Content uploaded by Scott Eacott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Scott Eacott on Feb 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Australian Catholic University]
On: 17 December 2013, At: 21:57
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Leadership in
Education: Theory and Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20
An analysis of contemporary literature
on strategy in education
Scott Eacott
Published online: 21 Jul 2008.
To cite this article: Scott Eacott (2008) An analysis of contemporary literature on strategy in
education, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 11:3, 257-280,
DOI: 10.1080/13603120701462111
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603120701462111
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
INT. J. LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION,
JULY–SEPTEMBER 2008, VOL. 11, NO. 3, 257–280
International Journal of Leadership in Education
ISSN 1360–3124 print/ISSN 1464–5092 online © 2008 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13603120701462111
An analysis of contemporary literature on strategy in
education
SCOTT EACOTT
Taylor and Francis LtdTEDL_A_246091.sgm10.1080/13603120701462111International Journal of Leadership in Education1360-3124 (print)/1464-5092 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis0000
0000002007ScottEacottScott.Eacott@newcastle.edu.au
In this paper contemporary literature on strategy in education is examined in an integrative
and analytical manner. To achieve this, an empirical investigation on strategy in education
was undertaken. As the goal is to understand and propose specific research directions, the
findings are both descriptive and analytical. Initially, peer reviewed journal articles that had
been published relating to strategy in education were identified. Such a list provides a valuable
insight into contributions to this area of research and serves as the foundation for the paper’s
other purposes. The second purpose was to analyse strategy in education publications over
time (1980–2005), to see how the topic has evolved. Third, an integrative analysis of works
on strategy in education allowed an identification of needs for future research. The over-
riding purpose of this paper was to ensure that there was an understanding of the
contributions and their limitations, so that research on strategy in education can progress with
an appreciation of the past.
Introduction
Strategy as an educational leadership construct has been largely overlooked
in the literature of the field. However, the role of strategy has earned greater
significance in recent times as a result of the international trend towards
school-based management; reforms in school governance requiring educa-
tional leaders to adopt business-like practices, including developing an orga-
nizational vision, strategic planning, marketing, listening to customers and
observing market trends, greater autonomy and self-governance altering the
educational leadership paradigm, and education systems recognising the
need to have leaders trained in management.
The central argument of this paper is that our knowledge of strategy in
education is incomplete and muddled because research and writing in the
field have approached strategy from a narrow and conceptually flawed posi-
tion. Educational leadership is a field of inquiry dominated by a pragmatic
empirical approach (Scheerens 1997). Cognitive development of the field
remains at the discovery–orientation stage, rather than empirically oriented
studies. There remains a major struggle between disciplinary research
(educational leadership) and the separate domains of strategy research, the
Scott Eacott is a lecturer and Ph.D. candidate in the School of Education, Faculty of Education and Arts,
the University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia 2308. His doctoral research is on strategy and
the educational leader: demographic proxies and practitioner perspectives. He currently teaches in oper-
ational contexts of educational management, instructional leadership and strategic management.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
258 S. EACOTT
view of strategy as a construct and the balance between criticism and
exploration of strategy.
The evolution of strategy
The development of the concept of strategy as an explicit tool for leading
and managing an educational organisation is of recent origin in both theory
and practice. To understand why this origin is so recent, there is a need to
examine the school and the school system as an organisation.
Schools are large, formal public institutions, established by government
departments, institutions such as churches or formally incorporated bodies
of private citizens with an interest in a form of education (Vick 2002). Many
school systems have developed into highly centralised bureaucracies
(Gamage 1993), frequently with teacher’s unions with a traditional mindset
that education is best run from the centre (Dimmock 1995). However,
educational administrative restructuring efforts over the past two decades
appear to be part of an attempt to make the management of schools more
efficient, accountable and responsive to government policies by introducing
corporate management approaches from the business sector, devolving
responsibility to regions and schools and placing a greater emphasis on
educational outputs (Harman 1991). Government and education depart-
ments are now expecting school principals to possess a practical knowledge
of change management, entrepreneurialism in resource acquisition and
commercial standards in school accountability (Dempster and Logan 1998).
Strategy first began to appear in the educational administration literature
in the 1980s. However, there was very little prior to 1988 (Fidler 1989),
when the UK passed the Education Reform Act making it mandatory for all
schools to have a development plan. This legislative change in the UK led to
a voluminous literature for the scholar and practitioner on ‘how to’ create a
development plan. During the peak period of interest (1988–2000) there
were many studies undertaken by distinguished educational management
scholars, however, the focus became very narrow, primarily on the planning
process, to the exclusion of other aspects of strategy.
The word ‘strategy’ has evolved so many meanings that it has become
debased and overused (Beaver 2000). A large proportion of work claiming
to be ‘strategic’ in fact represents tactical areas and means to secure opera-
tional effectiveness (Drejer 2004). The planning and programming of the
supplementary activities appears to have emerged as ‘the whole’ of strategy
(Mintzberg 1994). L. Bell (1998) argued that ‘strategy’ and ‘planning’
became synonymous. Practitioners, consultants and academics apply the
term ‘strategy’ to almost every management activity. Franklin (1998: 313)
observed:
The word strategy is brought out under the cover of darkness when writers and speakers, theorists
and managers are looking for a more impressive word than ‘important’. The idea of strategic
objectives sounds much more impressive than the idea of business objectives on their own. The
idea of a business policy sounds second-rate to the idea of a business strategy. The idea of strategy
and its common usage has reified the term so that no self-respecting scholar or manager fails to
engage in strategy to other apparently more mundane issues.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 259
Insightful academics realised that many of the concepts and analytical
tools used during the formative years of strategy in education research
(1988–2000) were insufficient. Recognising that there is a need for a new
direction is a critical first step, however, finding one that fits the emerging
needs is a tedious task. In a 2004 special issue of School Leadership and
Management (vol. 24, no. 1) edited by B. Davies, leading scholars, including
Davies, B., Dimmock, Walker, Caldwell, Leithwood and Fullan, amongst
others, explored strategy from alternate perspectives. This issue highlighted
the need for scholars and practitioners alike to see strategy as more than the
pursuit of a plan. Dimmock and Walker (2004) criticized contemporary
strategy research for: its tendency to connect strategic thinking to improve-
ment planning; the undue attention and focus currently given to particular
indicators and criteria as underpinning drivers of strategy and strategic
thinking; the tendency for recent literature on strategy to neglect the
relevance of the cultural context of each school.
The shift in thinking continued with the National College for School
Leadership (NCSL) in the UK funded project ‘Success and sustainability:
developing the strategically focused school’. Through this project and related
publications (Davies, B. 2003, Davies, B. and Davies, B. J. 2004, Davies, B.
2004b; Davies 2006, Davies, B. J. and Davies, B. 2006) they developed a
comprehensive framework for strategy in schools comprising strategic
processes, approaches and leadership. It produced a series of behavioural
characteristics that effective strategic leaders display. Central to these find-
ings was that strategic leadership is not a new theory, but an element of all
educational leadership and management theories (Davies, B. J. and Davies,
B. 2006). Strategy as a concept was a dimension of all theoretical positions.
In contrast to this emerging school of thought on strategy in education,
developed through educational research, is a re-emergence of models devel-
oped in the corporate sector. Numerous articles (Bell, R. 2003, Davies, P.
and Coates 2005; Kettunen 2005; Bishop and Limerick 2006) have
explored the application of concepts and analytical tools from the corporate
sector, such as the Balanced Scorecard or Triple Bottom Line. In this aspect,
strategy in education is in a state of intellectual turmoil where rival schools
of thought, methodology and solutions are offered to researchers and
practitioners (Franklin 1998).
The need for strategy
Griffiths (1985) has raised concerns regarding the unquestioned adoption of
terms from the corporate word into educational administration. Thomas
(2006) also warned of the seduction of jargon from elsewhere in the field of
educational leadership. Kelly (2005) was critical of the role of strategy within
education and L. Bell (1998, 2002) strongly opposed the current strategic
planning processes in education. Others have challenged the ability of strat-
egy to meet the needs of educational organisations (Mulford 1994, Rice and
Schneider 1994, Bell, L. and Chan 2005, Ponting 2005), whilst Forde et al.
