Chapter 4

Change Process in Existing Institutions

David P. Bugay

Higher education institutions may be inherently resistant to change since they are built on hierarchical traditions that are fortified by political processes exercised by highly independent intellectuals. Both benefits and perils exist in the shared governance model often found in higher education, where a highly skilled, concerned, and verbal faculty can be as influential in leadership as those who hold leadership by title. Change evokes the best and worst in human behavior. The most powerful tool for initiating change is the realization of its necessity and the definition of its purpose and goal. People may instinctively resist change, typically for one of three reasons: they fear the unknown, they fear a loss of value to the organization, or they believe the change is not good for the organization.

Real change, deep change, needs to be built into the culture of the institution. Implementing change requires the use of creation and recreation tools to shift the organization away from its original state and toward conducting business in the newly molded setting. The three tools of change that are needed for successful implementation of the recommended changes are (1) technology, (2) personnel changes, and (3) reorganization.

Lasting change is not just created by the leader but also created and accepted by the institution itself. These changes will become built into the fabric of the institution through inclusion in the vision, mission, and values statements of the institution itself. To freeze the changes into place, they must become part of the vision and culture of the institution.

Change Process in Existing Institutions

Change is a word that elects presidents, brings hope to the disenfranchised, and brings fear to those who own the franchise. All leaders, from the private sector through institutions of higher education, must bring change to their organizations to meet the challenges of a changing world.

The administration of change, with a metaphorical spoonful of medicine, to an institution can be either an elixir to be cherished or a poison to be neutralized. Nevertheless, it is urgent for all organizations, including higher educational institutions, to take a hard look at the future and consider changes to meet that future.¹ Introducing organizational change implies that the current status is no longer considered desirable and that members will therefore be required to embrace the change. Some who derive security and dominance from maintaining the status quo will be inclined to fight the proposed change.

Influencing members to adopt change can be challenging, especially in higher education institutions where governance is shared, tenure provides permanence, and tensions exist between academic and administrative divisions. Clarifying the need for change and effectively communicating its rationale are therefore critical for raising awareness, rallying support, and inviting constructive scrutiny of the proposed plans.² An institution needs to know where it is in its market and where it should be. The student of today is a constant evolution from the ones of the class of yesterday. Today, even the definition of a class has to be differentiated as an online class, a face-to-face class, or a class that is a blend of both formats. Furthermore, students today are ready to drop an institution and quickly move to where they feel is best for them, often urged to switch by their helicopter parents.

Unless the institution resides in the oblivious, change will inevitably seek it out. Ideally, the process of change comes with its own tool kit, a set of methods for effective implementation of changes necessary to ensure institutional renewal and future success. For a change effort to be successful, internally generated obstacles need to be overcome through the three phases of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing.³ That is, once changes have been implemented, they need to be frozen into place through their institutionalization. Other than the fact that the future of an institution might be at stake, and so might the careers of its current leaders, change can be easy!

Why Change? Gather the Data

The most powerful tool for initiating change is realizing its necessity and defining its purpose and goal. Conducting an organizational assessment can be useful for gathering data, defining current practices, and building an inventory of targets for change. Calling for change begins by communicating a clear and concise message throughout the entire institution.

When seeking to create change, abundant communication and transparency help to win members’ confidence in the merits of the new vision.⁴ The vision for change cannot be the leader’s alone but must be developed and nurtured so that it reflects the vision of members in different areas throughout the institution. Data are the most powerful tools for invoking change, as thoughtful consideration of comprehensive data would drive the pursuit and successful implementation of change.

If there is such a thing as unbiased data gathering, higher education should be good at it. In order to develop a format for building best practices, an existing institution’s current practices need to be assessed and evaluated against relevant benchmarks and standards recognized at other centers of excellence. It is doubtful that one institution has the best practices in all areas. Performance measures in higher education might include graduation rates, number of years to acquire a degree, career placement rates, number of student publications, or even simple administrative services, such as how rapidly students may receive their transcripts after graduation. These benchmarks, when compared to the institution’s internal assessment results, can provide quantitative measures that help in shaping the specific needs for change and in reformulating the vision for future accomplishments.⁵ This creates the beginning of an organizational map for change.

