Strategic safari: the need for a more viable planning process has motivated some educators to explore future-based planning as a way to initiate and sustain organizational change.

Over the past two decades, there have been many calls for fundamental change in public education. School administrators across the nation have faced ever-increasing pressures to undergo systemic organizational change in response to accountability mandates, brittle budgets and staggering technological advances. State and federal mandates increasingly require accountability for results. At the local level, parents and other community constituencies continually question the effectiveness of programs, policies and procedures.

Ten years ago it was the hope of many educational institutions that a strategic planning process would bring the future into focus by outlining an "ideal vision" that both the individual, staff members and the organization could embrace. The rationale for using this strategic planning model in schools was the importance of developing long-range plans to better control the future and increase productivity in the present (Capon, Farley and Hulbert, 1994).

Most school districts today have tried to implement some form of long-range planning. However, evaluations of these strategic planning processes suggest that principals and teachers did not pick up the plan and implement it after its completion. Many felt little real ownership in its development or involvement with its implementation steps (Mather, 1998).

Organizational development experts suggest that traditional strategic planning as practiced still merely affirms the present (Cutright, 1997). Strategic planning is seen by futurists and organizational change experts as a rational process in a world that is seldom rational or linear (Harvey and Bearley, 1998).

Current disillusionment with traditional strategic planning has motivated some educators to explore chaos theory and strategic thinking as concepts that leaders should use to plan and develop ongoing organizational change efforts. These theories have captured the imagination of many scientists (Gleick, 1987; Waldrop, 1992).

Future-based planning

The principles of chaos theory and self-organization have also piqued the interest of organizational development consultants and educators as concepts they can use to frame future-based planning processes in organizations. This need for a more viable planning process has propelled many organizations to replace traditional methods of strategic planning with future-based planning methods based on theories from systems thinking (Sanders, 1998). These newer, future-based planning processes claim to change the nature of organizational development and of organizational decision-making. Advocates also claim that they help to sustain change efforts.

Leadership in the new era

The new science that defines complexity and chaos theory asserts that organizations today must become shifting clusters of self-controlled, autonomous units that constantly adapt to a turbulent environment. The old leadership was good for mechanistic strategies for initiating change, but the new leadership must give up their old role as "captains of commerce to become economic gardeners of organic systems" (Halal, 1998).

Employers of tomorrow likely will place a much higher value on listening and communication skills, on collaborative learning capabilities, and on critical thinking and systems thinking skills. This is because most work is increasingly interdependent, dynamic and global.

Today's educational environment requires leaders to have the emotional and intellectual capacity to be flexible enough for continuous change no matter what their job or position. Experts in planning suggest that this new type of educational leader will also need to develop strategic intent, plan strategically, and be an expert in strategic change.

The new planning paradigm

Historically in the United States, educational organizations have directed most of their improvement efforts at redesigning technical systems -- for example, technology in the workplace. In the future, educational organizations will begin to place more emphasis on redesigning social systems -- how the people at work interact with each other. In the future, both social and technical redesigns will need to be done. However, the new vision of the future will entail some changes in organizational structure as well as more changes in a participative redesign process (Bunker and Alban, 1997).

Developing the new vision is not a simple process; it requires developing a different kind of mindset than is typically found in traditional planning paradigms. Openness to change emerges when people find that old practices have costly negative consequences. When change is imposed from outside forces, such as top-down management, threat is perceived and resistance builds. Reducing the threat and subsequent resistance requires leaders to develop an openness to experiment with new ways of thinking and behaving.

Group communication system

In the new paradigm, the whole system gathers to create and analyze its own data. Often, outside stakeholders who represent important information and relationships are included in the process. For example, designing a process for gathering useful information means having a diverse enough group of people scan all databases -- predictable and unpredictable. The group then creates a communication system wherein they have a vehicle to report back on what they have found, and a forum to pool and discuss their findings regularly with the rest of the entire organization.

Because the organization is well represented, decisions and actions happen rapidly. Thus, the results do not have to be sold to the rest of the organization and it is possible for simultaneous, fundamental change to occur.

Ultimately, the difference in the new planning paradigm is that strategic thinking is the centerpiece. The purpose of strategic thinking in the new planning paradigm is to help an organization identify, respond to and influence changes in its environment.

The purpose of identifying steps and strategies within both social and technical designs of planning is to enable leaders to make a paradigm shift where necessary, to develop an openness to new ideas, and finally to understand and accept the need and opportunity for change.