(2000) considered it to be an overrated feature of good leadership. Common
to these criticisms of strategy, strategic management and strategic leadership
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
260 S. EACOTT
is the central argument that schools are about learning and teaching, not
corporate management, and that corporate models move the leaders
attention away from instructional leadership. This core assumption is
conceptually misplaced.
Schools are traditionally viewed as under-led and under-managed orga-
nizations, characterised by their core business of teaching and learning
(Weick 1976, Bain 2000, Dimmock 2000, Dimmock and Walker 2004).
The traditional view of organisations and strategy is to see the organisation
as the machine that turns resources into products, and strategy as the instru-
ment for positioning the focal organisation in the industry and marketplace
(Løwendahl and Revang 1998). Unfortunately, the self-taught educational
leader, or even the teaching of strategy within the academy and through
consultants, is generally from a mechanistic perspective, or what Leva[ccaron] i[cacute]
and Glover (1997, 1998) term a ‘technicist–rational’ approach. This
approach offers a strategy to school leaders for a mechanistic pursuit towards
the production of a plan. The underlying assumption of strategy and a stra-
tegic leader of schools are viewed as ‘strategic rationality’ (Finkelstein and
Hambrick 1996: 337). The rationality paradigm is the basis of theories in
planning, public policy-making, microeconomics, organisational learning
and even contingency theory (Scheerens 1997). From this perspective, the
leader’s task is to identify techno-economic opportunities and problems,
systematically search for alternatives and make choices that maximize the
performance of the organisation. This perspective forms the basis of the
criteria from which school development plans in the UK are assessed during
inspection (Broadhead et al. 1996; Cuckle et al. 1998a, Cuckle and Broad-
head 2003).
This view of strategy is extremely narrow and conceptually flawed. In
most organisations much of the manager’s time and attention is given to
efforts designed to make day-to-day operations as efficient as possible. The
primary reason given for this is that inefficiencies in daily operations nega-
tively impact on the performance of the organisation. However, organisations
depend much more for their long-term success and survival on improve-
ments in their effectiveness (i.e. on how well they relate to their environ-
ments) than on improvements in their efficiency (Hofer and Schendel 1978).
Drucker (1954) stated that it is more important to do the right thing (improve
effectiveness) than to do things right (improve efficiency). This suggests that
an organisation doing the right things wrong (i.e. it is effective but not effi-
cient) can outperform the organisation by doing the wrong things right (i.e.
it is efficient but not effective). This serves as the overriding need for strategy
within an educational organisational.
Strategy is the key to aligning all school management processes (Fidler
1989). Through effective strategy the educational leader can deliberately
and purposefully align the organisational structure with the work of the
people within the organisation in consideration of organisational perfor-
mance. It focuses on the creation of meaning and purpose for the organisa-
tion (House and Aditya 1997) and provides an analytical framework to guide
managerial practice (El-Hout 1994). Strategy is the avenue to escape the ad
hoc, fragmented, piecemeal approach to institutional management adopted
by less effective leaders.
c
ˇ
c´
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 261
Description of the study
Interest in strategy in education has grown in recent years as a result of a
variety of environmental and contextual factors impacting on schools. The
year 1980 was chosen as the starting point of the analysis because it coincides
with Schendel rechristening business policy as strategic management and’
consequently’ there was little systematic scholarly research on strategy before
that date (Finkelstein and Hambrick 1996). The analysis was extended
through to 2005, representing a 25 year sample period.
To identify published works, the table of contents and abstracts of each
issue of 14 different educational leadership and management journals were
searched. Articles that were judged to address at least some component of
strategic leadership, as broadly defined for this research, were selected. The
journals selected were chosen as a cross-section of peer reviewed journals
with an impact on educational leadership and management research and
practice, with a particular focus on Australia. Unlike the business sector,
where a study by MacMillan (1991) identified 16 journals as offering
appropriate, significant or outstanding quality as a forum for publication of
strategic management research, there is no such list in educational strategic
research. Mayo et al. (2006) produced a list entitled ‘which journals educa-
tional leadership professors are choosing?’, however, the list contained both
refereed and professional journals, and only those from the USA. The selec-
tion of journals for this study represents a limitation of the study. However,
it provides a basis from which further research can be undertaken enabling
a comparison based on journals selected.
The journals selected for this study were Educational Administration and
History (EAH), Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ), Educational
Practice and Theory (EPT), Educational Management, Administration and
Leadership (EMAL), The International Journal of Educational Management
(IJEM), International Studies in Educational Administration (ISEA), Journal of
Educational Administration (JEA), Journal of Educational Planning and Admin-
istration (JEPA), Leading & Managing (LM), Perspectives in Education (PiE),
School Effectiveness and School Improvement (SESI), School Leadership and
Management (SL&M), The Educational Forum (TEF) and World Studies in
Education (WSE). This procedure produced a list of 73 works on strategic
leadership in schools, however, once multiple articles on the same study
were removed the final total was 70 works.
A descriptive and analytical assessment of the literature
In this section research on strategy in education is described in two parts.
Initially, the focus is on conceptual issues explored, followed by a discussion
of the literature from a methodological perspective. To acquire the necessary
data to address these issues the content and nature of 70 works were analysed.
The nature of the study (conceptual versus empirical) is a basic choice,
which has to be made by the researchers. Of the 70 articles, 34 (48.6%) were
conceptual and 36 (51.4%) were empirical, indicating that theory
development and theory testing is occurring simultaneously in the area. In
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
262 S. EACOTT
comparison, in the business sector Hambrick (1986), reviewing works from
1980 to 1985, found 46% to be empirical, while Schwenk and Dalton
(1991) recorded 60% and Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) recorded 75%.
Figure 1 displays the incidence of empirical works over the time frame of the
surveyed sample for education.
Figure 1. Incidence of empirical works over time
The incidence of empirical works increased dramatically during the
1990s. A major contributing factor was legislative changes in England, most
notably the Education Reform Act, 1988. This act made it mandatory for
schools to have a ‘school development plan’. This legislation gave particular
emphasis to rationally planned strategic choices (Law and Glover 2003). A
number of works have investigated the impact of this legislation on practice
(see Giles 1995, Saker and Speed 1996, Lumby 1999, McNarmara et al.
2002, Bunnell 2005, Davies, P. and Coates 2005). As the majority of the
empirical work in the sample originated in England (61.1%, n = 22), the
impact of this legislation cannot be over looked. Other countries where work
in the sample originated include Australia, Ireland, the USA (each with
two), Israel, Pakistan and Norway (each with one). There were two multi-
national studies and two that were unclear in origin.
Additional factors influencing the output of works relating to strategic
leadership included changes in the editors of journals. B. Fidler, author of
two works in the sample (Fidler 1998, 2001) and a further four books or
book chapters (Fidler 1989, 1996, 2002, Fidler and Bowles 1989) on stra-
tegic leadership in schools, was editor of School Leadership and Management
from 1995 to 2003. During that period 12 articles (17.1% of sample) were
published. Following the change of editors at School Leadership and Manage-
ment, from B. Fidler to A. Harris, B. Davies guest edited a special issue on
‘strategic leadership’, featuring seven articles. B. Davies was the author, with
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1980-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-00 2001-05
Time Period
Percentage of Empirical Works
Figure 1. Incidence of empirical works over time
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 263
Ellison, of six works (Davies, B. 2004a, 2004b, Davies and Ellison 1998a,
1998b, 1998c, 2003a, b&c) (n = 9.6%) in the sample. B. Davies was also the
author of a number of books on strategy in schools (Ellison and Davies 1990;
Davies, B. & Ellison, 1992, 1997, 1999, 2003a, b & c, Davies, B. J. and
Davies, B., 2006). T. Bush has taken over as editor of Educational Manage-
ment, Administration and Leadership. He is the author of a book (Bush and
Coleman, 2000) and a book chapter (Bush 1998) on strategic leadership in
schools and this may or may not influence contributions in the journal
during his editorship.
