Organizational Adaptation and Change

(Part Two)

Team E Class Notes

April 20, 2011

Synthesis of the Four Readings

Bess and Dee explore two types of organizational change: “planned” or intentional change, imposed by a leader or senior administrators (a top-down approach) that has as its foundation positivist assumptions, and “emergent” change that originates in one area and then is adopted by other areas (a bottom-up approach) and is guided by social constructionist assumptions. The authors argue that leaders should appreciate that both types of change have their uses.
Gioia and Thomas explore the ways that internal and external perceptions both influence and can be influenced by the change initiatives of higher education institutions. They conducted an in-depth case study of one institution and a quantitative survey study of 439 other institutions in an effort to gain a greater understanding of how image and identity affect the management of change. The conclusion: "If the concern is to make intentional, substantive change , then some fundamental organizational attributes must change" (p.373).
Neumann studied two college presidents facing differing degrees of financial stress. She concludes that the president who employed a “constructivist approach” - i.e., “ a dialogic and empowering leadership,” was able effectively to diffuse anxiety concerning her institution’s financial situation. As important as money is to universities, the author argues, perhaps as important are “leaders’ abilities to pick up and work with people’s understandings, commitments, and anxieties, and their abilities to interpret institutional events.” Neumann made clear the point that the actions and/or inactions of institutional leaders have a profound impact on creating meaning for individuals at the organization. Often the created meaning is markedly different than objective reality.
Simsek and Seashore Louis take the stance that strategic planning to effect change may be largely ineffective unless there is a leader who can successfully challenge his or her institution’s underlying paradigm or “world view.”

Terms and Concepts


Page No.

Paradigm: "the prevalent view of reality shared by members of an organization"
Simsek and Seashore Louis
p. 551
Contingency Theory: "the external world is a given and waiting to be discovered"
p. 389
Social Construction: meaning comes from the individual through experiences and ideas
p. 389
Diffusion of Innovations Framework (planned change) – new ideas are incorporated through a sequential process
Bess and Dee
p. 800
Sociotechnical Theory (planned change) – emphases on the organizational design
Bess and Dee
p. 801
Force Field Theory (planned change) – displays the relative strength of forces for and against change
Bess and Dee
p. 803
Social Constructionist (Emergent Model) – organizational change emerges through multiple, grassroots initiatives
Bess and Dee
p. 809
Identity: The internal perception of an organization
Gioia and Thomas
p. 352
Image: The external perception of an organization
Gioia and Thomas
p. 352
Strategic Issue: An issue that supports the strategic change initiative
Gioia and Thomas
p. 358
Political Issue: An issue that competes with the strategic change initiative
Gioia and Thomas
p. 358
Strategic Cascade: When one issue deemed as strategic leads to other issues becoming strategic
Gioia and Thomas
p. 359

Summaries of Readings

Bess & Dee: "Organizational Change in Higher Education"

• Complex external environments have heightened the importance of change for higher education organizations, but failure rates for organizational change may be unacceptably high.
• Positivist research seeks to identify organizational variables that objectively identify and define conditions.
• The planned change model is guided by positivist assumptions and conceptualizes change as an international act that is driven by specific goals and plans. Theories related to planned change include diffusion of innovations, sociotechnical theories, and human process theories that include force field analysis.
• The diffusion of innovations framework suggests that new ideas are incorporated into an organization through a sequential process of awareness, persuasion, evaluation, trial, and implementation. New ideas are evaluated in terms of perceived advantage, compatibility, accessibility, divisibility, and communicability.
• Sociotechnical theories emphasize the importance of organizational design in facilitating change. Job enrichment, job enlargement, and job rotation are three practical strategies for modifying organizational designs in order to enhance organizational members’ motivation for change.
• Force field analysis displays the relative strength of forces for and forces against change. Processes of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing can foster organization-wide change.
• In contrast to planned change, the emergent change model is based on social constructionist assumptions and suggests that organizational change emerges through multiple, grassroots initiatives.
• The effectiveness of organizational change depends on the development of human resources in organizations. Five contingencies – structure, leadership, culture, resources, and external environment – determine the human resource needs of the organization. The appropriate model for organizational change (e.g., an emphasis on planned change or emergent change) follows from information about these contingencies.
• Postmodernists note that rapid economic, political, and social changes on a global scale have significant effects on colleges and universities; some of these effects may diminish institutional autonomy, but others may promote equity, diversity, and empowerment.
• Critical theory highlights the political dimensions of change and suggests that resistance to change may actually be beneficial to an organization.