The success of this approach to implementation is contingent upon the ability to foretell which intended strategy will be most effective. Mintzberg (1994) suggests a more suitable approach integrates formulation and implementation that allows organizations to discover what works and adjust their plans and methods as they progress toward their strategic targets.

Goodstein, Nolan and Pfeiffer (1993) describe this necessary component of effective strategic planning as "down-board thinking." This concept uses a thinking strategy of world class chess players. They must not only decide on their immediate moves, they must look "down board" and consider their opponent's possible responses and plan a number of moves ahead.

In strategic planning, leaders and their planning teams must look down board, consider the response to their plans, and then formulate additional plans on those responses. This suggests that the more traditional, rational nature of the planning process is being challenged and that more responsive and flexible approaches are needed for organizations to sustain their change efforts. The critical elements and steps of such a planning process are the needed link between successful strategic intents and ongoing school improvement.

Future-based planning: Step one -- Preparation

Future-based planning experts and organizational leaders agree that the following strategies are essential to initiate the change effort:

1. Building teamwork and expertise through the development of strategic thinking and action ensures the development of additional indicators, such as trust and commitment.

2. Building community involvement through the inclusion of all stakeholders ensures that all voices are heard in determining the needs of the organization.

3. Clear communication through the use of informational systems provides continued support of the strategic plan and benefits the organization.

4. Studying past and current information and data through internal and external scanning ensures that participants can see the change and assist the organization in establishing goals that are specific to the needs of the organization.

5. Defining a doable mission and vision helps the participants develop a future state for their organization that is clear and powerful enough to sustain the actions necessary for the vision to become a reality.

The strategy of envisioning the future enables leaders of the organization to make a paradigm shift where necessary, to develop an openness to new ideas, and to understand and accept the need and opportunity for change. Both visioning and scenario planning strategies are used to describe the future state through a shared culture and commitment to the plan. Ultimately, participants plan the future of the system so as to influence the environment.

Continual environmental monitoring

Future-based planning processes discuss the need for environmental monitoring to be continual, so that the appropriate information about what is happening or about to happen in the various environments is always available. This means learning to use data effectively in order to recognize the system's initial conditions as they are emerging. Through the analysis of this data, planning experts and organizational leaders learn to see change coming, respond early and influence the change to their advantage. Recognizing the system's initial conditions allows for opportunities to influence what is beginning to take shape (Snader, 1998).

Participants identify the organization's purpose and values and redefine the system's leadership. Values are identified that create common ground or shared understanding of the system, communications and structure. In addition, leadership decision-making is site-based and participative in design, using consensus.

Step two -- Development of the plan

In future-based planning it is common to find a change from the top-down locus of control. Instead, the leadership role is flexible and seeks to flatten the organization so that new leaders or opportunities for leadership emerge.

Research has shown that in today's flatter organizations, networks emerge as particularly important sources of power (Halal, 1998). In future-based planning there is an opportunity for leaders to shape networks and culture and have a more important impact on their organizations than they might have by relying on their formal authority. As a result, the organization's networks and culture are the backdrop against which everyday behavior plays out.

This more participative process ensures that the data/information collected in the second step will be looked at through many different lenses. All members of the educational organization will use this information to fuel their ongoing dialogue and debate as they develop and study options and ask many, many questions.

Future-based planning involves the whole system. Leadership uses whole-systems thinking designed to "unfreeze" the system. This process creates the planning structure. People are connected to the information, findings are confirmed, products are created for the next steps, and decisions reached are ratified (Holman and Devane, 1999).

Leadership in future-based planning attempts to transfer skills, when possible, to others. During the development and decision-making step, participants learn about the organization, their role, and its relationship to the whole system. They also learn how to work with others across departments and hierarchies. This non-linear approach impacts the organizational chart.

Step three -- Implementation

Future-based planning seeks to develop interdependent team members who are encouraged to not just accept the developed action plans for implementation, but to continue to look for data, use information and refine their plans and strategies accordingly. To support implementation, leaders design professional development that is ongoing for all members of the organization.

Senge suggests that the strategies that support organizational learning involve developing tangible activities: new governing ideas, innovations in infrastructure, and new management methods and tools that change the way people conduct their work. "Given the opportunity to take part in these new activities, people will develop an enduring capability for change" (Senge, 1999).