Despite searching 14 different journal titles, only a small set of journals
emerged as the dominant outlets for publishing works (see Figure 2). It is
difficult to ascertain the reasons behind such a pattern. This suggests that
the research interests of the editor may, on average, have a positive publish-
ing effect on articles within that field of inquiry. However, there is insuffi-
cient data to confirm this interpretation and the hypothesis would require
confirmation in a more specific follow-up study.
Figure 2. Publication outlet
Journals relating to educational leadership, management and adminis-
tration tend to take a generalist approach to leadership, without a specific
focal point and consequently changes in editor or context (e.g. legislation)
may lead to different trends in the published work.
A final point of interest is who is writing about strategic leadership in
schools. Of the 70 works in the sample, a total of 89 individual authors are
cited. Whilst some authors consistently work together (e.g. Davies and Elli-
son and Cuckle and Broadhead and laterly including Leva[ccaron] i[cacute] and Glover),
it is of interest to list the most frequently cited authors (see Table 1).
The nine most frequently cited authors are responsible for a total of 21
works in the sample, representing 30% (B. Davies and Ellison worked
together on three works, Glover and Leva[ccaron] i[cacute] on four and Cuckle and
c
ˇ
c´
c
ˇ
c´
0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of Works
EAH EAQ EPT EMAL IJEM ISEA JEA JEPA LM PiE SESI SL&M TEF WSE
Journal Title
Figure 2. Publication outlet
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
264 S. EACOTT
Broadhead on three). Whilst the sample drew on a large number of authors
from a variety of journals, the bulk of works on strategy in education come
from a relatively small set of academics published in a small set of journals.
Conceptual issues in the literature on strategy in education
Rumelt (1979) contended that the kinds of situation that call for strategic
thinking and analysis are those that are ill structured and therefore difficult
and ambiguous. Weick (1976) argued that it is impossible to construct a
theory that is both accurate and simple. Strategy is multidisciplinary and,
despite having been present in educational settings since the mid 1970s (El-
Hout 1994) and the literature for over 25 years, it still remains strongly
associated with rational approaches to corporate management. This has
significantly impeded the evolution of strategy as an educational leadership
construct.
Much of the literature on strategic management and leadership takes a
‘best practice’ approach, identifying the conditions for successful implemen-
tation of strategic management programmes (Brown, P. 2004). This is argu-
ablythe result of conceptualising ‘strategy’ as a tool for leading and managing
an organisation. The original emergence of strategy in educational leader-
ship literature was under the title ‘school business administration’ (Jordan
and Webb 1986). It was seen as an analytical framework taken from business
and applied within education. In many ways little has changed. Whilst
researchers are beginning to explore more holistic views of strategy
(Dimmock and Walker 2004; National College for School Leadership 2005,
Davies 2006, Eacott 2006), attempts are still being made to adapt corporate
developed models to educational settings (Bell 2003, Davies, P. and Coates
2005, Kettunen 2005, Bishop and Limerick 2006). Until the focus of
research moves from the development and implementation of strategic
management processes there will be little construction of a meaningful
definition of strategy in education for scholar and practitioners. Whereas
previously the author (Eacott 2006) has defined strategy as:
leadership strategies and behaviours relating to the initiation, development, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of strategic actions within an educational institution, taking into
consideration the unique context (past, present and future) and availability of resources, physical,
financial and human.
Ta b le 1. Most cited authors in sample
Author Times cited
Davies, B. 6
Glover, D. 5
Leva[ccaron] i[cacute] , R. 4
Pashiardis, P. 4
Broadhead, P. 3
Cuckle, P. 3
Caldwell, B 3
Ellison, L. 3
cˇc´
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 265
Current thinking is that strategy should be viewed as choosing a
direction within a given context, through leadership, and articulating that
direction through management practices. Within this view there are many
elements of strategy, some under the leadership dimension and others the
management dimension. Work can then be assigned to either strategic lead-
ership or strategic management, or both. Similarly, B. J. Davies and B.
Davies’ (2006) framework of strategic processes, approaches and leadership
could be applied.
Identifying the key features of strategy as an educational administrative
concept removes the need for a prescriptive working definition of ‘what is
strategy?’ This is an essential step in addressing the misunderstanding of strat-
egy and criticism of the concept as an educational leadership construct. A
common critique of the role of strategy within the educational context is that
it is less important that instructional leadership and merely a bureaucratic
activity imposed by supervisors. However, despite effective schools research
concluding that effective schools have instructional leaders, the concept is
ambiguous and is measured subjectively, often on reputation (Goldring and
Pasternick 1994). Whilst instructional leadership and/or pedagogic leader-
ship (MacNeill and Cavanagh 2006) remain the core business of school
leaders, strategy is the mechanism for aligning all aspects of the school’s oper-
ations in the pursuit of a common goal. Therefore, the two roles are interde-
pendent. L. Bell and Chan (2005) argued that the direction of most
educational policy is justified as a means of achieving greater economic devel-
opment and a competitive economy, however, the interdependence of strat-
egy and instructional leadership allows for truly authentic educational
leadership in schools. Removing the conceptual constraints of seeing strategy
as a bureaucratic activity allows the educational leader to harness the
combined energy of the entire organisation in improving instruction.
Definitional concerns
Despite the strong ties with planning, the practice and concept of strategy
has many varied meanings. Fidler (1996) wrote that the word was beginning
to appear in educational management literature in the 1990s, but it was not
clearly defined and appeared to mean little more than a general reference to
the longer term. The word ‘strategy’ is now applied to almost every manage-
ment activity to add misleading rhetorical weight (Beaver 2000). This has
devalued and misrepresented the concept and is damaging to both theory
and practice. In addition, it has cast doubt over what constitutes strategy.
Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis (2002: 6) drew attention to the word strategy
and its origin from the Greek word strategos, which means ‘a general and leader
of the army’. This is arguably why much of the literature assigns strategy and
strategy development to an individual within an organisation. For example,
Johnson and Scholes (2003: 147–148) defined a strategic leader as:
an individual upon whom strategy development and change are seen to be dependent. They are
individuals personally identified with and central to the strategy of their organisation: their
personality or reputation may result in others willingly deferring to such an individual and seeing
strategy development as his or her province.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
266 S. EACOTT
Very few scholars within the field of educational administration seek to
define the concept of strategy. It remains elusive (Fidler 2002) and some-
what abstract (Ansoff 1965). Quong et al. (1998) described it as one of the
most frustrating, paradoxical and misunderstood concepts in leadership
literature. Frequently the term is used to describe a range of activities
(Davies, B. 2004b), but most often it is explicitly linked with planning (Bell,
L., 1998, 2002). Many of the definitional concerns with strategy begin with
its use in the corporate sector. Bush (1998) argued that schools are too
different from commercial companies in the nature of their business for a
direct sharing of concepts. Kelly (2005) argued that business leaders develop
strategy whilst principals develop people. However, there has been some
discussion relating to the definition of strategy within the educational
context.
Jones (1987: 9) articulated a need for strategy in schools through ‘the
ability to articulate a coherent framework or philosophy, a set of over-
arching goals which mean something to the members of the whole school
community’. This definition alludes to a more conceptual definition of
strategy that is not necessarily tied to written planning. However, it could
be argued that the definition implicitly implies planning to be central to
strategy.
Sanyal and Martin (1992: 1) defined a strategy as ‘the determination of
the basic, long term goals and objectives of an educational system, the adop-
tion of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying
out these goals’. This is a systemic level definition that remains closely tied
to the original conceptualisation of strategy in the business sector.
El-Hout (1994: 55) said ‘strategy is very much a state of mind, a way
of addressing and making important organisational decisions on a daily
basis’. He added that strategic thinking ‘is not just concerned with what,
but with why, not objectives, but paths and relationships, not checklists
but processes’ (p. 61). This definition removes the direct link between an
individual and a plan from the concept. Unfortunately, this insightful
definition was not followed up by any further work.
Fidler (1996) suggested that strategy is concerned with ‘the long-term
future of an organisation’ (p. 1), but later added that it was ‘planning a
successful future for your school’ (p. 19). Whilst originally remaining
abstract about the construct, Fidler quickly implied a link between strategy
and planning. This effectively created two aspects of strategy, the first to do
with future direction and the second with planning.