A dashboard is a device, actually a set of measurements in the form of a report, to measure the organization’s progress on the change roadway. It is a periodic assessment or review of a set of data regularly collected and updated. After determining which markers they would like to watch, institutions could monitor their progress on these measures by regularly comparing their current to their desired status. The serial results could then be widely distributed throughout the organization or more discretely shared with affected groups.

The bearer of bad news is often condemned. Because data gathered by internal staff tend to be challenged more aggressively than data gathered by a perceived expert in the field, it is best to have the assessment done by an outside consultant who could then offer recommendations for change. Using specialist consultants can help avoid costly mistakes, and is more efficient, but depends on political will and budget considerations. Perception by the faculty and staff as to the how and what of data gathering and analysis, as well as the quality and credibility of the source, will be important in laying the foundations for discussions on adopting or adapting the prescribed recommendations. The communication process is a critical component in building an organizational climate in which the need for change is transparent.⁶

Reducing the Obstacles: No Such Thing as a Single Change

No change happens in a vacuum.⁷ A change as simple as an improvement in curriculum in one department may have profound impacts on perspectives in other departments. One department might view certain changes as having a favorable impact through different staffing, novel technology, or revised curriculum. Another department might view the same changes as having a potentially negative impact on its productivity and other performance measures. Change is never an isolated incident but rather an event with far-reaching consequences.

Gentle change in one area may lead to a figurative explosion in another. J. Douglas Tomas, in his book Building Organizational Capacity: Strategic Management in Higher Education,⁸ identifies eight elements that should be considered when a change is implemented in higher education. This framework is helpful in evaluating the potential impacts of a proposed change on other areas. These are as follows:

1. Purposes—why we are here and where we are headed?
2. Structure—how are we configured to do our work?
3. Governance—who makes what decisions?
4. Policies—what rules do we proceed under?
5. Processes—how do we get things done?
6. Information—what do we need to inform our decision making?
7. Infrastructure—what are our human, physical, technological, and financial assets?
8. Culture—what is our essential character?

He contends that when change is introduced, it should be considered in the context of how it will affect each of the eight elements of this framework. Critical questions need to be addressed on why changes are being made, who is making the decisions to change, and will funds be available to complete it. All change must be planned within the context of the entire system.

Many authors have studied the complexities of decision making in corporate and noncorporate organizations. Several frameworks have been proposed for guiding change through the complex interconnectivities of cause and effect relationships. Peter Senge suggests that organizations should transform into learning organizations by mastering five disciplines: (1) personal mastery, (2) shared vision, (3) mental models, (4) team learning, and (5) systems thinking—a move from seeing the parts to seeing wholes.⁹ Michael C. Jackson, in his book Systems Thinking: Creating Holism for Managers, discusses 10 systems approaches that reflect 4 basic orientations: (1) goal seeking and viability, (2) exploring purposes, (3) ensuring fairness, and (4) promoting diversity.¹⁰ A significant body of literature on system dynamic modeling¹¹ underscores the notion that no change occurs in isolation and that good leadership anticipates the multitude of effects that might manifest within an organization as a result of each change introduced.

Reducing the Obstacles: The Fear of Change

When people have been members of an organization for a while and have contributed to its development, they may believe that the organization is already performing optimally. A great smile and an enthusiastic call for change based on great data-driven ideas do not mean people will respond positively in accepting change. They have a vested interest in the status quo and their first reaction is to resist the change. It does not necessarily mean that they are against the change itself or the ones recommending it, but that they are opposed to doing things differently. Organizations experiencing transformational change undergo fundamental shifts in mission, values, strategies, and structures¹² that can evoke reactions ranging from the best to the worst in human behavior. Resistance to change can stem from fear of the unknown, expectations of loss, and the impulse to defend familiarities that are perceived to be threatened.¹³ Because fear is contagious, it should be addressed before it needlessly spreads through informal communications and consolidates within groups. To minimize resistance, the leader should make sure that everyone who may be affected by a change is informed of its purpose, advantages, feasibility, and modifiability. Perceptions of impending loss of power, status, position, or political advantage can be addressed by providing education about the change, clarifying what will not change, facilitating the involvement of members, and inviting their participation and feedback at all levels. This will provide them an anchor for their personal sense of security as they begin facing the challenges of implementing change.