Step four -- Review

In future-based planning there is a wide variation in the way individuals and organizations go about reviewing strategies. Cross-functional teams and strategies that develop systems for sharing the vision allow individuals to work in structures where they are responsible for coordination and control (Bunker and Alban, 1997). This results in the combined power of both top-down leadership and widespread participation, constant learning in entrepreneurial units, and voluntary planning everywhere.

A critical step in future-based planning that contributes to sustainable results is holding periodic review meetings that bring together all interested parties. Future search theory holds that an organization's change effort will get more implementation when the people involved attend to each stage of the process, have ample opportunity to engage each other, create an umbrella of shared values, commit to action steps they believe in, and get together regularly to share what they are doing (Weisbord and Janoff, 1995).

Most future-based planning experts believe that staying principle-focused or restating the organizational values is crucial to maintaining the change effort.

Planning in chaotic environments

Strategic planning will always be indispensable because it represents the problem-solving logic all organizations need to survive. "The questions that good planning seeks to answer ... will never lose their relevance" (Halal, 1998). The need, however, is to free planning so it is performed voluntarily by entrepreneurs throughout the organization, rather than centrally planned and run by top management.

Formal planning methods found in traditional strategic planning may use a linear, rational process, but that is not how decision-makers need to think in the future. Instead, future-based planners need to seek information and ideas from a variety of sources, continually cycle through the problem until it begins to take shape, and finally reach a decision when all the pieces fit together into a coherent whole.

The underlying strength in future-based planning is that strategic thinking is the centerpiece and everyone's ongoing responsibility. Strategic thinking throughout the organization is grounded in the assumption that constituents in any organization already have within them the wisdom and creativity to confront even the most difficult challenges. In other words, members of the organizational community can often sense where powerful strategic possibilities and opportunities for action may lie (Senge, 1999).

Untapped talent and creativity

Educational organizations that implement future-based planning processes work from an underlying assumption that their people possess great talent and creativity that is untapped (Bunker and Alban, 1997). They propose to use strategies that create new relationships within the organization by delayering management. High involvement and shared decision-making characterize educational organizations that create open alliances between constituents. This is a climate in which organizations can become "learning organizations" (Senge, 1990).

The underlying limit here is the "collective capability for rethinking and recreating." This capability lies at the heart of great strategy. What matters fundamentally is whether or not educational organizations and their leaders have the capacity to challenge orthodoxy and shift their thinking as they select steps and strategies that initiate and sustain a change process in their organizations.

Public School Problems Viewed as Serious by Californians *

                                      1998       2000

School Violence                        74%        59%

Student Drug Use                       73%        57%

Lack of Parental Involvement           67%        63%

Teenage Pregnancy                      65%        53%

Student's Lack of Basic Skills         63%        54%

Large Classes                          42%        50%

Poor-Quality Teachers                  34%        41%

* More than one answer allowed.

Source: "The Essential Profession: California Education at the
Crossroads" (2001), from the Center for the Future
of Teaching and Learning.

Note: Table made from bar graph.

References

Bunker Barbara B., Billie T. Alban. (1997). Large Group Interventions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Capon, N. J. Farley, and J. Hulbert. (Jan. 1994). "Strategic Planning and Financial Performance: More Evidence." Journal of Management Studies.

Cutright, Marc. (1997). "Planning in Higher Education and Chaos Theory A Model, A Method." Paper presented at the Education Policy Research Conference.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. New York, New York: Penguin Books.

Goodstein, L., Nolan, T., Pfeiffer, J. (1993). Applied Strategic Planning: A Comprehensive Guide. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Halal, William E. (1998). The New Management: Bringing Democracy and Markets Inside Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Harvey, T. and B. Bearley. (1998). "Future-Based Change." Paper in progress. University of La Verne, La Verne, California.

Holman, P. and Tom Devane. (1999). The Change Handbook. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Mather, Ian. (November 1998). "Rethinking School Planning: A Case Study of Southlands Community College." School Leadership and Management.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York: The Free Press.

Sanders, T. Irene. (1998). Strategic Thinking and the New Science. New York, New York: Free Press.

Senge, Peter. (1999). The Dance of Change. New York: Doubleday Dell.

Senge, Peter. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Dell.

Snader, I. (1998). Strategic Thinking and the New Science. New York: The Free Press.

Waldrop, M. D. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order And Chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Weisbord, Marvin R., and Sandra Janoff. (1995). Future Search: An Action Guide To Finding Common Ground in Organizations & Communities. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Pubs.

Jean Mylen is principal of Val Verde (K-8) school in the Irvine Unified School District.