Case Context – “Curriculum Change at Greenbough Tech”
• Historically black public institution.
• Strong programs in natural sciences and engineering.
• Reputation for faculty who care about teaching.
• Government requested proposals for a grant to improve teaching in science and engineering from the administrators in the provost’s office (no time for faculty involvement in the proposal preparation).
• The proposal was accepted and funded to give science and engineering faculty capacity to change their practices.
• Some faculty were concerned about –
o Whether the funds would be sufficient to provide course release time for faculty to participate in curriculum development.
o Whether curriculum development would count as legitimate faculty work in tenure and promotion reviews.
• The provost met with the department chairs to discuss the concerns of time for curriculum development as well as tenure and promotion criteria.
o The chairs told the provost about what the faculty had been doing recently regarding their updated syllabi, experiments with new pedagogical practices, and how they’ve been engaging undergraduate and graduate students in their research projects.
o The provost suggested that curriculum development should be considered “applied research” (and suggested this become the new policy).
o examples -
*Empirical research
*Interdisciplinary synthesis
*Applied research to serve the public
*Inquiry into pedagogy, curriculum, and learning modes
• Provost says, “This grant is about to produce its first policy change, which could actually have some long-term implications for teaching and learning on this campus.”

Higher education leaders encounter an increasingly complex external environment (social, political, and market forces). Institutions are faced with qualitative and quantitative changes in student populations. However, observers higher education institutions are fundamentally inward looking and tend to preserve the status quo.

Opportunities for change are diminished when upper level administrators do not respond to feedback from faculty, staff and midlevel managers. Also, institutions as a whole often fail to develop a forward looking agenda for long-term action at the institutional level. Instead, they tend to make incremental changes that do not involve major disruptions. This results in unmanageable burdens on personnel.

Organizational survival may depend on whether an institution can accurately appraise its own strengths and weaknesses in light of external conditions, appreciate the modes of change that are necessary, and change course and chart a new direction for the future.

The chapter (article) will explore two change models –

Planned Change - includes-
o Innovation adoption
o Sociotechnical
o Human processual theories of change
Emergent Change – includes –
o Sensemaking
o Improvisation

Defining Change
Change can be defined as an alteration in structures, processes, and / or behaviors in a system or as the introduction of something new to an organization.
• Transformational changes – produce a major overhaul of the organization’s structure and strategy.
• Incremental changes – less dramatic effects.

According to Van de Ven (1986), there are four central problems in the management of change –
1. A human problem of managing attention
2. A process problem in managing new ideas
3. A structural problem of managing part-whole relationships
4. A strategic problem of institutional leadership

Planned Change Models (Top down perspective)
The planned change framework is conceptualized as an intentional effort to improve organizational process through the implementation of new ideas based on scientific knowledge.

• 5 stages of Adopting Innovations –
1. Awareness
2. Persuasion
3. Evaluation
4. Trial
5. Implementation
• Sociotechnical Theories – test relationships between existing and hypothetical characteristics of organizational design and their effects on desired outcomes. Sociotechnical theories suggest that it is better to change the structure of an organization first and then allow the attitudes of members to follow this restructuring.
• Human Processual Theories (Lewin) – Based on an assumption of individual psychological resistance to change. The model emphasizes the need to unfreeze workers by providing information that disconfirms the individual’s sense of self and that induces guilt and anxiety, which in turn fosters a change in behavior.

Emergent Change Framework (Bottom-up perspective)
Emergent change occurs when multiple reforms are occurring on an ongoing basis, as faculty and staff develop localized responses to practice-based challenges. These local adaptions do not deliberately seek to change the entire organization, but over time they can be mapped to reveal the direction of change in the organization. Critics of incremental change argue that colleges cannot afford to wait years for new strategies to emerge. They argue that change is needed immediately. In this framework, leaders act as facilitators of creativity and experimentation.

