----

##  Understanding and Facilitating Change in Higher Education in the                21st Century. ERIC Digest.                                                   

A critical synthesis of research literature on the process of                   organizational change at the institutional level is needed because              higher education is being asked to be responsive to an ever-changing            environment. This work focuses on providing the reader several key              insights into the change process by (1) presenting a common language            for organizational change; (2) describing the multidisciplinary                 research base on change; (3) highlighting the distinct                          characteristics of higher education institutions and how this might             influence the change process; (4) reviewing models/concepts of                  organizational change derived within higher education, comparing and            contrasting different approaches; and (5) providing principles for              change based on a synthesis of the research within higher education.            PROVIDING A LANGUAGE FOR UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 
Some             generic definitions of organizational change have been offered by               theorists. For example, Burnes noted that organizational change                 refers to understanding alterations within organizations at the                 broadest level among individuals, groups, and at the collective                 level across the entire organization (1996). Another definition is              that change is the observation of difference over time in one or                more dimensions of an entity (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). But these            definitions fail to capture the assumptions inherent in different               models or theories of change. For example, cultural and                         social-cognition theories of change would replace the word                      observation with the word perception in the second definition above.            Theorists exploring change through a cultural or social-cognition               perspective would examine not dimensions (typically organizational              structural characteristics such as size), but values or                         organizational participants' mental maps. Because the language                  relating to change differs, a common language is difficult to find.             However, certain concepts are common across various models, such as             forces or sources of change and first-order or second-order change.             These common concepts are noted within key sources of change                    literature such as Burnes, 1996; Goodman, 1982; Levy and Merry,                 1986; and Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1996. As these scholars studied            change, these concepts became critical points of concern in their               analyses. Forces and sources examine the why of change. First and               second/second order, scale, foci, timing, and degree all refer to               the what of change. Adaptive/generative,  proactive/reactive,                   active/static, and planned/unplanned refer to the how of change.                Last, the target of change refers to the outcomes. As a campus                  begins to engage in a change process, members of the organization               need to first examine why they are about to embark on the process,              the degree of change needed, and what is the best approach to                   adopt. THEORIES OF CHANGESix main categories of theories of               change assist in understanding, describing, and developing insights             about the change process: (1) evolutionary, (2) teleological, (3)               life cycle, (4) dialectical, (5) social cognition, and (6) cultural.            Each model has a distinct set of assumptions about why change                   occurs, how the process unfolds, when change occurs and how long it             takes, and the outcomes of change. The main assumption underlying               evolutionary theories is that change is a response to external                  circumstances, institutional variables, and the environment faced by            each organization (Morgan, 1986). Social systems as diversified,                interdependent, complex systems evolve naturally over time because              of external demands (Morgan, 1986). Teleological theories or planned            change models assume that organizations are purposeful and adaptive.            Change occurs because leaders, change agents, and others see the                necessity of change. The process for change is rational and linear,             as in evolutionary models, but individual managers are much more                instrumental to the process (Carnall, 1995; Carr, Hard, and Trahant,            1996). Life-cycle models evolved from studies of child development              and focus on stages of growth, organizational maturity, and                     organizational decline (Levy and Merry, 1986). Change is                        conceptualized as a natural part of human or organizational                     development. Dialectical models, also referred to as political                  models, characterize change as the result of clashing ideology or               belief systems (Morgan, 1986). Conflict is seen as an inherent                  attribute of human interaction. Change processes are considered to              be predominantly bargaining, consciousness-raising, persuasion,                 influence and power, and social movements (Bolman and Deal, 1991).              Social-cognition models describe change as being tied to learning               and mental processes such as sense making and mental models. Change             occurs because individuals see a need to grow, learn, and change                their behavior. In cultural models, change occurs naturally as a                response to alterations in the human environment; cultures are                  always changing (Morgan, 1986). The change process tends to be                  long-term and slow. Change within an organization entails alteration            of values, beliefs, myths, and rituals (Schein, 1985). Some                     researchers suggest using several models or categories, as each                 sheds light on different aspects of organizational life (Van de Ven             and Poole, 1995). The advantage to multiple models is that they                 combine the insights of various change theories. Bolman's and                   Deal's (1991) re-framing of organizations and Morgan's (1986)                   organizational metaphors illustrate how assumptions from                        teleological, evolutionary, political/cultural, social- cognition,              and lifecycle models can be combined to understand                              change. UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION                          ORGANIZATIONS: KEY TO

SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGEThere              are two main reasons it is necessary to develop a distinctive                   approach to change within higher education: overlooking these                   factors may result in mistakes in analysis and strategy, and using              concepts foreign to the values of the academy will most likely fail             to engage the very people who must bring about the change. In order             to develop a distinctive model, the following unique features of                higher education institutions need to be taken into account:                    *Interdependent organization *Relatively independent of environment             *Unique culture of the academy *Institutional status *Values-driven             *Multiple power and authority structures *Loosely coupled system                *Organized anarchical decision-making *Professional and                         administrative values *Shared governance *Employee commitment and               tenure *Goal ambiguity *Image and success.  Although not an                     exhaustive list, this represents some of the key features of higher             education institutions that affect organizational change. (For a                more detailed description of these characteristics, see Birnbaum,               1991.) 
In light of these distinctive organizational features,                 higher education institutions would seem to be best interpreted                 through cultural, social-cognition, and political models. The need              for cultural models seems clear from the embeddedness of members who            create and reproduce the history and values, the stable nature of               employment, the strong organizational identification of members, the            emphasis on values, and the multiple organizational cultures.                   Because there are no bottom-line measures for examining performance             in higher education, image and identification are extremely                     important in understanding if change is occurring and how it occurs.            The relationships of image and identification to change seem to                 indicate that social cognition is important to understand.                      Furthermore, the loosely coupled structure, anarchical                          decision-making, and ambiguous goals make meaning unclear, and                  social-cognition models' emphasis on multiple interpretations may be            important to consider when examining and facilitating change. The               shared governance system, organized anarchy, conflicting                        administrative and professional values, and ambiguous, competing                goals also point to a need for the interpretive power of political              models. Evolutionary models are important for understanding the                 impact of environmental factors on change, such as accreditation,               foundations, and legislatures in an interdependent system,                      especially since these factors are growing in magnitude and                     influence. However, even though a higher education institution is an            open system, it may have internal consistency and logic that can be             damaged by the intrusion of external environmental forces. HIGHER             EDUCATION MODELS OF CHANGE: EXAMINATION THROUGH THE TYPOLOGY                    OF

SIX MODELSAn extensive review of all the research on                  change conducted specifically within higher education, and within               the framework of the six theories outlined above, provides a set of             insights about the change process in this context. The cumulative               evidence, so far, suggests that organizational change can best be               explained through political, social-cognition, and cultural models.             Political processes such as persuasion, informal negotiation,                   mediation, and coalition-building appear to be very powerful                    strategies for creating change (Conrad, 1978; Hearn, 1996).                     Social-cognition models illustrate the importance of altering mental            models, learning, constructed interaction, and other processes for              creating change (Eckel and Kezar, forthcoming; Weick, 1995).                    Cultural models demonstrate the importance of symbolism, history and            traditions, and institutional culture for facilitating change on                campus (Cohen and March, 1974; Kezar and Eckel, forthcoming).                   Evolutionary models highlight some key characteristics of change,               such as homeostasis, interactivity of strategies, or accretion, that            appear important to understanding change. Life-cycle models have                not, for the most part, been applied to higher education                        institutions, but show promise for helping to develop explanations              of how organizational change occurs. There is mixed evidence about              the explanatory power of teleological models, but to date they                  appear to have limited support from the research in terms of how                change actually occurs in higher education and of efficacy for                  facilitating change. Some strategies, such as incentives or vision,             have proven successful for creating change. RESEARCH-BASED                    PRINCIPLES OF CHANGEA complex set of research-based principles              emerges from this extensive review of the research. These principles            include: 