Quong et al. (1998: 10) defined strategy as ‘selecting a destination,
figuring out the best way of getting there, then explaining how you have
arrived’. This definition of strategy began to implicitly imply the role of
planning.
G. Watson and Crossley (2001: 117) described strategy from an alternate
perspective, emphasising that how a school’s strategy is put together and
operated reinforces or challenges meaning among organisational members.
They stated that:
Strategy is not neutral or value free, but emerges from a melee of organizational vested interests,
personal agendas and ambitions, and the utilization of power. From this perspective a reliance
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 267
upon the concept as an inherently rational and logical process, and a bulwark against the ambigu-
ity of organizational life, is not only problematic but highly questionable.
Leader (2004) stressed that strategy is a proactive rather than reactive
means of translating decisions into actions.
B. Davies (2003: 295) stated that strategy was ‘a specific pattern of
decisions and actions taken to achieve an organisation’s goals’. He empha-
sized, however, that strategy and strategic planning were not synonymous
activities. In 2004 he added that strategy may consist of two sub-concepts,
one about the broad major dimensions of the organisation and the other that
deals with the medium to longer term. He suggested that instead of being
associated with a linear plan, strategy might usefully be thought of instead as
a perspective, as a way of looking at things. It provides the template against
which to set short-term planning and activities.
Returning to the conceptual definitions of strategy, Kettunen (2005)
stated that strategy implies the movement of an organisation from its present
position, described by the mission, to a desirable, but uncertain, future
position, described by the vision.
There has simply been no agreement on a single definition of strategy
within education. This is arguable because strategy in education research
is multidisciplinary (Brown, R. B. 1997) and interdisciplinary (Schendel
1994; Watson, T. J. 1997). This pluralistic position is inherently subject
to the criticism that it does little to foster any paradigmatic development.
However, strategy in the educational leadership context is an area of prac-
tice and application where practitioner trends led the way and scholars are
left to play catch-up to understand the continually changing context. This
renders the construct unlikely to ever be governed by a single definition.
However, what is needed is a conceptual understanding and articulation
of the fundamental features of strategy to refocus research.
Unit of analysis
For research on strategy in education the selection of a unit of analysis is a
critical conceptual choice that may have implications for the theoretical devel-
opment of an article (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996). Unit of analysis
proved a difficult lens through which to examine the literature in the sample.
In the corporate world the unit of analysis used in strategy research may
include chief executive officers, executive teams, boards of directors or entire
firms. In contrast, the works surveyed in the sample primarily focus on plans.
This represents a significant flaw in research on strategy in education. Focus-
ing solely on a plan or the planning process implies that strategy is merely
the formulation of a strategy (commonly referred to as ‘strategic process
research’). This excludes other aspects of strategy, such as strategic choice,
implementation, evaluation and cycles. This limited scope in the research fails
to develop and contribute to the debate of what is strategy. With the exception
of B. Davies and B. J. Davies (2004) and other sporadic examples (see
Murgatroyd 1991, Leggate and Thompson 1997, Neumann and Neumann
1999, Dimmock and Walker 2004) the focus on an inanimate object (a plan)
restricts strategy research and teaching to a mechanistic perspective.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
268 S. EACOTT
Theoretical perspectives
Present day researchers in educational administration do not start with
‘clean theories, but rather have amalgams of assumptions, concepts, ideas
and the like’ (Griffiths 1998: 36). Consequently, a wide set of theoretical
perspectives were present in the sample literature. Lengnick-Hall and Wolff
(1999) highlighted that deciding what theoretical tools to use to describe or
predict strategic circumstances, actions and consequences is a persistent
challenge in the area of strategy research. Elenkov et al. (2005) described
three main theoretical perspectives used in the study of strategy: upper
echelons theory, the full range of leadership (transformational, transactional
and laissez faire) and visionary leadership. Heck and Hallinger (1999) and
Gurr (2002) discussed how transformational leadership is the dominant
leadership view, at least in recent times, in education. The vast majority of
work in the sample, however, made no explicit links to the three theoretical
perspectives described by Elenkov et al. (2005) (Caldwell, 2004, is an
exception).
Alternative theoretical perspectives used include the balanced scoresheet
(Bell, R. 2003, Kettunen 2005), whole school design (Dimmock and Walker
2004), Johnson and Scholes’ (1988) strategic management model (Tsiak-
kiros and Pashiardis 2002), control theory versus chaos theory (Hargreaves
1995) and school-based management (Glover 1990).
It is evident that scholars studying strategy in education employ a variety
of different theoretical perspectives. This is not surprising, given that there
is limited empirical work on strategy in education and limitations with the
definition of strategy. Harris and Beatty (2004) drew attention to the consid-
erable conceptual overlap amongst theoretical positions or models of leader-
ship present in the literature. B. J. Davies and B. Davies (2006) highlighted
that strategy is not a new categorisation of leadership, but a key dimension
of any leadership activity. From this perspective strategy is present in all
theoretical perspectives of leadership. Nevertheless, it also indicates that we
are a long way from developing any focus in this area, something that may
bring more coherent knowledge generation (Pfeffer 1993) and advance the
strategy in education construct.
Causal models
Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996: 333) defined causal logic as ‘the underlying
set of relationships among major constructs that form the basis for proposi-
tions tested, generated, or implied’. Causal models present predicted rela-
tionships between administrator behaviours and outcomes variables in a
variety of ways (Pitner 1988). These are present in both conceptual and
empirical works, as most works either propose a relationship or test a partic-
ular relationship. Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) used four constructs
(strategic leadership, environment, firm performance, organisation form or
conduct) to conceptualise causal models in strategy research. For this anal-
ysis strategic leadership refers to any aspect of leadership by the principal
(whether characteristics or behaviours). The environment is defined as any
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 269
external stimulus on the school (e.g. contextual changes, legislation, market-
place uncertainty). Organisation form and conduct includes all aspects of the
school that are not part of the strategic leadership construct. Performance
refers to the school’s effectiveness, as indicated by such factors as enrolment,
examination results and student learning.
Using these four constructs to distinguish the causal models used in
strategy research it is possible to classify causal models into four categories:
as an independent construct, dependent construct, moderator construct or
both an independent and dependent construct (Finkelstein and Hambrick
1996). Strategic leadership as an independent construct implies that strate-
gic leadership has an effect on performance or organization form or conduct.
When portrayed as a dependent construct implies that the environment,
organisation form or conduct or performance affects strategic leadership.
Strategic leadership as a moderator construct implies that strategic leader-
ship when linked with a second construct affects a third construct. Portrayed
as an independent and dependent construct simultaneously implies that
strategic leadership effects strategic leadership. Weick (1995) explained how
strategists act, and in doing so they create the constraints and opportunities
they encounter. Pondy and Mitroff (1979: 17) defined strategic leadership
as an ‘enacted phenomenon’, one where the strategist plays a major role in
producing the market they face. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the differ-
ent types of relationship examined or proposed in the works identified in the
sample.
It is evident that strategy has been most frequently modelled as a depen-
dent construct, especially as dependent on the environment. This analysis
shows that the research on strategy in the sample with a clearly identifiable
causal model viewed the environment and strategic leadership as closely
Ta b le 2. Types of causal models
Types of causal model No. of works
Strategic leadership as an independent construct 16
Strategic leadership Organisation form or conduct 7
Strategic leadership Performance 9
Strategic leadership as a dependent construct 19
Environment Strategic leadership 14
Organisation form or conduct Strategic leadership 4
Performance Strategic leadership 1
Strategic leadership as a moderator construct 11
Environment and Strategic leadership Organisation form or conduct 1
Environment and Strategic leadership Performance 4
Organisation form or conduct and Strategic
leadership
Performance 6
Performance and Strategic leadership Organisation form or conduct 0
Strategic leadership as an independent and
dependent construct simultaneously
5
Strategic leadership Strategic leadership 5
Some works were assigned to more than one category.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
270 S. EACOTT
aligned. Unfortunately, it was unclear what causal model was used in some
of the works (n = 26, 37.1%) as many simply describe/propose a strategic
planning process. Analysis such as this has the potential to broaden our under-
standing of how strategy effects and is affected by organisational constructs.