Synthesis of the Change Models

Externally Driven
Internally Driven
· Policy mandates
· Government regulations
· Strategic planning
· Social and cultural trends
· Grassroots initiatives

Contingency Framework for Change
There are five additional contingencies that must be considered when choosing a change model that will improve human resource development.
1. The structure for action
2. Leadership capacities at all levels
3. The culture of trust
4. Financial slack
5. External environmental constraints and opportunities

Postmodern and Critical Perspective on Change
Planned and emergent change models are not the only perspectives on organizational frames. Two other alternative views are Postmodernism and Critical Theory.

Postmodernists note that large-scale social, cultural, economic, and political changes have had significant effects in HE institutions. Thus, there is a declining ability to predict which interventions and changes are likely to be successful in organizations. Postmodernists also challenge the notion that change represents progress as it may only reflect the ability of one group to subordinate others.

Critical Theory researchers emphasize the notion that resistance to change may actually be beneficial to the organization, they view change primarily as a political struggle. Critical theory tries to locate actors within structures that both constrain activity and provide opportunities for change. It focuses on the ability of individuals to reconstruct power relations within organizations. The focus is on activism from the grassroots up, rather than persuasion from the top down. Therefore, the results of critical theory are consistent with the emergent model of change.

Higher Education can change in many ways (inputs, outcomes, processes, structure, culture, leadership). Two main change models were studied in the article: Planned and Emergent changes. Theories related to planned change are: Innovations Adaptation, sociotechnical, and Human Processual. The Emergent Change framework includes Sensemaking Theory and Improvisation. Postmodernists and Critical Theory researches are additional change models. The combination of change models that suits best an organization depends on several contingencies, with the objective of maximization of human resource development to improve effectiveness. In addition to using multiple change models, leaders can work to change the contingencies themselves. The contingencies are:
1. The structure for action
2. Leadership capacities at all levels
3. The Culture of trust
4. Financial slack
5. External environmental constraints and opportunities.

The challenge for leaders is to choose which best change model to apply. However, studies suggest that HE leaders should avoid searching for the best model for change and instead seek complementary approaches
Discussion Questions:
On p. 802, Bess and Dee argue that strong traditions can cause passivity, ritualism and ultimately resistance to change. Can WM with its strong traditions and rituals be considered resistant to change? Are all traditional organizations resistant to change?
doc.jpg King.jpg

What is stronger/more effective: when a single leader force change or when change comes from the bottom up?

Gioia & Thomas: "Sensemaking During Strategic Change"


With financial, political, and demographic changes in today’s society, the higher education field is becoming increasingly similar to a competitive marketplace. As a result, institutions of higher education face a growing need to make quick changes; a practice not traditionally used in the realm of higher education. Change processes in higher education differ from those of business operations because of fundamental differences between the two arenas. At the most basic level, the terminology is different; businesses use the terms "threat" and "opportunity," whereas higher education institutions use the terms "strategic" and "political." More significantly, universities are typically assessed based on more subjective factors, such as institutional reputation, than on clear-cut categories found in business, such as profit. For institutions, these subjective factors do not always represent an accurate depiction of reality. In fact, perception often equals reality. If an institution’s administration wants to enact strategic change, then perceptions need to be altered. Traditionally, institutional identity has not been a fluid concept, but rather it has been seen as an institution’s foundation. However, Gioia and Thomas (1996) found that since institutional image is often directly related to institutional identity, both image and identity must be altered in some way if strategic change is to occur.

Identity: How members of an organization view the organization and what they constitute as defining characteristics of the organization. (Internal Perception)
Image: How members of an organization think that individuals outside of the organization perceive it OR how members of an organization (specifically top management) want others to perceive the organization. (External Perception)

Case Study

Gioia and Thomas (1996) interviewed the president, the executive vice president/provost, and the vice provost at a large, public research university that was in the process of undergoing a strategic change effort. The institutional goal was to become a “top 10” public university; this goal was the driving force behind the strategic change effort. When the interviews were conducted, changes had already occurred, “including the creation of a new school, the elimination of several programs, the combining of two colleges into a new unit, the establishment of a research park, and the pursuit of several large-scale, potentially profit-making projects” (p.355). All three university leaders were committed to the pursuit of strategic change, and they compared being strategic to a three-legged stool.

