Although stakeholders from the business, public administration, and educational
communities recognize that leaders in their communities should have some degree of mastery
over strategic leadership competencies, the nature, timing, and extent of the teaching and
learning of such competencies in university-based leadership educational programs varies across
the respective communities (Martin, Aupperle, & Rongxin, 1996; Stumpf & Mullen, 1991). A
study of academic presidents by Martin, Aupperle, and Rongxin (1996) revealed that such
presidents had limited strategic management experience and required limited prior training. The
study revealed that while 90% of the academic presidents indicated that they had experience in
formal strategic planning, 82% of them did not obtain such knowledge from a formal teaching
experience but obtained it through self-study (Martin, Aupperle, & Rongxin, 1996). In a more
recent study, the researcher concluded that at a community college, leaders learned to strategize
through previous experience (VanDenBerghe, 2010). At the Pre-K-12 level of education, states
like Idaho are taking a more proactive approach by providing funding to facilitate the training of
leaders via an organization that is not an institution of higher education (Idaho, 2016).
No current studies in the education community appear to exist that counter the fact that
the approach to teaching strategy to education leaders tends to be significantly different than the
approach to teaching strategy as utilized in the business community to prepare business leaders.
At the higher education level, the education community appears to rely on work experiences to
develop strategic competencies in leaders, but at the Pre K-12 level, at least one state facilitates
such competency development through training programs funded by state funds (Idaho, 2016). In
the business community, strategy as a course (formerly known as business policy) in business
education programs can be traced to second decade of the 20th century at Harvard Business
School (Thomas, 1983). Historically, strategic management (the current title for the applied
strategy discipline) courses have been integrated into the business curriculum of future business
leaders (Geiger, 2010).
In the public administration and education communities, experience with strategy can be
seen as beginning in the later part of the 20th century. The U.S. Federal Government, in 1993,
codified a mandate requiring government leaders to develop a capacity for strategic
management, and many states followed the federal lead (Streib, 2005). As Backoff, Wechler, and
Crew (1993) pointed out, “Strategic management of public organizations has been one of the
“hottest” topics of the past decade both in academia and in public management practice” (p.
127). At the federal level, this mandate was further strengthened and expanded in 2010, when
President Obama signed the GPRA Modernization Act (herein referred to as the GPRAMA) of
2010 into law (White House, 2011). The GPRAMA amended the Government Performance
Results Act of 1993 and requires, among other things, that governmental agencies periodically
produce strategic plans and publish performance reports (Office of Inspector General, 2016).
Although the education community (at least at the higher education level) has been using
strategic planning as a tool since the 1970s (Hinton, 2012), the first decade of the 21st century
was the period during which educational stakeholders began to consider strategic leadership and
strategic management more widely (Hallinger & Snidvongs, 2008). While the education
community recognizes that educational leaders should have strategic leadership competencies at
both the higher education (Freedman & Kochan, 2013; Man, 2010) and K-12 levels (Education
Commission, 2005; Wolak, 2007), barriers may exist that impede the broader integration of
effective strategy-related courses into the educational programs designed for educational leaders.
In this report, strategic leadership and strategic management literature from scholars in three
sectors (the for-profit, non-profit, and public sectors) and from scholars in the education industry
were considered in sufficient detail as to allow the reader to gain an understanding of the totality
of sectoral strategic leadership competencies as taught, learned, and practiced to date.
In addition, the need to conduct meta-studies of strategy research emanating from
scholars in the education community was highlighted. Scholars from the business and public
administration communities periodically conducted meta-studies of strategy research by scholars
in their respective communities. This research is useful, among other things, for identifying gaps
in strategy research and for encouraging researchers to conduct research in a particular strategyrelated
topic of interest to the community. In conducting the present study, gaps in strategy
research emanating from scholars in the education community were expected. Of particular
interest in the present study was the teaching of strategy to and the learning of strategy by future
leaders in education.
In order to achieve the aims of this study, a conceptual framework was developed to
facilitate the development of a Dissertation Profile, which is attached as appendix C. An updated
profile was necessary because the benchmark study conducted by Shrivastava and Gaik (1989)
did not accommodate the multi-sectoral strategy literature published since 1989, when their
article was published. With the development of the above-mentioned conceptual framework in
mind, Chapter 2 is organized into four sections. In the first section, the reader is introduced to the
concept of the sectoral enterprise and to select strategy-related competencies. This introduction is
achieved with reference to a model of a sectoral enterprise and with reference to an updated
Stumpf and Mullen (1991) strategic leadership competencies model. In the second section of this
chapter, the Stumpf and Mullen (1991) strategic leadership competencies model is made current
by considering post-1991 strategy related literature from business, public administration,
organizational behavior, and educational communities. Such literature is used to augment the
Stumpf and Mullen (1991) model and to make it contemporaneously relevant. Also, in the
second section of Chapter 2, strategic planning and strategic management are distinguished. In
the third section of this review of the strategy literature, academically-oriented strategy topics are
introduced and the remainder of sectoral strategy-related competencies are discussed. In the final
section, a holistic strategy framework is introduced and its intended use in the study is discussed.
