Connecting Institutional Goals with Measurable Outcomes: Lessons from an Academic Realignment Initiative: In an Era of High-Stakes Accountability and Limited Financial Resources, We Recommend That Academic Leaders Intentionally Connect Institutional Goals to Measurable Outcomes

DIMINISHING FINANCIAL SUPPORT from state governments and external pressures from regional accrediting organizations have compelled university administrators to make difficult decisions about academic structures in order to balance declining resources, meet demands for accountability, adjust the changing faculty ranks, and respond to society's need for knowledge (Eddy 2010). During times of economic strife and increased political pressure, researchers have documented a practice in which academic administrators consolidate assets through the realignment of academic programs and services (Guarasci and Lieberman 2009; Welsh, Nunez, and Petrosko 2006). In January 2010, a public research institution in the southeastern United States, the focus institution for this investigation, launched an academic realignment initiative by merging three previously independent schools--the School of Arts and Humanities, the School of Natural Science and Mathematics, and the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences--into a new academic unit, the College of Arts and Sciences (the CAS). The School of Education was also placed under this new college umbrella; however, it was considered to be a semi-autonomous unit by university administrators. According to university officials at the focus institution, the rationale and overarching goals for consolidation were threefold: (1) improve interdisciplinarity, (2) enhance student services/strategic investments, and (3) create financial efficiencies. Administrators maintained that declining resources necessitated the need for this structural change. Further, it was believed that realignment would result in better economies of scale, which would allow the institution to more readily realize these three goals. However, as we discuss in this article, administrators failed to articulate a time line or measurable outcomes against which to assess the success (or failure) of the realignment process. In an era of high-stakes accountability and limited financial resources, we recommend that academic leaders intentionally connect institutional goals to measurable outcomes. In the absence of measurable outcomes, the primary author elected to investigate the academic realignment initiative by creating proxy measures that could be used to examine the extent to which the university achieved its three intended goals. Specific measures included (a) a review of records and documents for evidence of newly created interdisciplinary programs, (b) a comparison of rates of student persistence pre- and post-academic realignment in an effort to understand if strategic investments in services for students impacted retention, and (c) an examination of overall expenditures for the schools that make up the CAS to look for increases in financial efficiencies between 2008 and 2011. Despite these efforts, there was minimal evidence to suggest that institutional outcomes were achieved as a specific result of the creation of this new academic unit. This article describes in detail the methods and findings of this investigation. We close with a brief discussion of implications for academic realignment initiatives in higher education. ACADEMIC REALIGNMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION Academic realignment initiatives often represent a shift away from discipline-specific, researcher-led academic work toward interdisciplinary and collaborative projects in order to identify external funding from multiple, non-overlapping sources (Capaldi 2009; Houghton, Steele, and Henty 2004). In examining change in higher education, Moran and Myringer (1999) observed that reduced funding was one of the most significant factors related to the decision to alter curriculum options and the methods of delivery of academic programs and services. As colleges and universities compete for a smaller share of public funding, the institutions that thrive are typically ones that "have built collaborations among internal groups in order to compete externally for students, faculty talent, and financial resources" (Facione 2009, 1 3). …