Two types of issues emerged from the interviews:
Strategic Issues: those that contributed to the image of a “top 10” university
Political Issues: those that competed with or compromised the image of a “top 10” university

When the university began to enact strategic change, many stakeholders expressed resistance to change, so the university leaders knew that they needed to create buy-in among the key players. Particularly, different university trustees maintain affinity towards different programs and colleges, so the leaders needed to navigate how funding would be allocated and how they would explain the differences in funding to those who demanded more.

Contrary to what the terms “political” and “strategic” might infer, political issues most often emerged as internal in nature and strategic issues often dealt with actual state politics. The top university leaders wanted the governor to see himself as a stakeholder in the university so that he would support the “top 10” goal and ultimately transform the goal into a state initiative.

The issues sometimes led to
Strategic Cascade: a domino effect that occurred when one issue that was deemed strategic led to other issues becoming strategic.

Perception is Paramount
Throughout the interviews, “what became clear to [the researchers] is that the way team members interpreted issues related to the way they saw the organization’s identity and image” (p.359). The idea of becoming a “top 10” university is somewhat ambiguous, but the university leaders liked the flexibility and openness to interpretation that this ambiguity provided. The university leaders were very focused on needing to change the current institutional identity in order to reach their ultimate goal of becoming a more elite university. They believed that the way to do this was to start by changing their image. They thought that by transforming the university’s current image into a prestigious image, people would want to achieve the new image and would more easily leave the current image behind. When discussing the idea of image, the university leaders deemed strategic issues as those that related to the university’s desired prestige and political issues as those that related to maintaining the status quo. The university leaders compared themselves to a well-known institution that successfully transformed itself from an average university into an elite institution by convincing alumni donors that contributing money to help build a more positive image would benefit them in the long run.

The concept of Image seemed to align closely with future goals, probably because the leaders thought that changing the image would help change the identity.

2 Components of Internal Sensemaking:
Strategy: identify and concentrate on issues necessary for strategic change
Information Processing: centralized information-gathering procedure so that top management stayed abreast of strategic and political issues

Quantitative Survey Study

Gioia and Thomas (1996) sent questionnaires to three top-level administrators at each of 439 institutions throughout the United States. The institutions included both public and private classifications either categorized as four-year baccalaureate, master's, or doctorate degree-granting institutions.

The questionnaire assessed perceived institutional identity by using the terms “utilitarian” and “normative." Administrators identify their university as utilitarian when they perceive it to be focused on economic concerns and as normative when they perceive it to be focused on value-based concerns. The questionnaire also explored the concept of image. The questionnaire assessed current image by asking respondents to give their institution a rating based on what they think their peers would give them. Additionally, the questionnaire assessed desired image by asking respondents to name up to three peer institutions to which they would most want to aspire and to what extent.

The results of the questionnaire revealed that institutions that were perceived as more utilitarian seemed to have more strategic issues, whereas institutions that were perceived as more normative had seemingly less strategic issues. Additionally, strategic issues were linked to identity type, identity strength, and desired future image, whereas political issues were linked to identity strength and present image.

Discussion and Conclusion

In the case study, top leaders were convinced that current identity could be changed through a belief in the possibility of a desired future image. They believed that institutional identity would be changed if the institution’s members saw something greater that they believed they could strive for and achieve. This means that they saw identity not only as malleable, but also as changeable within a short time frame. Viewing identity as malleable defies the current higher education belief that identity is central, and sometimes even the foundation, on which an institution is built. The leaders interviewed in the case study also strongly believed changing the institutional image was paramount to changing the institutional identity. An interesting finding that emerged from the case study was the notion that an institution would seek to emulate an already established university. In doing so, the institution would not be creating a distinctive identity, but rather attempting to blend in with other institutions. When creating an organizational vision, new identities emerge that differ from past or current identities. Key players must figure out what elements of the established identity they want to change and how much they want to change them to reach a desired future image.

The findings of the quantitative study suggest that strong identities are linked to the perception of issues as strategic. The current image of an institution was likely to be linked to political perspectives, while the future image was associated with more strategic perspectives.

