The document discusses the challenges of leading change in higher education. It notes that change efforts often fail due to a lack of agreement on the problem, unclear decision-making structures and timeframes, an absence of evaluative criteria, and failure to communicate changes to the entire campus community. This can lead to a culture of exhaustion where people are unwilling to participate in reform efforts. The author proposes ways to overcome these obstacles, including creating agreement on goals, establishing clear decision-making processes, setting evaluative measures, and communicating reforms broadly.

1. Leading Change
Introduction
The phrase
leading change
may generate a variety of emotions and reactions among
individuals in an organization. Hope, optimism, excitement,
relief, anxiety, and dismay are just a few of the thoughts and
feelings that might be expressed by faculty, staff members,
students, alumni, and others in a campus community. As a
higher education professional, you should be prepared to lead
others through change in a positive, collaborative manner and to
encounter emotional and political resistance to change efforts.
This week, you will share experiences in which the political
environment of your institution has impacted your efforts at
collaborative change.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
Propose ways to mitigate the negative influences of the political
environment when leading change
Review the literature on organizational and program models
·
Discussion - Week 4
·
Collapse
·
Top of Form
·
In the Middle
In this week’s video, Dr. Adrianna Kezar, professor at the

2. University of Southern California, discusses ways in which
middle-level leaders can lead and support change at their
institutions. In Chapter 22 of the course text (McClellan &
Stringer, 2009), Stringer discusses the influences of the
political environment in which higher education professionals
work. In what ways might political issues work against or
undermine collaborative leadership strategies such as those
Kezar recommends?
By Wednesday:
Post
an example of an experience in which you were required to
navigate a complex political environment at your institution.
Explain how the politics of your institution may have worked
against the collaborative leadership practices you were trying to
achieve.
·
Bottom of Form
This is the
Media video in Close Caption
20
ABOUT CAMPUS / MAY
–
JUNE 2001
in higher education work to reform undergraduate education,
particularly in order to provide new opportunities for student
learning, we inevitably encounter roadblocks. My purpose here
is to focus on the dynamics of organizational change inhigher
education and to suggest ways to overcome these roadblocks.
The assumption that drives this article is that those of us who
work in postsecondary institutions need to rethink the structures
that frame our work and reconsider the organizational cultures
that define our lives. We cannot meet the increased demands of
the twenty-first century without these efforts. James Duderstadt

3. summarized the situation nicely in A University for the 21st
Century:“ We face a future in which permanence and stability
become less important than
flexibility and creativity, in which one of the few certainties
will be the presence of continual change” (p. 35).
In research I have conducted on the campuses of fifteen four-
year institutions over the last three years, I have interviewed
over two hundred faculty members, deans, and senior
administrators about the problems they feel they are confronting
in their reform efforts. I have discovered that the problems
Why do so many reform efforts fail to deliver on their promise?
The problem, says the author, is not so much what we do, but
how
. Here he outlines how to create and maintain an organizational
culture that embraces changes and clears the way for reform.
TO REFORM
AS WE
OBSTACLES
BY
WILLIAM
G. TIERNEY
OVERCOMING
21
ABOUT CAMPUS / MAY–JUNE 2001 are often not so much
about what to do as how to do it. Unfortunately, I have seen
more failures of reform efforts than successes. To be sure, some
ideas should fail; not every innovation is an improvement. And
yet we bemoan the time and energy we put into the effort if
nothing ever changes. Frequently, the failure to reform leads to
a sense of stasis and cynicism precisely at a time when we
should be thinking about ways to enact
improvements and innovations. ROADBLOCKS TOREFORM IN
WHAT FOLLOWS I raise five issues that are obstacles to
innovation and reform. I observed these
problems in one way or another on virtually every campus I
visited.

4. Lack of agreement. There are three primary reasons why lack of
agreement stalls innovation. The first is that individuals often
do not agree on the problem
that is to be solved. The assumption that those involved in
reform will all agree about the nature of a problem without full
discussion leads to a decision-making
process with skewed perspectives. The second point of
disagreement is based on the first: when we begin problem
solving by operating from different premises,
we naturally will have different assumptions about the kind of
information needed to reach a decision. The third area of
disagreement is often the most crucial: Who makes the decision
about a particular issue? Any one group on campus may assume
that when they make a decision about how a problem should be
solved, their decision will be honored. For example, members of
a dean’s advisory council may understand that their role is
advisory but presume that the dean will defer to their
recommendations. However, a dean may
have a completely different idea and assume that the group’s
role is entirely advisory. Or faculty members in an academic
senate may think of themselves as a legislative body, but the
provost may see the senate as a group that merely conveys
information to the rest of the faculty. One faculty member may
consult with numerous others about a particular innovation that
he wants to implement but may ultimately face a roadblock
when another group raises objections because it has not been
consulted. Each problem, in the abstract, does not necessarily
doom an innovation. Ultimately, one perception about an issue
may be more successful than another. Some pieces of
information that are gathered will be less compelling than
others. The actors who make a decision may evoke controversy,
but a decision may still be reached. However, lack of agreement
about the nature of a problem, about the information that needs
to be collected, and about who makes decisions is only the
initial dilemma that innovators face, and this initial stumbling
block makes implementation harder, not easier. Unclear time