Introduction to the Sectoral Enterprise and Strategic Competencies
In this section, the concepts of sectoral enterprise and the strategic leader are introduced.
A sectoral strategic leader is expected to have strategy related competencies that include, among
other things, knowledge of strategy content, strategic processes, technical strategy-related
competencies, and psychological strategy-related competencies (Stumpf & Mullen, 1991). Each
of these competency areas are discussed in the pages that follow and are embodied in the applied
discipline, which is referred to as strategic management (Cox, Daspit, McLaughlin, & Jones III,
2012). Although the roots of strategic management as a discipline can be traced to the early 20th
century (Thomas, 1983), the starting point of this section of the literature review is 1991, which
is the year that Stumpf and Mullen’s (1991) article, titled “Strategic Leadership: Concepts,
Skills, Style and Process,” was published. In the article, Stumpf and Mullen (1991) presented and
discussed a strategic leadership competency model. The Stumpf and Mullen (1991) model
presented four elements of strategic leadership competencies by depicting the elements as four
legs of a table upon which a business plan rests. In this literature review, the literature that that
served to update these strategy-related competencies is discussed. In addition, the Stumpf and
Mullen (1991) table model of strategic leadership competencies is updated using a literary
evolutionary walk forward approach, which resulted in a revised model of strategy-related
competencies that can accommodate sectoral differences.
Before discussing competency modeling, a model of a sectoral enterprise is introduced
with the aim of distinguishing strategy as something that an organization “has” from the concept
of strategy being something that people “do,” as anticipated by contemporary strategy research,
which is identified as strategy-as-practice (Johnson, 2007).
Figure 3. Sectoral enterprise as an open system.
Figure 3, above, depicts the sectoral enterprise as a system and updates the Stumpf and
Mullen (1991) model of strategic leadership competencies. The original Stumpf and Mullen
(1991) strategic leadership competency model was augmented in Figure 1 to include a)
consideration of the environment and strategic management tools, b) consideration of industrial
and sectoral contexts, c) consideration of sectoral strategic enterprises, resources, and expected
outcomes, d) consideration of strategic leadership competencies, and e) consideration of a
strategy management office and the balanced scorecard. Each of the above listed augmentations
to the Stumpf and Mullen (1991) is considered throughout this chapter.
It is important to mention here that the model of a sectoral enterprise, which was
presented as Figure 3, serves two purposes. First, the systems graphic and approach facilitates
the discussion of a complex subject that “requires significant time to understand” (Martin,
Aupperle, & Rongxin, 1996, p. 147). A systems approach was chosen to give deference to a
growing body of scholarly work in the area of strategic thinking (Pisapia, 2012) that anticipates
the utilization of systems thinking (Liedtka, 1998). The second purpose for including Figure 3 is
that the systems-based conceptual framework is useful for identifying and organizing industrial
and sectoral features that are unique to the education industry and that may affect the teaching,
learning, and practice of strategy-related competencies. In discussing the unique features of the
education industry, the notion of the sectoral diversity of the education industry is considered in
section two of this chapter.
According to the strategy literature, which is discussed throughout this dissertation, each
sector has unique features that impact the strategic management process and practice elements
when adapted for use in each of the sectors (i.e., the for-profit sector, non-profit sector, and
governmental sector) (Nutt & Backoff, 1993). Given this multi-sectoral consideration, the word
“sectoral” was added to the labels set forth in Figure 3 (above) and it is added to other strategyrelated
terms determined to be relevant and applicable in any sectoral setting. Notwithstanding
such universal application, sectoral differences that affect the deployment of strategic
management processes and practices were identified and considered for this dissertation.
In the pages that follow, each augmentation of the original Stumpf and Mullen (1991)
model is considered, starting with the environment. The environment is one of five elements
(inputs, the black box, outputs, the environment, and feedback) of an open system (Lunenburg,
2010). Figure 3 was designed with each element in mind. For this literature review, the
environment was considered first. In starting with the environment, an external-to-internal
sequential approach to discussing the model open systems theory was utilized to facilitate the
strategy discussion in this chapter, which ends by opening the black box. Opening the figurative
black box facilitates a discussion of sectoral strategy-related competencies that a sectoral leader
must master to be an effective strategic leader. For the purposes of this dissertation, an externalto-
internal approach was also adopted to present and discuss the unique features of the education
industry, which must be considered by current and future educational strategic leaders and other
interested stakeholders. This consideration begins with the environment and the sectoral context.
While the original Stump and Mullen (1991) model does not specifically account for the
environment or sectoral contexts in their strategic leadership competencies model, their singular
focus on the strategic leaders of for-profit enterprises allowed the authors some liberty to focus
on only one sector (the for-profit sector) and to have unwritten expectations regarding the
importance of environment to strategic leaders.