In order to successfully implement strategic change initiatives, members of a university must buy-in to the organizational vision. For this to occur, institutional identity often needs to be altered. According to findings, the most effective way to change an institutional identity is to first change the institutional image.

A similar situation in Virginia:

When reading Gioia and Thomas' article, I couldn't help but think about the 26.9% tuition increase implemented at the University of Richmond during the 2005-06 academic year. A notable quote from the University of Richmond's press release exemplifies the institution's strategic change initiatives:

"For the past several decades, the University of Richmond's tuition rate has been comparatively low and does not accurately reflect the high quality of our faculty, academic programs and campus resources," said Otis D. Coston Jr., rector of the board of trustees. "We are in the process of building one of the nation's great universities, and increasing tuition revenue will provide the resources needed to propel Richmond to the top echelon of academic excellence. We have a responsibility to our students and the nation to provide the highest quality educational experience within our reach." (University of Richmond Newsroom, October 15, 2004)

Anna Neumann, "The Social Construction of Resource Stress"

Anna Neumann
Anna Neumann

Anna Neumann profile page at Teachers College - Columbia University

Neumann offers two lenses through which to interpret resource stress - contingency theory and social constructivism. Proponents of contingency theory claim that there is no one best way of organizing. One must consider a number of external and internal influence on an organization. Leadership strives for alignment. Social constructivism sees the creation of meaning from individuals' experiences and ideas.

Neumann sought to utilize the lens of social construction to view leadership and resource realities. Individuals at eight colleges were interviewed. From that sample, Arcadia College and Industrial College were used in her study as illustrative examples. Neumann interviewed individuals at the colleges to see how they felt and what they thought about the college resource situation. How do the presidents of these colleges contribute to the construction of meaning relative to resources?

Arcadia College – Financially Sound and Solid
Industrial College – Financially Strapped
President Joshua Anderson
President Rebecca Keeton
Ranks among the most financially healthy – balanced budget, total resources increase yearly, steady enrollment
Has experienced major resource reductions in recent years, Keeton is comfortable with higher financial risk
President Joshua Anderson – prefers to focus on day-to-day activities, is attentive to the needs of people, often seeks input in decision making, is a good communicator, perceived (by others and self) as financially cautious
Keeton is quick to praise the quality of education and faculty at the College, she is committed to the educational core of the College
Anderson is more concerned with how resources are used than how they are acquired
Keeton gives full attention to details and is careful to take her time in making decisions
Anderson often views issues through an educational lens instead of a financial lens
Key obstacles to faculty pursuits are often removed by Keeton
More and more Anderson involved himself in fundraising
Keeton has a strong work ethic and sets a good example
Anderson became more involved in growing the resources of the institution
Keeton spends an equal amount of energy to resource acquisition and use

At Arcadia, faculty presented two views of resource situation. Some see Arcadia as "right on the edge" while others see "no deficit", "no red." Despite the financial health of the College, most faculty saw the school as financially stressed. Few faculty felt they had an accurate picture of Arcadia's financial health. Most information about finances came from gossip and word of mouth. The more Anderson became involved in Arcadia's finances, the more faculty became concerned. New faculty felt he was focusing on his external tasks and "older" faculty felt he was focusing too much on the external.

Faculty at Industrial College expressed the sentiment that despite financial hardships they are hopeful about the future. Keeton meets with faculty on a regular basis to discuss the College budget and finances. An atmosphere of trust allows enthusiasm and morale to remain high despite decreased resources. Healthy debate and an exchange of ideas are typical of meetings at the institution.

How people understand the resource condition (good or bad) very much depends on the actions/inactions of the President. In the case of Arcadia, the absence of understanding caused more anxiety than the absence of money at Industrial College.

Neumann offered six propositions about the social construction of resource stress and leadership based on the two cases presented. The proposition are summarized below:

Proposition 1 - Finances may contribute to the social construction of campus reality (leaders use resources as a way in which to construct a reality).
Proposition 2 - Financial distress may result in a disconnect between what individuals know of the financial reality and how leaders are dealing with it.
Proposition 3 - Feelings of financial distress may be the result of actions that make perfect sense from a contingency theory perspective.
Proposition 4 - Leaders may contribute to feelings of hope through conversation and meaning making.
Proposition 5 - From a structural construction perspective, a college president may advance a construction of reality by balancing the psychological with the central values of the institution.
Proposition 6 - Leaders that use interactive and communicative change are more likely to see learning related change than those leaders that utilize unidirectional change.

