ANALYSES AND THEMATIC DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE INSTITUTIONS STRATEGIC PLANS

Abstract

In the ‘modern’ world, American Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) face a wretched landscape of declining public trust, value, rising student debt, and shifting demographic and economic trends. Due to this, HEIs are facing increasing pressure to justify their value and adapt to a rapidly evolving landscape. A place where this can be fairly evident is within the Southeastern Conference (SEC), a collection of sixteen flagship, land-grant, and research- intensive Institutions, all of which represent some of the most complex financial and academic colleges within the United States. Best known for its athletic prestige, particularly within American Football, the SEC also stands out as an academic powerhouse. In addition to this, the conference has enormous economic, cultural, and social influence in its state, region, and the broader nation. For these massive institutions, strategic planning has become the primary way of dealing with these existential challenges, charting future priorities, and positioning themselves as leaders in each respective field. This thesis looks to explore how SEC institutions employ strategic planning. Not as it pertains to the content of such plans but as to how each plan structures an organizational framework that reflects institutional identity, internal governance, and regional imperatives. This thesis, rather than analyzing what these plans say, looks to investigate how they are set up: typology, logic, and sequencing of priorities. This is done by an inductive, systematic, qualitative document analysis of the strategic plans for all 16 SEC institutions. Three dominant typological structures were identified within all of the plans: the Top-Down Model, the Decentralized Model, and the Hierarchical Structure. All of these ‘models’ differ in how they arrange mission statements, goals, themes, subgoals, and action steps, and are not mutually exclusive. The vii models also reflect different planning philosophies that each institution may apply, such as administrative power distributions and stakeholder strategies. The first model, the Top-Down Model, organizes all strategic practices or other goals the institution may have under an overarching mission or branding statement, which emphasizes centralized authority and alignment with executive leadership, such as an office of the president. The second, the Decentralized Model, which is similar to the first, allows for autonomous strategic units, or departments, within the institution to develop distinct goals under a shared institutional umbrella. The difference between this and the first is that the institution has elected not to include a broad overarching theme within its structure, although there may be one, it is not defined within its typology. Finally, the Hierarchical Structure allows for both approaches, with a layered goal structure, with each goal building upon the other, and then performance indicators that flow rather logically from wider initial values to measure distinctive actions. Each model reveals different ‘assumptions’ about institutional function, power, and the relationship between vision and execution. What distinguishes this study and research from other existing literature is the overwhelming emphasis on form over content. While much of post-secondary education focuses on the themes and objectives presented in these plans, this thesis argues that the strategic plan structure—how it is visually, thematically, and logically constructed—is equally, if not more, critical than its content. This thesis, by constructing a typology of the structure of strategic plans, allows for a framework in which one can interpret how strategic vision is conveyed and implemented in HEIs. In doing this, it contributes to a deeper understanding of higher education governance, planning theory, and the evolving role of HEIs in the 21st century.