Strategies 193
part of a fragmented decision-making process. Alternatively, as often happens it
can be alienated by real or perceived administrative arbitrariness or bureaucratic
controls. Goals that define academic issues in time-wise strategic terms with des-
ignated accountability can create a sense of purposefulness and responsibility that
may otherwise be difficult to achieve.
Change in the academic sphere is the test case for the effectiveness of strategic
leadership, and the issues come into sharpest focus in initiatives that propose new
or revised programs of study or methods of teaching and learning. As has become
clear in this example, strategic decision making and leadership in the academic
sphere must reflect possibilities that are rooted in the actual or potential interests
and capabilities of the faculty. As Burton Clark suggests, the “viability [of
academic institutions] does not depend on the capacity of top-down commands to
integrate parts into an organizational whole,” as it does in hierarchical organiza-
tions (1987, 268). Strategic leadership recognizes that academic change almost
invariably moves from the bottom up. The responsibility of leadership, whether
official or unofficial, is to define educational issues, to motivate, to challenge, to
support, and to integrate emergent academic possibilities into the institution’s
strategic priorities.
Actions
The fourth dimension of strategy is the development of a series of proposed
tactics or actions, often called action steps. Once again the language used in
strategic plans to differentiate “actions” from “goals” or “objectives” is not very
precise. One often finds that strategic plans do not differentiate effectively between
the terms,; long lists of purported goals or objectives often look more like specific
actions. To sort out the usage, it seems appropriate to call an action a specific
decision, choice, or specifiable activity undertaken to support the achievement
of a broader goal. In most cases an action also tends to fall within the authority
and available resources of an individual or group. There is less risk, constraint,
or uncertainty in achieving it than the more inclusive goal that it supports and
enacts. Besides defining a broader scope of accomplishment than actions, goals
are more transparently strategic, while actions are more operational. Clearly, there
is also a stronger volitional and broader motivational aspect to a goal than an
action step.
Using the example of alumni-giving rates, we can see some of the concrete
differences between goals and actions. The goal of raising alumni participation
depends on actions such as gathering more e-mail and residential addresses, finding
current phone numbers, installing up-to-date software, using the alumni Web page
creatively, organizing the staff, and creating better annual fund publications. In
many ways, the proposed actions test the validity of a goal and reveal the true
dimensions of its possibilities. Where suggested actions may encounter resistance
or require new resources, we quickly find ourselves dealing with the strategic
meaning of the broader goal. Alumni participation is related to the strategic effort