Here is a video of FDR's first inauguration address. In what ways did he calm the anxieties of the nation during the Great Depression?

Simsek & Seashore Louis: “Organizational Change as Paradigm Shift”

Authors’ definition of terms and Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)
external image 200px-Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg
Kuhn used the above illustration to show that a shift in paradigm may cause an individual to see the same information in entirely different ways. What do you see: a rabbit or a duck?

In the introduction, the authors note that they will explore “a strategic change process in a large, public university”(p. 551), a university they later identify as the University of Minnesota (p. 555), to explore a “central question”: “To what degree can major organizational changes in universities be said to be characterized by a change in a collectively understood paradigm that is reflected in metaphors, stories, or myths that reflect underlying values and shared understanding of how these metaphors and myths are enacted (pp.550-551)?”

The authors noted their two underlying assumptions: “(1) organizations are defined by their paradigms, …” (see “paradigm” in terms and concepts list); and “(2) radical change in organizations may be construed as a discontinuous shift in this socially constructed reality.”

Several researchers who focus on organizational change have been intrigued by Thomas Kuhn’s work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). In it, Kuhn introduced the idea that scientific knowledge is characterized by long epochs in which knowledge rests on widely accepted theories, punctuated by less frequent periods in which radical, new ideas shift the course of inquiry.

Using the metaphor that “no man,” or organization, “is an island,” the authors’ “model of organizations as paradigms” is based on “three domains in continuous interaction” (p. 551). These domains consist of:

· “Background assumptions” (which the authors define as “a way of looking at the world”) -- a reader may infer that the authors use this term to refer to a sort of institutional baggage that the organization brings to a new situation it faces. These assumptions include the organization’s “myths,” or its most deeply ingrained beliefs, which, over time, become resistant to change. These myths underlie the organization’s “metaphors” (or the language it uses to describe itself) and its “exemplars” (its “typical organizational strategies and actions”) (pp. 551-552).

· “Specific/unique organizational realities” – the new situations that the organization faces (p. 552).

· “Constructed body of knowledge” – the “knowledge base” created by the larger group of similar organizations (p. 552).

Applying Kuhn’s perspective to organizations, the authors describe five phases in organizational change (p. 553):
“normalcy” -> “confrontation of anomalies” -> “crisis” -> “selection (revolution)” -> “new normalcy period”

“Normalcy”: A period in which an established paradigm is dominant and that is characterized by a “slow pace of change.”

“Confrontation of anomalies”: A period in which anomalies within or outside of an organization challenge the established paradigm. The authors give the following as examples of anomalies: “reduced market share, low morale among employees, or continued poor performance in the primary mission.”

“Crisis”: If anomalies persist over time, they may trigger a crisis in belief in the existing paradigm. Often, new leadership is seen as a solution to the crisis.

“Selection”: A period in which the existing paradigm faces competition from new paradigms. The authors noted that unlike Kuhn’s explanation of how scientific knowledge shifts over time, “access to power and influence” is an important factor that plays a role in challenges to existing paradigms.

“Renewed Normalcy”: A new paradigm’s triumph is often accompanied by an unstable period in organizations in which new power structures, systems, and actors are introduced.

Authors apply the model to the “strategic reorientation process at the University of Minnesota in the late seventies” (p. 554). Their goal: “to ‘test’ the degree to which efforts to reorient a large university could result in a paradigm shift, rather than incremental change” (p. 554).

The authors’ study is based on data derived from interviews with 24 faculty members, each of whom had been employed at the university for at least 10 years, and who were members of five different departments. They chose faculty “because they are viewed as carrying a special status of responsibility for conserving the university” (p. 555).

In the section describing the university’s strategic planning process (p. 555), they make note of two leaders during the period under study. The first was President Kenneth Keller, who introduced, as interim president in 1985, a proposal titled “Commitment to Focus.” Keller resigned amid controversy “regarding the financial management of the university.” His successor, President Nils Hasselmo, supported Keller’s proposal, but it was renamed and its emphasis was shifted.