Reducing the Obstacles: Win Over the Culture

Too often leaders force change on an organization. Changes implemented by leaders often dissolve as soon as those leaders depart. To build real change, deep change—it needs to be built into the culture of the institution.¹⁴ If the current culture presents impediments to desired change, then the process should begin with changing organizational culture.¹⁵ This may involve unbinding years of tradition and process in order to construct a culture more compatible with the new vision, mission, and future strategies.

An organization’s culture is pervasive, deep, and much stronger than first appearance. It consists of assumptions, values, beliefs, norms, and behaviors that have developed gradually and may be relatively unconscious. Culture explains much about how an organization functions, both internally and in relation to its external environment. When there is a need to change the way an organization works, it may become necessary to make this implicit set of beliefs explicit, as they may no longer be consistent with the actions and behaviors that are now required.

A general understanding of the seven characteristics of organizational culture as described by Luthans, Hodgetts, and Thompson in their book, Social Issues in Business: Strategic and Public Policy Perspectives, is helpful in leading change:¹⁶

• Culture equals behavior as it describes behavioral norms that are neither good nor bad but that determine how things are done in an organization’s operating functions.
• Culture is learned as certain behaviors are rewarded while others are spurned. Behaviors that are expected and accepted by the culture are repeatedly rewarded until they are learned as integral components of the culture, while undesired behaviors are discouraged and rejected until they are discontinued.
• Culture is learned through interactions that begin during the job interview and are shaped by defining expectations through daily experiences, feedback, and formal performance reviews.
• Subcultures form through rewards resulting from a desire for acceptance by coworkers. Subcultures that develop even when alternate behaviors are expected by leaders and managers can become the accepted norm for groups of employees even though they are not officially sanctioned.
• Culture is shaped in time by stories and people. Personalities, human interactions, and past experiences, redescribed by people, create the culture of an organization. Stories, mementos, traditions, and pride all shape the culture and the accepted norms.
• Culture is negotiated by the dynamic processes of give-and-take between members of an organization. Formalization of strategies, determination of direction, systems development, and monitoring of progress must be owned by the group responsible for them.
• Culture is difficult to change because it requires behavioral changes. Encouragement, training, persistence, kindness, and understanding can help effect culture change.¹⁷

Culture silently pervades the workplace. It is found in a group’s language, decision making, symbols, stories and legends, and daily work practices.¹⁸ The culture is expressed on the bulletin board, in the company newsletter, through the employees when they interact in meetings, and through people when they work together in accomplishing projects. When people in an organization realize and recognize their current organizational culture needs to transform to support the organization’s success and progress, change can occur.

The Creation Tools of Change

Implementing change requires the use of creation and recreation tools to shift the organization away from its original state and toward conducting business in the newly molded setting. The three tools of change that are needed for successful implementation of the recommended changes are (1) technology, (2) personnel changes, and (3) reorganization.

Technology is a disruptive change and affects everyone. When it invades, everyone feels they can criticize it because it is a nonperson—just machinery that will make their jobs better and worse, all at the same time. It is also a change protested but not seriously challenged because not changing technology obviously impedes the organization. Employees feel they can express their discontent openly since the technological changes are inevitable.¹⁹

In contrast to coping with technological changes, expressions of discontent with either personnel changes or reorganization plans tend to take place in a more covert manner, often hidden from leadership but broadcast informally through the grapevine. Moving people around, shifting their assignments, or replacing them is a method of change that is both powerful and disturbing. To reduce chaos and uncertainty, it is best to make people changes swiftly and communicate them loudly and clearly.

One of the most far-reaching, powerful, and disruptive changes regarding people is reorganization or restructuring. People may be relocated and have new roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines as systems are altered. Leading such major changes is best accomplished by providing guidance and proceeding in an orderly and methodical manner. If the restructuring is effective, it will lead to improved productivity. If, however, it is poorly executed, chaos will ensue and become one of the drums beating for the new change agent to leave. Reorganizing is so disruptive that it should not be done nonchalantly and only when there are long-term benefits involved. Problems often recur due to poorly thought out reorganizational plans that place people in roles not structurally or personally suited to their skill sets.