In summary, the analysis indicates that the primary conceptual charac-
teristics of research on strategy in schools have yet to exhibit any stability
over the last 25 years. The concept of strategy remains misunderstood and
is commonly poorly applied. However, recent works indicate a shift towards
a more integrated conceptual model of strategic leadership in schools. The
elusiveness of strategy as a concept has posed considerable issues for
researchers when selecting a unit for analysis. The conceptual framework
provided by B. Davies and B. J. Davies (2004) should signify a shift towards
the strategists who make strategic decisions rather than the eventual docu-
ment they produce. This will allow better analysis and testing of causal
models in the area within a more integrated view of strategy in education.
When these themes are brought together the picture of strategy in education
that emerges is far more complex than the prescribed rational model of
strategic management. It is characterised by constraints, limitations, flaws
and biases similar to those faced by the practising strategists on a daily basis.
Methodological issues in the research on strategy in
education
The advancement of any scientific field of inquiry depends on the soundness
of the research methodologies employed (Ketchen and Bergh 2004). Reflect-
ing on papers presented at the 2005 Australian Council for Educational
Leadership Conference and his role as editor of the Journal of Educational
Administration, Thomas (2006: 11) stated:
The phenomenon of leadership is, once again undergoing one of its periodic, sustained examina-
tions: definitions of leadership, components of leadership, correlates of leadership, and so on, are
occupying more and more journal space and more and more conference time. Yet, therein, lies an
emerging danger. Just as the trait approach to leadership in decades past succeeded in identifying
a plethora of individual attributes or characteristics fundamental to successful leadership
contemporary studies threaten to engulf us with their own tidal wave of descriptor.
Strategy in education is no exception. A wide range of methodologies have
been used to study strategy in education, however, most are retrospective
(Elliot, 1999), conducted after the outcomes were known. As Van de Ven
(1992) pointed out, it is widely recognised that prior knowledge of the success
or failure of a strategic change effort invariably biases a study’s findings.
Appreciating the issues raised above, researchers carefully designed their
studies to observe strategy/strategic leadership in a way that is ‘consistent
with their definition and theory’ (Van de Ven 1992: 181) of strategy/strategic
leadership. Therefore, whilst the criticism remains that strategic leadership
research relies on sterile archive and survey data (Finkelstein and Hambrick
1996), if the investigators concept of strategy is limited to the mechanistic
pursuit of a plan then document analysis of the plan and survey of the plan-
ning process is most appropriate.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 271
Research is inextricably linked to theory, therefore, the misconceptions
and ambiguities surrounding theory are reflected in the ‘interpretation of the
meaning and purpose of research’ (Hoy and Miskell 2001: 6). Considering
that research has tended to follow practitioner trends (e.g. the spike in
research following the Education Reform Act, 1988 in the UK), strategic
leadership research has been limited in its selection of units of analysis to that
of a plan or a planning process. Recent trends seem to suggest a move towards
an integrative perspective of strategic leadership in education, yet there still
remains a number of content and methodological refinements required (e.g.
a move away from small-scale case studies and the analysis of strategic lead-
ership behaviours and practitioner perspectives) to further inform the debate.
As in the previous section on conceptual issues, the focus is on a small
number of key characteristics describing the research methods employed in
the work: data sources, sample size and the theoretical model and time-
frame of the study. As this section focuses on methodological issues, it only
analyses empirical works (n = 36).
Data sources
Data sources have been categorized into four types: archival/document anal-
ysis, observation, interview and questionnaire. Each empirical work was
assigned to at least one of the four types of data source. Data derived from
questionnaires was most frequently employed (44.4%, n = 16). Observation
was the least frequently employed data source (13.9%, n = 5). Finkelstein
and Hambrick (1996) acknowledged the difficulty of studying strategy
through observation, primarily because strategic leadership/management
behaviours and their results are only evident after a time delay. They also
inferred that strategy research may suffer from a reliance on sterile archival
and survey data. However, interviews were used to collect data in 41.7% of
the studies, and interviews were often used in collaboration with a question-
naire or archival data (22.2%, n = 8) to provide a richer picture in some
studies. Table 3 shows the frequency of data sources used in the sample.
Sample size
The sample size used in the empirical research on strategic leadership in
schools varied immensely. The largest sample size within the sample was a
Ta b le 3. Data source
Data source Times used
Archival/document analysis 9
Observation 3
Interview 15
Survey/questionnaire 17
Unclear 11
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
272 S. EACOTT
questionnaire returned by 505 participants. The smallest sample was five
participants. A moderating factor on sample size was the data source. As
data sourced through observation is generally more difficult to obtain, the
expectation would be for smaller sample sizes. In contrast, data sourced
through document analysis or questionnaires was easier to obtain and conse-
quently a larger sample size might be expected. Table 4 displays examples of
sample size cited in the sample.
Theoretical model and time frame of the study
Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) critiqued strategy research for using
models and methods that are too static. Empirical works from the sample
have been examined in relation to the dynamism embedded in the research.
They have been viewed in light of two dimensions: (i) the extent to which
the theoretical model is static or dynamic; (ii) whether the data used in the
research was cross-sectional or longitudinal.
Table 5 combines the two dimensions to offer an integrated portrayal of
the dynamism of research on strategy in education. It is apparent that the
majority of works are both cross-sectional and static, a pattern used by the
majority of works on strategy as surveyed by Hambrick (1986), Schwenk
and Dalton (1991) and Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996). Cross-sectional
methods have remained the predominant mode of analysis in empirical strat-
egy research since its inception (Bowen and Wiersema 1999).
In summary, several key methodological attributes of the empirical work
in the sample have been documented. Empirical research on strategy in
education is relying more on questionnaire and interview research than
document analysis and observation. A wide range of sample sizes was
present in the sample and cross-sectional/static theoretical models and time-
frames were most common. Although not present in sufficient numbers in
the study, the use of statistical techniques (exceptions include Wallace,
1991; for matrices, Miles and Huberman, 1984; computed but unclear how,
Ta b le 4. Sample size by data source
Data source Smallest sample Largest sample Unclear Average sample
Archival/document analysis 53 120 0 90
Observation 5 5 2 5
Interview 4 47 2 18
Questionnaire 20 505 1 181
Ta b le 5. Number of empirical works arrayed by theoretical model and time frame
of the study
Static Dynamic
Cross-sectional 26 0
Longitudinal 5 5
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 273
Goldring and Pasternack 1994, for SPSS, MacGilchrist and Mortimore
1997, for SPSS and LISREL 8.20, Midthassel et al. 2000, for cyclical
thematic analysis, Radford et al. 2003) is a methodological choice of
interest. Whilst it is unclear whether technologies will yield original insights
(Finkelstein and Hambrick 1996) they may be of assistance to limit the
constraints of traditional approaches and help with the robustness of the
research . Analysis of the works through a methodological lens presents an
area of inquiry with many alternative explanations, frequently so emersed in
one aspect of the phenomenon (the planning process) that it excludes the
phenomenon as a whole. Greater methodological transparency in works in
the quest for ‘objectivity’ and ‘sophistication’ within studies is needed to
provide greater insights into strategy in education.
The goal in this section was to document and discuss the key conceptual
and methodological attributes of strategy in education research over the past
25 years. Using the analytical components to provide information on where
strategy research has been, the analysis will be used to offer guidance on
where we need to go. In the following section the analysis is used as the raw
material for synthesis.
Synthesis
The analysis presented in this paper has highlighted the conceptual and
methodological attributes of contemporary literature on strategy in educa-
tion. However, as a result of the different disciplinary and historical roots of
researchers the main models that have developed are from the ground up, as
fragmented middle range theories rather than as lower level theories
stemming from an integrated overview of strategy (Farjoun 2002). Conse-
quently, each of the research programmes has focused on a slightly different
aspect of strategy. In synthesising the findings it is essential to return to the
major research questions of the study.
What are the content and foci of contemporary literature on strategy in
education?