The authors identify aspects of the three domains in the case of the university. For example,

The original dominant myth: “The mission of the university is to educate all who live in the state of Minnesota. Access to university is an entitlement of citizenship” (p. 557).

The anomalies: Among them, for example, “increasingly limited finances …, thinly spreading resources … a decline in the overall quality of … programs” (p. 557).

“Constructed body of knowledge”: The respondents to the survey identified more than 15 institutions “involved in similar reorientations” (p. 558).

The authors concluded from their survey that a paradigm shift did occur in the late 1970s at the university: from a “world view” of “entrepreneurial populism” to “managed populism” in stages consistent with the five phases described previously (p. 560).

The established paradigm of “entrepreneurial populism” was able to remain dominant in eras of “abundant resources.” The authors noted for example, that Minnesota in this period “had one of the fastest growing economies” among states nationwide (p. 560).

“Period of Anomalies”
In the late seventies, anomalies challenged the dominant paradigm. The anomalies included, for example, declining resources and a perceived weakening of the school’s research mission by “overemphasis on teaching and service” (p. 560). In response, a “strategic planning process” was introduced.

“Period of Crisis and Selection”
A document titled “Commitment to Focus” “became the framework in guiding the change efforts” (p. 560).
The authors note that the paradigm shift that occurred did so due to three factors: the arrival of a new leader (and “architect” of the new framework), the support for a new paradigm by “key power holders” from the state’s urban centers, and the leader’s “powerful coalition building skills” (p. 560).

“Period of Renewed Normalcy”
When leadership changed, the new paradigm was somewhat altered, but still survived.
The authors noted that “… most faculty members interviewed seemed convinced that a permanent and radical change had occurred” (p. 562).

The authors concluded: “Our data suggests that strategic planning at the University of Minnesota was largely ineffective until new actors with new beliefs and values emerged and publicly challenged the existing paradigm” (p. 563).

Discussion question: Do these examples represent the type of "paradigm shifts" that Simsek and Seashore Louis describe?

1. A "Paradigm Shift" at Middlebury College: The term was used by Middlebury College's student newspaper to describe Middlebury President Ronald Liebowitz's announcement in 2010 of a new financial model for the college in which, for example, enrollment would increase and revenue from endowments would decrease from pre-recession levels.
2. A "Paradigm Shift" in Human Rights: Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was quoted in November 2008 as noting that "The election of President Obama represents a paradigm shift. The pendulum has swung away from the anti-gay forces that dominated the political landscape for too long and toward new leadership that acknowledges our equality.”
3. A "Paradigm Shift" in World War II. In this 2010 article on an anniversary of the D-Day invasion, a museum historian noted that "It [D-Day] was felt to be a paradigm shift - a societal recognition that maybe the tide of the war had changed."
4. A "Paradigm Shift" in Cosmology. Does the sun orbit the earth (Ptolemaic) or do the planets orbit the Sun (Copermican)? In the Ptolemaic system, the Earth is the center of the universe and all other objects orbit around it. Despite mathematical evidence, the Catholic Church found the Copernican system to be in conflict with many of their teachings.

Class Notes

•(10 minutes) Housekeeping—Summer schedule/fall; last class next week
•(45 minutes) Change mini-lecture
•(30 minutes) Discussion Questions
•(15 minutes) BREAK
•(50 minutes) Case Study—Change

The class began with the professor's remarks on the Summer and Fall 2011 class schedules. She also gave an explanation and answered questions about the posting of the International Gov. Comparative Executive Summary Assignment. She also mentioned that we will have a party next week! Please bring finger foods to share.

Professor Eddy gave a brief lecture entitled “Organizational Adaptation and Change, Week 14." She explained that her power point presentation provided additional materials than those there were in the class’s packet of readings.

Black's and Gregersen's (2002) framework involves breaking through the brain barrier. The authors’ model of a Strategic Plan is "Conceiving, Believing, and Achieving," which have been defined as the "brain barriers" hindering the implementation and the execution of change. These barriers are: 1 Failure to See (people don’t see, then they think they don’t have to do anything), 2 Failure to Move (people get comfortable doing the old wrong thing), and 3 Failure to Finish (people get tired and lost). As leaders we need to be aware of such barriers.

