies.
As a method of strategic leadership, the approach is appropriate and responsible.
It sets an agenda through a legitimate strategy process that is part of the total
governance system. It defines goals to be achieved within a given time frame and
holds specified groups and individuals responsible to do so. As a consequence,
it builds a sense of focus and urgency. Yet it does so in ways that respect shared
governance and the professional judgment of the members of the curriculum
committee. Professional responsibility is a powerful resource that can be elicited
and given coherence by strategic leadership, or it can work in fits and starts as