When viewing the sample through a conceptual lens strategy is predomi-
nantly related to planning. Farjoun (2002) described the core issues of strat-
egy as: the concept of strategy; causal models relating strategy to other
constructs; models of strategic management and choice. The bias towards
planning (i.e. models of strategic management and choice) represents a
significant flaw in the literature. This may be due to the lack of an operational
definition for strategy in education. Difficulty in developing an integrative
operational definition for strategy/strategic leadership is compounded by the
very nature of strategy.
A wide range of theoretical perspectives were present, however, rarely
were there any explicit links made. Causal models were unexplored in the
majority of works. By and large theoretical differentiation has considerably
restricted the recognition of multiple and reciprocal causality between
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
274 S. EACOTT
different elements (Henderson and Mitchell 1997). The underlying
assumptions of strategy were most frequently that of a technicist-rational
approach (Leva[ccaron] i[cacute] and Glover 1997, 1998), which is consistent with a
research design aimed at the strategic planning process. Overall, the
limited scope of content and foci of studies has limited the understanding
of strategy in education to a rational, linear perspective of the planning
process.
What methodological approaches have been employed?
A wide range of methodologies were present in the sample, however, most
studies of strategic leadership in schools were retrospective, conducted after
the outcomes of actions were known. Van de Ven (1992) pointed out that it
is widely recognised that prior knowledge of the success or failure of a
strategic change effort invariably biases a studies findings. Most of the
studies included only a subset of possible determinants, raising the ‘potential
for bias due to omitted variables’ (Boyd et al. 2005: 943) and analyse data at
a single point in time.
Appreciating the issues raised above, researchers carefully designed their
studies to observe strategy/strategic leadership in a way that is ‘consistent
with their definition and theory’ of strategy/ strategic leadership (Van de Ven
1992: 181). Therefore, whilst the criticism persists that strategic leadership
research relies on sterile archive and survey data (see Finkelstein and
Hambrick 1996), if the investigators’ concept of strategy is limited to the
mechanistic pursuit of a plan then document analysis of the plan and survey
of the planning process is most appropriate. As with the content and foci of
studies, a more integrative means of studying strategic leadership in schools
will call for alternativee or mixed methods to be applied in the search for
greater understanding.
Conclusions
This paper sets out to identify and answer four key questions: what are the
content and foci of contemporary literature on strategic leadership in
schools; what methodological approaches have been employed; what can we
learn from an analysis of this work; what does this analysis tell us about the
future direction of research on strategic leadership in schools? Having
reviewed the content of 14 prominent educational leadership journals a
series of conceptual and methodological priorities have been raised.
Research programmes attempting to address these priorities offer significant
opportunities to make important contributions to knowledge about strategic
leadership in schools phenomenon.
There are many other important topics that could be explored regarding
strategic leadership in schools (e.g. what makes an effective/ineffective stra-
tegic leader, generic strategic leadership behaviours with a positive effect on
schools). However, having drawn on the literature and informed speculation
(in an attempt to build theory and even more to encourage theory building)
c
ˇ
c´
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 275
the following section outlines a research agenda designed to begin to address
the concerns raised in a synthesis of the literature.
Future research directions
As demonstrated by the sample in this research, clear research priorities
warrant renewed or focused attention if the study of strategy in education is
to evolve beyond its initial focus on the mechanistic production of a plan.
Further development of strategy in education as an area of study requires the
development of key features of strategy and not specific words or actions.
A fundamental question that remains to be investigated is the perception
of practitioners of strategic leadership in schools, questions such as how they
define strategic leadership in schools and how they enact their strategic
roles? Drawing loosely on principles of grounded theory, research into the
understanding of and attitude to strategic leadership in schools of practising
principals would allow the development of a conceptual framework which
can then be compared with that prescribed by the literature. Trim and Lee
(2004) argued that grounded theory is relevant to management researchers.
Additional support comes from Cassell et al. (2006), Crompton and Jones
(1988), Denyer and Tranfield (2006), Ketchen and Bergh (2004) and Van
Maanen (1979). Grounded theory was the dominant paradigm of
educational administration for 20 years, before faltering in the 1970s, when
it failed to deliver the anticipated theories (Maxcy 2001).
However, Van de Ven et al. (1989) discussed how, without studying
strategy from a managers perspective, it becomes difficult (if not impossible)
for an investigator to understand the dynamics confronting managers and,
thereby, generate new knowledge that advances the theory and practice of
strategy. Bogden and Biklen (1992) stressed that within the goal of better
understanding human behaviour the use of a participant perspective is
necessary to achieve a more thorough understanding of the phenomenon.
Hambrick and Mason (1984: 193) argued that organisational outcomes—
both strategies and effectiveness—need to be viewed as ‘reflections of the
values and cognitive bases of powerful actors in the organization’. Theory and
research on strategy has increasingly suggested that the choices made by exec-
utives are influenced by the personal background and prior experience of
top managers (Westphal and Fredrickson 2001). Rather than adopting the
traditional approach of identifying characteristics displayed by effective
leaders and not by less effective leaders, it is proposed that we study strategy
from the perspective of demographic background. Similarly to the way that
situational leadership proposed leading differently based on context, this
proposed perspective attempts to explain leadership as a result of the leader’s
background.
Overall, study of the practitioner perception of strategic leadership and
the importance given to strategic leadership behaviours through a demo-
graphic lens will provide leadership theorists, particularly educational lead-
ership theorists, systemic authorities and practitioners, i.e. school leaders
and scholars who grapple with the enormous complexities posed by strategic
leadership, with a knowledge and understanding of strategic leadership that
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
276 S. EACOTT
may hold greater promise to positive leadership within specific contexts.
More importantly, the findings of this research could be a significant
addition to the existing stock of knowledge and understanding of strategic
leadership in educational contexts. This paper, which emphasises practitio-
ner perceptions and demographic profiling, is intended to be a foundation
for future empirical research.
References
Ansoff, H. I. (1965) Corporate strategy: an analytical approach to business policy for growth and expansion
(New York: McGraw-Hill).
Bain, A. (2000) The school design model: strategy for design of 21st century schools, in: C. Dimmock
and A. Walker (eds) Future School Administration: Western & Asian Perspectives (Hong Kong:
Chinese University Press), pp. 131–166.
Beaver, G. (2000) The language of strategy. Strategic Change, 9, 465–468.
Bell, L. (1998) From symphony to jazz: the concept of strategy in education. School Leadership and
Management, 18(4), 449–460.
Bell, L. (2002) Strategic planning and school management: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?
Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 407–424.
Bell, L. and Chan, D. W. K. (2005) Principals’ leadership and strategic planning in primary schools in
Hong Kong and England: a comparison. International Studies in Educational Administration,
33(3), 2–21.
Bell, R. (2003) Toward a metastrategic approach to the business of schools. Leading & Managing, 9(1),
64–71.
Bishop, K. and Limerick, B. (2006) To adopt, adapt or ignore? Challenging corporate type performance
measures in state schools. Leading & Managing, 12(1), 76–90.
Bogden, B. and Biklen, B. (1992) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and
Methods (London: Allyn & Bacon).
Bowen, H. P. and Wiersema, M. F. (1999) Matching method to paradigm in strategy research: limita-
tions of cross-sectional analysis and some methodological alternatives. Strategic Management
Journal, 20, 625–636.
Boyd, B., Finkelstein, S. and Gove, S. (2005) How advanced is the strategy paradigm? the role of
particularism and universalism in shaping research outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 26,
841–854.
Broadhead, P., Cuckle, P., Hodgson, J. and Dunford, J. (1996) Improving primary schools through
school development planning: building a vision, exploring the reality. Educational Management
and Administration, 24(3), 277–290.
Brown, P. (2004) Strategic capability development in the higher education sector. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 18(7), 436–445.
Brown, R. B. (1997) You can’t expect rationality from pregnant men: reflections on multi-disciplinarity
in management research. British Journal of Management, 8(1), 23–30.
Bunnell, T. (2005) Strategic marketing planning in international schools. The International Journal of
Educational Management, 19(1), 59–66.