What is the real message President Taylor Reveley is communicating here:
and here

Professor Eddy posed the following questions: Quickly sketch out the key elements you think are necessary for a good graduate education: What did you assume? How does your mental map influence your behavior? What happens when this is challenged? A student commented that many people assume that once you have a master's or a doctoral degree you are on a higher level than others. Also, that a higher degree is a "ticket" for possible selection for a job with more responsibility. Pam noted that hopefully along the way we would have expanded our knowledge, to identify frames and see things differently. Students reflected on the importance of the practical part of the graduate program, such as, for example, networking and knowledge. Pam asked more questions: how do you approach the program differently as you take other courses?

Professor Eddy explained that Black and Gregersen (2002, p. 136) argue that when you’re confused about how you’re doing as a leader, find out how the people you are leading are doing. Pam highlighted the importance of communication for leaders, emphasizing the value of being open and honest. She also stressed the fact that we as students can make change happen.

Pam explained that we need to frame things like a mirror and not like a picture – to question our own assumptions, and reflect upon our own understandings.

And remember, no matter where you go, there you are - Confucius

Further questions for personal consideration:
Do you have a good sense of your own leadership orientation and preferences? What happens when you are confronted with a situation that does not align with your preferences? What kind of leader do you like to work for?

One role of the leader is to define reality. Sensemaking begins with the leader and is transmitted and filtered by followers.
Performance Dashboard:
1. Identify key elements to measure.
2. Establish how key elements will be measured.
3. Establish how often the measures will be taken.
4. Establish a baseline of performance.
5. Establish target performance levels.

Professor Eddy noted that authors Kotter and Cohen established linear models for change (like Bess and Dee). She stated that the model is very practical and that these authors believe that the single biggest challenge in the change process is changing people’s behavior.
Kotter and Cohen’s model of change has Eight Steps:
1. Increase Urgency
2. Build the Guiding Team (team with diverse opinions)
3. Get the Vision Right
4. Communicate for Buy-in
5. Empowering Action
6. Create Short Term Wins
7. Do Not Let Up
8. Make Change Stick

Professor Eddy asked the class to consider a change initiative in which we had participated: Were the goals communicated? Was there buy-in? What steps in the change process were missing? One student gave the example of the change from the old website to a new one at William and Mary. She stressed the staff and the IT team worked really hard during the transition, and, on the day in which the new website was launched for her program, the IT staff invited her (and a colleague) to press the button (i.e., hit "enter") that would make the new site "live." The student highlighted how symbolic -- and celebratory -- that was for her.

Professor Eddy then explained two types of change:
First-order change
- Incremental
- Single-loop
Second-order change
- Modification of underlying frameworks
- Double-loop

At the end of the presentation, the professor posed the following questions: Knowing what you know, how would you initiate change? What can you do from your current position? How might you assess change initiatives? The professor affirmed that one way to think about change in a new organization is to ask staff to articulate what their perfect organization would look like. She stressed the importance of finding out about the culture of the organization, as it is not universal, and that change can be a long process.

Case Study
We broke up into groups and discussed a case study entitled “Where is the money?” which describes Badger State University's struggle with budget cuts.
After the groups took time for discussion, we reflected upon the case as a class. Pam affirmed that in many cases the main problem in a case study is not obvious, it is below the surface. It is also important to think of the inferences that we are making when we look at a particular case study. A case study may be missing key informaiton and we often make assumptions to fill in any areas where information may be missing.
Primary problem suggestions: Declining enrollment in school of education, reduction in funding, lack of a clear vision.
Secondary problems: Leadership communication (does it exist?), possible lack of leadership.
Solutions: Symbolic - in order to show how all the departments are linked together to have a stronger university, change the image, repair divisions among programs, and, afterwards, apply the structural frame. Another suggestion was to have the university offer online classes in order to raise enrollment.
Theory: Sensemaking. Power relations (as the School of Education in the study seems more privileged that its peer schools at the university, in that it hasn't had to make cuts even with its drop in enrollment). Pam suggested it would be instructive if we looked at the case from the perspective of Morgan’s sources of power and Chafee’s theory on decision making.