The growing complexity of the university and of its competitive, technological, and operating environment means that the status quo in management is no longer adequate. New mental models are required. An approach that has been developed through a lengthy study of strategic management in the private sector is the dynamic capabilities framework. This essay presents the dynamic capabilities framework with indications for how it applies in the university context. By thinking in terms of sensing shifts, seizing opportunities, and transforming the university, a university’s leaders can improve their own effectiveness and their school’s readiness to respond to challenges and achieve its goals.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) (1996) Renewing the Academic Presidency: Stronger Leadership for Tougher Times. Washington, DC: AGB.
2.
BaumolWJBowenWG (1966) Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
3.
BurdELSmithSPReismanS (2015) Exploring business models for MOOCs in higher education. Innovative Higher Education40(1): 37–49.
CohenMDMarchJG (1974) Leadership in an organized anarchy. In: CohenMDMarchJG (eds) Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 195–229.
6.
CookWB (1997) Fundraising and the college presidency in an era of uncertainty. Journal of Higher Education68(1): 53–86.
7.
EckelPD (2002) Decision rules used in academic program closure: Where the rubber meets the road. Journal of Higher Education73(2): 237–262.
8.
GhemawatP (2017) Strategies for higher education in the digital age. California Management Review59(4): 56–78.
LeihSTeeceD (2016) Campus leadership and the entrepreneurial university: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives30(2): 182–210.
13.
LyonsRK (2017) Economics of the ed tech revolution. California Management Review59(4): 49–55.
14.
PetersTJWatermanRHJr (1982) In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.
15.
RosenbergN (1963) Technological change in the machine tool industry, 1840–1910. Journal of Economic History23(4): 414–443.
16.
SchönO (2012) Business model modularity: A way to gain strategic flexibility?Controlling & Management56(2): 73–78.
17.
SlaughterSLeslieLL (1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
SteinRShortP (2001) Collaboration in delivering higher education programs: Barriers and challenges. Review of Higher Education24(4): 417–435.
19.
TeeceDJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal28(13): 1319–1350.
20.
TeeceDJ (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning43(2): 172–194.
21.
TeeceDJ (2016) Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: Toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm. European Economic Review86: 202–216.
ZajacEJKraatzMS (1993) A diametric forces model of strategic change: Assessing the antecedents and consequences of restructuring in the higher education industry. Strategic Management Journal14(S1): 83–102.