5. frames and structures. Individuals often act within very
different time frames. Frequently, reformers assume they have
time to work on a problem
without regard to a specific schedule.The problem isparticularly
vexing if decision making extends beyond an academic year.
Typically, very little faculty administrative work is done in the
summer, and when a new academic year begins, new committee
members are invariably unaware of the kind of discussions that
took place the year before. Consequently, the
first issue begins again: new members have new assumptions
about the
problem and what kind of information ought to be collected.
The result is that new committee members feel hurried and
long-term committee members and administrators perceive
unnecessary delays in the implementation of an idea they may
have already worked on for over a year. Further, the stages in
the decision-making process where decisions are made are often
unclear. However
slow and cumbersome decision making may be in the
One faculty member may consult with numerous
others about a particular innovation that he wants to
implement but may ultimately face a roadblock when another
group raises objections because it has not been consulted.
William G.Tierney is the Wilbur Kieffer Professor of Higher
Education and director of the Center for the Study of Higher
Education at the University of Southern California. He can
be reached at
[email protected]
22
ABOUT CAMPUS / MAY
–
JUNE 2001
U.S. Congress, for example, one has a sense of how the process
works and when issues will be debated and decisions made.
Colleges and universities often work with very different
decision-making processes from those of formalized decision-

6. making bodies. Indeed, as organizational theorist Karl Weick
explained in
Administrative Science Quarterly,it is the nature of academic
organizations to be
“loosely coupled,”meaning there is no clearor systematic
decision-making process. Instead, they operate on the basis of
shared governance, assuming that
faculty, staff, and administrators participate in structures that
lead to jointly agreed-on decisions. Unfortunately, without a
systematic way to make decisions, the possibility of
misunderstanding is great. The best example of decision making
in a tightly coupled organization is a military unit in which a
strict chain of command makes clear the question of who is to
follow which orders. Academic organizations are the opposite.
No one is ever quite sure which constituencies
need to be involved in decision-making processes or how
decisions are
finally made. Given the abstruse context for decision making,
individuals frequently remove themselves from the process,
because they feel that dis-
cussion about a particular topic is a waste of time.The
implementation of the innovation grinds to a halt. Lack of
evaluative criteria.
When educators form committees to consider educational
change, they rarely
discuss how to evaluate a proposed innovation. Indeed, the
processes of decision making and implementation are so
burdensome that trying to get the innovation in place overtakes
any sense of whether it solved the initial problem or provided
the best possible solution.The danger of unclear evaluative
measures is twofold. First,the proposed innovation may actually
be detrimental or mediocre, so that the problem is not solved
and must be reconsidered at some point in the future. Second, as
participants realize that the change did not help anyone, they
become cynical about participating in subsequent reform
efforts.The result is that the question that was to be answered

7. remains an unsolved riddle, and enthusiasm for solving other
conundrums is dampened.
Failure to articulate changes to the rest of the campus. Often
when an innovation is proposed, the rest of the campus is
unaware either that a particular problem
exists or that any significant changes are being considered.The
norm is that a committee becomes enmeshed in the issues under
review and the rest of the academic community has no
knowledge of either the problems
or the proposed solutions. In large part because of the delicate
nature of shared governance in a loosely coupled system, this
lack of awareness in the rest of the
organization will probably doom the proposed innovation.
Cultural exhaustion and system freeze.
My research indicates that the kinds of failures I have outlined
continually repeat themselves so that those who have worked at
reform are less willing to put in time when another effort is
suggested.“Why bother?”
becomes the refrain.The result is that the system freezes.
Although
everyone may be unhappy with the status quo, they realize that
their work toward change will only result infrustration.
Collaborative work is eschewed because of a history of previous
failures.This static culture is particularly worrisome at a time
when external forces are demanding change.
A CULTURAL FRAMEWORK FOR REFORM
MERELY UNDERSTANDING what causes cultural stasis does
little to resolve problems. Instead, educators on campus need a
sense of how to overcome
barriers to reform. I offer five strategies for effecting change
that are drawn from those I observed only on campuses that
were successful in their reform efforts, not on those that failed
at reform. Create an atmosphere of agreement.
One should not attempt a discussion about a particular topic if it
is
merely an academic exercise. As we have seen, problems result

8. when a committee embarks on a project without clearly defined
goals. The charge to a committee ought to be specific enough
for each member to clearly
understand the committee’s purpose. I found that committees
that began with broadly defined issues ended up
Given the abstruse context for decision making,
individuals frequently remove themselves from the process,
because they feel that discussion about a particular topic is a
waste of time.
Reference:
Video:
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive producer). (2011).
Leading change in student support programs: Change
leadership.
Baltimore, MD: Author.
This page contains the Learning Resources for this week. Be
sure to scroll down the page to see all of the assigned resources
for this week. To view this week's media resources, please use
the streaming media player below.
Focus On
As you explore this week's Learning Resources, focus on the
complex organizational and political challenges that leaders
face in managing and leading change, and ways of overcoming
these challenges through enhanced partnerships,
communication, and inclusion. Consider the potential sources of
conflict within an organization faced with opportunities (or
requirements) for change and methods that leaders can use to
turn conflict into collaboration.
Required Readings
Course Text:
The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration
Chapter 22, "The Political Environment of the Student Affairs
Administrator"

9. Chapter 24, "Understanding and Managing Conflict"
Article:
Kezar, A. (2000).
Pluralistic leadership: Bringing diverse voices to the table
.
About Campus, 5
(3), 6–11.
Retrieved from the Walden Library using the Academic Search
Complete database.
Pluralistic leadership. About Campus, 5(3) by Kezar, A.
Copyright 2000 by JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. - JOURNALS
Reprinted by permission of JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. -
JOURNALS via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Article:
Tierney, W. G. (2001).
Overcoming obstacles to reform
.
About Campus, 6
(2), 20–24.
Overcoming obstacles to reform. About Campus, 6(2) by
Tierney, W. G. Copyright 2001 by JOHN WILEY & SONS,
INC. - JOURNALS Reprinted by permission of JOHN WILEY &
SONS, INC. - JOURNALS via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Once again APA guidelines in cite citations due July 20, 2016
before 11pm US time Discussion Question 15.00 this is not a
paper!