Building the Change, Building the Shared Vision

Lasting change is not just created by the leader but created and accepted by the institution itself. These changes will either become built into the fabric of the institution or will disintegrate shortly after the institution’s leadership leaves the institution. To freeze the changes into place, they must become part of the vision and culture of the institution.

A vision is the preferred future, a desirable state, an ideal state. It is an expression of optimism. A vision is a general statement encompassing the direction an agency wants to take and the desired end result once it gets there. It is the visions of what those involved want their organization to become. A vision statement could be a powerful expression of the key values that characterize and define an organization. To carry the vision forward and implement it requires that everyone knows what it is and how it affects him or her and their work. The best of all worlds is when everyone involved feels included in the development and implementation of a true shared vision.²⁰ Vision statements should be well written yet simple, brief, and clear. The entrapments of lengthy, unfocused, or wordy statements that hope to cover all aspects of the organization’s values and principles should be avoided because complexity makes it difficult to communicate the vision to others.²¹ Ideally, inputs regarding the vision and its implications should be sought from representatives of all areas of the institution.

A similar process should accompany the recreation of an institution’s mission statement and values statement. The experience should be viewed as a serious defining moment of reflection to reexamine the essence of the institution. Mission statements are more focused on specifics of what the organization is to accomplish. Three common elements of a mission statement are the basic purpose of the organization, the functions it will carry out, and its mission defined in broad, sweeping statements on what it is committed to achieving.²² When a mission statement is developed, its writers must ask themselves, “Why are we here? What do we want to do?”

Values are traits or qualities that members cherish or believe in and that are considered by the organization to be aligned with the highest priorities of individuals. As they are deeply held beliefs, values can be powerful forces of motivation. Value statements help to define how people want to behave toward one another in the organization. A value statement provides a measuring device for daily use to evaluate one’s actions and behaviors in the context of institutional norms and expectations.²³ The values explain how the mission is carried out.

A planning retreat would be a good setting for the various leaders of the institution to come together, meet, discuss, and formulate these issues. The group should represent multiple constituencies, including board members, administrators, faculty, and staff. Ignoring a group would mean less ownership of the end product by that group. The framework, previously mentioned, of eight elements discussed by Tomas²⁴ could be used to guide a comprehensive consideration of all aspects within the organization. Institutional commitment should be sought for the proposed changes that are adopted in order to secure support for their implementation through structure, governance, processes, infrastructure, and funding.

The vision, mission, and value statements will come to life by planning for success. The vision should be something that is deeply meaningful to the members of the organization. Faculty should be proud of the mission, and staff should be delighted to work in a place that reflects values they can identify with and believe in. Members should be welcome to express concerns, and leaders should be thoughtfully responsive to feedback.

When the statements are completed, sell them. Each person who helped develop these statements should be able to go out into the organization and convey the message to others. Official announcements could set off a period of intense communication, publicity, and follow-up. Creating lasting change involves building aa vision that is forward looking, idealistic, and easy to remember. According to Reh,²⁵ the vision is the dance music for the departments within the organization.

Change can be complex and time consuming, but when it is instituted it can energize an organization by permeating its culture. Without deep reflection, resolve, and commitment, efforts to implement change could be derailed, and an eventual reversion to the previous state could take place. Development of a shared vision provides a valuable foundation and the beginnings of a unified focus for institutional improvement.

Vision talk is easy—true change is found in the details. Assessing the organization and comparing its performance to best practices identifies targets of change in pursuing higher standards of excellence. Working to overcome resistance to change is a critical endeavor in leading lasting change. Using the creation tools of change, technology, personnel, and reorganization will help to bring the institution into alignment with benchmarks of excellence. The changes should be codified into the fabric of the institution through recreating the vision, mission, and values statements. Using these processes, educational institutions will be better prepared to meet the challenges of today’s vastly changing educational marketplace.