* Promote organizational self-discovery 
* Be aware of              how institutional culture affects change 
* Realize that change in             higher education is often political 
* Lay groundwork for                      change 
* Focus on adaptability 
* Construct opportunities for                interaction to develop new mental models 
* Strive to create                   homeostasis and balance external, forces with internal                          environment 
* Combine traditional teleological tools such as                  establishing vision, planning, or strategy with social-cognition,               cultural, and political strategies 
* Be open to a disorderly                  process 
* Facilitate shared governance and collective                         decision-making 
* Articulate core characteristics 
* Focus on                image 
* Connect the change process to individual and institutional            identity 
* Create a culture of risk and help people in changing               belief systems 
* Be aware that various levels or aspects of the               organization will need different change models 
* Realize that                 strategies for change vary by change initiative 
* Consider                    combining models or approaches, as is demonstrated within the                   multiple models These will help you to develop a systematic and                 systemic process of change that works with individuals, acknowledges            change as a human process, is sensitive to the distinctive                      characteristics of higher education, is context- based, achieves                balance of internal and external forces, and is open to creativity              and leveraging change through chance                                            occurrences. BIBLIOGRAPHYBirnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges                work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San              Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Bolman, L.G., Deal, T.E. (1991). Reframing            organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco:                 Jossey-Bass. 
Burnes, B. (1996).Managing change: A strategic                   approach to organizational dynamics. London: Pitman                             Publishing 
Carnall, C.A. (1995). Managing change in                           organizations. (second edition). London: Prentice Hall. 
Carr, D.,             Hard, K., & Trahant, W. (1996). Managing the change process: A field            book for change agents, consultants, team leaders, and reengineering            managers. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Cohen, M.D., &  March,                       J.G. (1974).  Leadership and Ambiguity: The American college                    president. Boston:  Harvard Business School Press. 
Conrad,                    C.F. (1978) A grounded theory of academic change.  Sociology of                 education 51, 101-112. 
Eckel, P & Kezar, A. (in press).                       Strategies for making new institutional sense:  Key ingredients to              higher education transformation.  Review of Higher                              Education. 
Goodman, P.S. (1982). Change in organizations: New                 perspectives on theory, research and practice. San Francisco:                   Jossey-Bass. 
Hearn, J.C. (1996). Transforming U.S. higher                     education: An organizational perspective.  Innovative higher                    education, 21(2), 141-54. EJ534330. 
Levy, A., Merry, U. (1986).               Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, theories. New            York: Praeger. 
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury             Park, CA.: Sage Publications. 
Rajagopalan, N. & Spreitzer,                    G.M. (1996).  Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens                 perspective and integrated framework.  Academy of management review,            22 (1), 48-79. 
Schein, E.  (1985).  Organizational culture and                leadership:  A dynamic view.  San Francisco:  Jossey Bass. 
Van  de            Ven, A.H., Poole, M.S. (1995).  Explaining development and change in            organizations.  Academy of management review, 20(3),                            510-540. 
Weick. K. E. (1995).  Sensemaking in organizations.                  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
----- 
The mission of the              ERIC system is to improve American education by increasing and                  facilitating the use of educational research and information to                 effect good practice in the activities of learning, teaching,                   educational decision making, and research, wherever and whenever                these activities take place.  This publication was partially                    prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and               Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no.                   RR-93-00-0036. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily                   reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the department.                    Permission is granted to copy and distribute this ERIC-HE Digest.            **Title:** Understanding and Facilitating Change in Higher Education in the                21st Century. ERIC Digest.                                                   **Note:** Based on the ASHE-ERIC report of the same name published by                     Jossey-Bass Publishers. Contains small print.                                **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, One Dupont Circle, Suite                630, Washington, DC 20036-1183. Tel: 800-956-7739 (Toll Free). For              full text: http://www.eriche.org.                                            **Descriptors:**  Educational Change, Educational Research, Higher Education,                     Institutional Characteristics, Interdisciplinary Approach,                      Organizational Change                                                       **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]