Bush, T. (1998) Organizational culture and strategic management, in: D. Middlewood and J. Lumby
(Eds) Strategic Management in Schools and Colleges (London: Paul Chapman), pp. 32–46.
Bush, T. and Coleman, M. (2000) Leadership and Strategic Management in Education (London: Paul
Chapman).
Caldwell, B. (2004) A strategic view of efforts to lead the transformation of schools. School Leadership
and Management, 24(1), 81–100.
Cassell, C., Symon, G., Buehring, A. and Johnson, P. (2006) The role and status of qualitative methods
in management and research: an empirical account. Management Decision, 44(2), 290–303.
Crompton, R. and Jones, G. (1988) Researching white-collar organizations: why sociologists should
not stop doing case studies, in: A. Bryman (Ed.) Doing Research in Organizations (London:
Routledge).
Cuckle, P. and Broadhead, P. (2003) Developments in development planning in English primary
schools: 1994–2001. School Leadership and Management, 23(2), 229–240.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 277
Cuckle, P., Hodgson, J. and Broadhead, P. (1998a) Investigating the relationship between OfSTED
inspections and school development planning. School Leadership and Management, 18(2), 271–283.
Cuckle, P., Broadhead, P., Hodgson, J. and Dunford, J. (1998b) Development planning in primary
schools: a positive influence on management and culture. Educational Management and
Administration, 26(2), 185–195.
Davies, B. (2003) Rethinking strategy and strategic leadership in schools. Educational Management and
Administration, 31(3), 295–312.
Davies, B. (2004a) Introduction to the special edition on strategy and strategic leadership in schools.
School Leadership and Management, 24(1), 7–9.
Davies, B. (2004b) Developing the strategically focused school. School Leadership and Management,
24(1), 11–27.
Davies, B. (2006) Leading the Strategically Focused School: Success and Sustainability (London: Paul
Chapman).
Davies, B. and Davies, B. J. (2004) Strategic leadership. School Leadership and Management, 24(1), 28–38.
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (1992) School Development Planning (London: Longman).
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (1997) Developing a strategic perspective, in: B. Davies and L. Ellison (eds)
School Leadership for the 21st Century: A Competency and Knowledge Approach (London:
Routledge), pp. 75–94.
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (1998a) Introduction: rethinking strategic approaches to school leadership
and management. School Leadership and Management, 18(4), 447–448.
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (1998b) Strategic planning in schools: an oxymoron? School Leadership and
Management, 18(4), 461–473.
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (1998c) Futures and strategic perspectives in school planning. International
Journal of Educational Management, 12(3), 133–140.
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (1999) Strategic Direction and Development of the School (London: Routledge).
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (2003a) The New Strategic Direction and Development of the School: Key
Frameworks for School Improvement Planning (2nd edn) (London: RoutledgeFalmer).
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (2003b) Strategic analysis: obtaining the data and building a strategic view,
in: M. Preedy, R. Glatter and C. Wise (eds) Strategic Leadership and Educational Improvement
(Buckingham: Open University Press), pp. 157–184.
Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (2003c) Strategy and planning in schools, in: B. Davies and J. West-Burnham
(eds) Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management (London: Pearson).
Davies, B. J. and Davies, B. (2006) Developing a model for strategic leadership in schools. Educational
Management, Administration & Leadership, 34(1), 121–139.
Davies, P. and Coates, G. (2005) Competing conceptions and values in school strategy: rational plan-
ning and beyond. Educational Management and Administration, 33(1), 109–124.
Dempster, N. and Logan, L. (1998) Expectations of school leaders: an Australian picture, in: J.
Macbeath (ed.) Effective Leadership: Responding to Change (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), pp. 80–97.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2006) Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable
knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2), 213–227.
Dimmock, C. (1995) Building democracy in the school setting: the principal’s role, in: J. Chapman, I.
Froumin and D. Aspin (eds) Creating and Managing the Democratic School (London: Falmer
Press), pp. 157–175.
Dimmock, C. (2000) Designing the Learning Centred School: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (London:
Falmer Press).
Dimmock, C. and Walker, A. (2004) A new approach to strategic leadership: learning-centredness,
connectivity and cultural context in school design. School Leadership and Management, 24(1),
39–56.
Drejer, A. (2004) Back to basics: strategic management—an area where practice and theory are poorly
related. Management Decision, 42(3/4), 508–520.
Drucker, P. (1954) The Practice of Management (New York: Harper and Row).
Eacott, S. (2006) Strategy: an educational leadership imperative. Perspectives on Educational Leadership,
16(6), 1–2.
Elenkov, D., Judge, W. and Wright, P. (2005) Strategic leadership and executive influence: an interna-
tional multi-cluster comparative study. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 665–682.
El-Hout, M. S. (1994) Strategic planning for educational system: necessity and methodology. Journal of
Educational Planning and Administration, 8(1), 47–62.
Elliot, D. (1999) Strategic leadership and management in schools, in: M. Brundett (ed.) Principles of
School Leadership (Norfolk, UK: Peter Francis), pp. 42–70.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
278 S. EACOTT
Ellison, L. and Davies, B. (1990) Planning in education management, in: B. Davies, L. Ellison, A. Osborne
and J. West-Burnham (eds) Education Management for the 1990s (London: Longman), pp. 31–44.
Farjoun, M. (2002) Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23,
561–594.
Fidler, B. (1989) Strategic management: where is the school going?, in: B. Fidler and G. Bowles (eds)
Effective Local Management of Schools: A Strategic Approach (London: Longman), pp. 19–35.
Fidler, B. (1996) Strategic Planning for School Improvement (London: Pitman).
Fidler, B. (1998) How can a successful school avoid failure?: strategic management in schools. School
Leadership and Management, 18(4), 497–509.
Fidler, B. (2001) Context and situation in strategy formation. School Leadership and Management, 21(1),
5–6.
Fidler, B. (2002) Strategic Management for School Development (London: Sage).
Fidler, B. and Bowles, G. (1989) A management plan for the school, in: B. Fidler and G. Bowles (eds)
Effective Local Management of Schools: A Strategic Approach (London: Longman), pp. 270–292.
Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D. (1996) Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Organi-
zations (St Paul/Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing).
Forde, R., Hobby, R. and Lees, A. (2000) The Lessons of Leadership: A Comparison of Headteachers in UK
Schools and Senior Executives in Private Enterprise (London: Hay McBer).
Franklin, P. (1998) Thinking of strategy in a post modern way: towards an agreed paradigm, part 1.
Strategic Change, 7(6), 313–332.
Gamage, D. T. (1993) A review of community participation in school governance: an emerging culture
in Australian education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 41(2), 134–149.
Giles, C. (1995) School-based planning: are UK schools grasping the strategic initiative? International
Journal of Educational Management, 9(4), 4–7.
Glover, D. (1990) Towards a school development plan: process and practice. Educational Management
and Administration, 18(3), 22–26.
Goldring, E. B. and Pasternack, R. (1994) Principal’s coordinating strategies and school effectiveness.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 239–253.
Griffiths, D. (1985) Administrative Theory in Transition (Victoria, Australia: Deakin University).
Griffiths, D. (1998) Administrative theory, in: N. Boyan (ed.) Handbook of Research on Educational
Administration (New York: Longman), pp. 27–51.
Gurr, D. (2002) Transformational leadership characteristics in primary and secondary principals.
Leading and Managing, 8(1), 78–99.
Hambrick, D. (1986) Research in strategic management, 1980–1985: critical perceptions and reality,
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
Hambrick, D. and Mason, P. (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top manag-
ers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 195–206.
Hargreaves, D. (1995) Self-managing schools and developmental planning—chaos or control. School
Organization, 15(3), 215–228.
Harman, G. (1991) The restructuring of Australian public school management, in: G. Harman, H. Beare
and G. Berkeley (eds) Restructuring School Management: Administrative Reorganisation of Public
School Governance in Australia (Canberra, Australia: Australian College of Education), pp. 1–9.
Harris, A. and Beatty, B. (2004) Leadership research and theory: into unknown territory? School
Leadership and Management, 24(3), 243–248.
