Assignment: Large Scale Change Essay

Assignment: Large Scale Change Essay

Assignment: Large Scale Change Essay

Colleges and universities are at a cross roads. Many will have to reinvent themselves to respond to the changing delivery and technology of education and others will need to make significant changes to remain relevant and viable and to attract and retain dedicated students, faculty, staff and sufficient resources. Otherwise, they will face the very real prospects of declining enrollments and resources and struggling to survive as a shrinking organization that is behind the times.

In short, those college and universities that are willing to make needed changes and invest in learning how to lead and manage change and build a culture that welcomes and effectively and quickly adapts to needed change will reap the rewards and the rest will reap the consequences of not changing or changing too slowly. Imagine, for example, the advantage a college or university would have if they had a clear vision and mission, clear strategic goals designed to help them succeed in today’s changing times, united leaders skilled in transforming organizations, and faculty, staff, students, and supporters working together to create a great college or university.

On the other hand, imagine what it would be like to work in an organization where budgets, resources, and programs are being slashed and you may be the next to go! The Challenge: Accomplishing Transformational Change In A Setting Rarely Designed For Change The dilemma is that colleges and universities are not typically designed for change. They are staffed by independent minded, free thinking faculty who operate somewhat like independent contractors rather than team players committed to the organization’s goals and who often distrust their leaders. They also tend to have unusually bureaucratic, regulated, and slow moving structures and governance procedures that make it difficult to change without endless meetings attended by people with differing agendas.

Add to this the relatively autonomous department design with few incentives to collaborate and it is easy to see why change is so difficult. In fact, a viable question to consider is can colleges and universities be changed and transformed??? Overlooked Resources For Making Needed Changes The irony about the struggle colleges and universities have with change is that they often have within their walls some of the best expertise available regarding organization development, leading and managing change, and building high performance organizations that get great results.

Many different departments such as Business, Public Administration, Education, Psychology, Sociology, and Communications teach these subjects and some colleges and universities are well known for their executive education seminars on the subjects. Curiously, most of the top experts and authors in the world on these subjects are college and university faculty members. While colleges and universities rarely avail themselves of these resources that may sit at their doorsteps, it should be emphasized that the expertise needed to help them make needed changes is available, whether internal or external, and often at a cost that is far less than the alternatives they are likely to choose and that are unlikely to succeed for adapting to changing times.

The Case Of Central University Central University (not the actual name) is a case in point of a university that recognized the need for change and decided to launch an all out effort to change and position itself for future success. The university has an overall enrollment approaching 30,000 with approximately 20,000 students on campus and 10,000

students involved in off-campus programs. It is a regional university recently reclassified as a doctoral research university. It now has 25 different degree options and 8 doctoral programs and is trying to gain more national and international recognition and status. Its College of Extended Learning (CEL), with more than 60 locations throughout the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, is one of the leading and largest providers of off-campus programs in North America. Three and a half months prior to the intervention, the university board of directors had appointed a new president.

His predecessor was 71 and was an accountant by background. He was much more of a manager than a leader and while he made a number of valuable contributions during his tenure as President, he also left a university that was somewhat bureaucratic and resistant to change. Changes in the board resulted in a visionary and proactive board that was committed to building a pace setting university. They diligently sought a new president they thought could do the job. The board surprised many people by selecting a new president who was only 34 at the time of his appointment. He can be described as a very energetic, focused, goal oriented, leader who understands the importance of relationship building and who is by nature humble, approachable, and engaging to be around.

At 27 he had been named the acting president and shortly thereafter the president of a Silicon Valley university where he developed a strong partnership with the business community and excellent relationship with the faculty and was able to achieve a major turnaround in the success, growth, and funding of the university. He was then appointed president of a larger university and now was heading yet another much larger university. In his first three months in office, the new president worked feverishly and passionately to create a simple and powerful vision for the university with the board and agree on his objectives and what he would be held accountable for. He also worked hard to establish relationships in the legislature and business community and to visit with faculty, staff, and student groups on the campus and share his vision and listen to their ideas and concerns. The Challenge In many ways the university was treated like a step-child in the state university system.

It ranked 12 out of 15 in per student funding and only recently had achieved doctoral program status. The university had a good reputation for providing a quality education and placed a strong emphasis on good teaching. However, it was not well prepared in terms of qualified faculty or facilities to move the university to a greater research role. There was a lack of sophistication in how the university was run and several key positions had not been staffed or had people in them that were questionable in terms of being willing and able to adapt to the new culture the president was trying to create. There was also some question about the provost, the second in command, and his fit for the new goals of the university. He was in the process of interviewing for a president’s role elsewhere but had no offers. The campus needed to be made more attractive and many of the classrooms and facilities were out-dated. Some faculty members had to share office space because of limited space available.

These problems were accentuated by the fact that the university had just built a first class indoor sports complex and many of the faculty questioned the wisdom of the decision given the other needs of the university. Culturally, there was a lack of interest and experience in teamwork and collaboration was lacking. There was considerable distrust of the administration which was compounded by the fact that the faculty was unionized and there were frictions existing between the union and the administration. Some faculty leaders were skeptical about the qualification of the new president and his vision for the university