Heck, R. H. and Hallinger, P. (1999) Next generation methods for the study of leadership and school
improvement, in: J. Murphy and K. S. Louis (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Adminis-
tration (2nd edn) (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), pp. 141–162.
Henderson, R. and Mitchell, W. (1997) The interactions of organizational and competitive influences
on strategy and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 5–13.
Hofer, C. and Schendel, D. (1978) Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts (StPaul/Minneapolis, MN:
West Publishing).
House, R. and Aditya, R. (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? Journal of Manage-
ment, 23(3), 409–473.
Hoy, W. and Miskel, C. (2001) Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice, 6th edn
(Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill).
Johnson, J. and Scholes, K. (1988) Exploring Corporate Strategy (London: PCP).
Johnson, G. and K. Scholes (2003) Understanding strategy development, in: M. Preedy, R. Glatter and
C. Wise (eds) Strategic Leadership and Educational Improvement (Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press), pp. 142–156.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
STRATEGY IN EDUCATION 279
Jones, A. (1987) Leadership for Tomorrow’s Schools (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Jordan, K. F. and Webb, L. D. (1986) School business administration. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 22(3), 171–199.
Kelly, A. (2005) Praxes of school and commercial management: informing and reforming a typology
from field research. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(3), 237–251.
Ketchen, D. J. and Bergh, D. D. (2004) Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (San Diego,
CA: Elsevier).
Kettunen, J. (2005) Implementation strategies in continuing education. The International Journal of
Educational Management, 19(3), 207–217.
Law, S. and Glover, D. (2003) Educational Leadership and Learning: Practice, Policy and Research
(Buckingham: Open University Press).
Leader, G. (2004) Further education middle managers: their contribution to the strategic decision-
making process. Educational Management and Administration, 32(1), 67–79.
Leggate, P. M. C. and Thompson, J. J. (1997) The management of development planning in interna-
tional schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(6), 268–273.
Lengnick-Hall, C. and Wolff, J. (1999) Similarities and contradictions in the core logic of three strategy
research streams. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1109–1132.
Leva[ccaron] i[cacute] , R. and Glover, D. (1997) Value for money as a school improvement strategy: evidence from
the new inspection system in England. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(2), 231–
253.
Leva[ccaron] i[cacute] , R. and Glover, D. (1998) The relationship between efficient resource management and school
effectiveness: evidence from the OfSTED secondary school inspections. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 9(1), 95–122.
Løwendahl, B. and Revang, Ø. (1998) Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial society.
Strategic Management Journal, 19, 755–773.
Lumby, J. (1999) Strategic planning in further education: the business of values. Educational Manage-
ment and Administration, 27(1), 71–83.
MacGilchrist, B. and Mortimore, P. (1997) The impact of school development plans in primary
schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(2), 198–218.
MacMillan, I. C. (1991) The emerging forum for business policy scholars. Strategic Management
Journal, 12, 161–165.
MacNeill, N. and Cavangh, R. (2006) Principals’ pedagogic leadership viewed through teachers’ eyes.
The Australian Educational Leader, 28(4), 38–40, 46–48.
Maxcy, S. J. (2001) Educational leadership and management of knowing: the aesthetics of coherentism.
Journal of Educational Administration, 39(6), 573–588.
Mayo, C. R., Zirkel, P. A. and Finger B. A. (2006) Which journals are educational leadership professors
choosing? Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 806–811.
McNarmara, G., O’Hara, J. and Ni Aingleis, B. (2002) Whole-school evaluation and development plan-
ning: an analysis of recent initiatives in Ireland. Educational Management and Administration,
30(2), 201–211.
Midthassel, U. V. Bru, E. and Idsoe, T. (2000) The principal’s role in promoting school development
activity in Norwegian compulsory schools. School Leadership and Management, 20(2), 247–260.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods
(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage).
Mintzberg, H. (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (New York: The Free Press).
Mulford, B. (1994) Shaping Tomorrows Schools, ACEA Monograph Series 15 (Melbourne, Australia:
Council of Educational Administration).
Murgatroyd, S. (1991) Strategy structure and quality service: developing school wide quality improve-
ment. School Organization, 11(1), 7–19.
National College for School Leadership (2005) Success and Sustainability: Developing the Strategically
Focused School (Nottingham: National College for School Leadership).
Neumann, Y. and Neumann, E. F. (1999) The president and the college bottom line: the role of strate-
gic leadership styles. International Journal of Educational Management, 13(2), 73–79.
Pfeffer, J. (1993) Barrier to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a
dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599–620.
Pitner, N. (1988) The study of administrator effects and effectiveness, in: N. Boyan (ed.) Handbook of
Research on Educational Administration (New York: Longman), pp. 99–122.
Pondy, L. R. and Mitroff, I. I. (1979) Beyond open systems models of organization, in: B. M. Staw
(ed.) Research in Organizational Behaviour (London: JAI Press), pp. 3–39.
cˇc´
cˇc´
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
280 S. EACOTT
Ponting, R. (2005) Implementation of School Councils in Queensland State Primary Schools. Ed.D. thesis,
University of Southern Queensland, Brisbane.
Quong, T., Walker, A. and Stott, K. (1998) Values Based Strategic Planning: A Dynamic Approach for
Schools (Singapore: Prentice Hall).
Radford, J., Law, J., Soloff, N., Lindsay, G., Peacy, N., Gascoigne, M. and Band, S. (2003) Collabora-
tion between LEA and SLT managers for the planning of services to children with speech and
language. Educational Management and Administration, 31(1), 83–95.
Rice, E. and Schneider, G. (1994) A decade of teacher empowerment: an empirical analysis of teacher
involvement in decision making. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1), 43–58.
Rumelt, R. P. (1979) Evaluation of strategy: theory and models, in: D. E. Schendel and C. Hofer (eds)
Strategic Management (Boston, MA: Little Brown), pp. 196–212.
Saker, J. and Speed, R. (1996) Developing strategic planning in a special education service. International
Journal of Educational Management, 10(1), 5–10.
Sanyal, B. and Martin, M. (1992) Improving Managerial Effectiveness in Universities: The Use of Strategic
Management (Paris: UNESCO).
Scheerens, J. (1997) Conceptual models and theory-embedded principles on effective schooling. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(3), 269–310.
Schendel, D. (1994) Introduction to the summer 1994 special issue—strategy: search for new
paradigms. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 1–4.
Schwenk, C. and Dalton, D. (1991) The changing shape of strategic management research, in: P.
Shrivastava, A. Huff and J. Dutton (eds) Advances in Strategic Management (London: JAI Press),
pp. 277–300.
Thomas, A. R. (2006) New waves of leadership: a retrospect, in. L. Smith and D. Riley (eds) New
Waves of Leadership: Australian Council for Educational Leaders Yearbook 2006(Sydney, Australia:
Australian Council for Educational Leaders), pp. 10–15.
Trim, P.R.J. and Lee, Y.I (2004) A reflection on theory building and the development of management
knowledge. Management Decision, 42(3/4), 473–480.
Tsiakkiros, A. and Pashiardis, P. (2002) Strategic planning and education: the case of Cyprus. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 6–17.
Va Maanen, J. (1979) Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: a preface. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 24, 520–526.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1992) Suggestion for studying strategy process: a research note. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 13(1), 169–188.
Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (1989) Research in the Management of Innovation: the
Minnesota Studies (New York: Harper & Row).
Vick, M. (2002) Schools and society: changes and continuities, in: J. Allen (ed.) Sociology of Education:
Possibilities and Practices (Sydney, Australia: Social Science Press), pp. 41–64.
Wallace, M. (1991) Flexible planning: a key to the management of multiple innovations. Educational
Management and Administration, 19(3), 180–192.
Watson, G. and Crossley, M. (2001) Beyond the rational: the strategic management process, cultural
change and post-incorporation further education. Educational Management and Administration,
29(1), 113–126.
Watson, T. J. (1997) In Search of Management (London: Routledge).
Weick, K. E. (1976) Educational organizations as loosely-coupled systems. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Westphal, J. D. and Fredrickson, J. W. (2001) Who directs strategic change? director experience, the
selection of new CEOs, and change in corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
1113–1137.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 21:57 17 December 2013
