Description
Restructuring is the corporate management term for the act of reorganizing the legal, ownership, operational, or other structures of a company for the purpose of making it more profitable, or better organized for its present needs.
ABSTRACT
Title of Document: RESTRUCTURING IN STUDENT AFFAIRS: A CASE STUDY OF TWO RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Edward Philip Engelbride, Doctor of Philosophy, 2007 Directed by: Frank Schmidtlein, Associate Professor Emeritus, Department of Education Policy and Leadership
The higher education system in the United States is generally accepted as the most comprehensive and diverse in the world. Nonetheless it is not immune to internal and external pressures to become more efficient and effective. In the early 1990’s higher education in most states faced declining state appropriations, increased competition for funds, calls for increased accountability, rising costs, increased consumer expectations, and questions about the quality of the educational experience. In responding to these pressures, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness and have sought ways to become more “business-like,” adopting ideas from the corporate world. As restructuring became a popular management initiative in the corporate sector, governing boards, governors, presidents and business officers became inundated with information about this type of management "reform" effort (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). In 2003 restructuring was reported at more than half of all public institutions of higher education. A higher percentage of research universities reported they had undertaken this management initiative. Over 60 percent of those responding to a national survey reported reorganizing student affairs (Carlson, 2003).
Several reasons are given as a basis or rationale for initiating restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions on college campuses (Carlson, 2003; El-Khawas, 1994; Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Those reasons include anticipated improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, cost reductions, improvement of services, streamlining processes, re-focusing of programs or services, and enhanced utilization of technology. This study focused on the restructuring efforts in the student affairs divisions at two public research universities. Utilizing a case study approach, it explored the impetus, goals, processes and results of the restructuring process. The lessons learned from this research will be useful to higher education practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs. Restructuring efforts that utilize an inclusive and participatory process where the goals are understood and open communication appeared to had a higher likelihood of success. Restructuring efforts that limit participation, have unclear goals, and limited communication, appeared less likely to succeed.
RESTRUCTURING IN STUDENT AFFAIRS: A CASE STUDY OF TWO RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
By
Edward Philip Engelbride
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2007
Advisory Committee: Professor Frank E. Schmidtlein, Chair Professor Robert O. Berdahl Professor Susan R. Komives (Dean's rep) Professor Sharon Fries-Britt Dr. Kevin Kruger
Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Mary Beth, and our family. This study was a group effort with many people having to make sacrifices in order for work to continue. I couldn’t have done it without you. To our children, I am pleased to inform you that Daddy is done with his book! Thank you for allowing me to pursue my dream!
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Frank Schmidtlein for his expertise and guidance. The completion of this research effort would not have been possible without his support, insight and patience. When I veered off track, he was there to keep me focused and provide direction. When I was frustrated, he was there to help me work through it. And when I was done, he was the first to offer congratulations.
Second, I would like to thank those people who provided opportunities for me to grow and develop in this profession. To the student affairs folks at SUNY Plattsburgh, both past and present, thank you for getting me started in this line of work. It has been both enjoyable and rewarding!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Acknowledgement Table of Contents List of Tables Chapter I Introduction Background Definition of Terms Higher Education – Size and Scope State and Federal Appropriations to Higher Education Adoption of Corporate Management Efforts Restructuring in Student Affairs Purpose of the Study Statement of the Problem Contributions/Significance of the Study Chapter II Review of the Literature Context Overview of Student Affairs Student Affairs Structure and Practice The Nature of Restructuring Restructuring Defined in the Literature Defining Restructuring for this Study Historical Overview Restructuring in Business Restructuring in Government Restructuring in Higher Education Restructuring in Student Affairs Sources of the Impetus to Restructure External Sources Internal Sources Rationale to Restructure Area and Scope of Restructuring Processes Employed to Undertake Restructuring Implications for the Design of the Study The Results of Restructuring Intended Results Unintended Results Conclusions from the Literature Page iii iv vii 1 1 2 2 3 6 9 10 11 14 15 15 16 17 19 20 24 24 25 29 33 44 47 48 52 54 67 70 75 76 76 83 90
iv
Chapter III Research Design and Methodology Research Questions Research Variables Impetus for Restructuring Goals of Restructuring Processes Involved in Restructuring Results of Restructuring Linking Theory, Research Questions, and Data Research Methodology and Rationale The Case Study Unit of Analysis Selecting Institutions Selecting Participants Data Collection Documents Interviews Interview Questions Interview Process Human Subjects Data Analysis Methodological Rigor Limitations of the Study Chapter IV - Research Findings Northern University What Was the Impetus for Restructuring? What Were the Goals of Restructuring? What Processes Were Used to Restructure? What Were the Results of Restructuring? Southern University What Was the Impetus for Restructuring? What Were the Goals of Restructuring? What Processes Were Used to Restructure? What Were the Results of Restructuring? Chapter V - Discussion and Recommendations The Impetus for Restructuring The Location of the Impetus The Motivations for the Impetus Potential Motivations That Were Not Apparent The Goals of Restructuring The Role of Goals and Having a Vision When Restructuring The Stated Goals of Restructuring
91 91 92 92 94 95 97 98 100 100 102 103 105 109 109 110 111 111 112 112 114 115 116 117 118 133 145 154 166 167 174 180 189 199 199 199 200 205 208 208 209
v
Processes Used to Restructure Creating a Sense of Urgency Creating a Guiding Coalition Communicate the Change Process Empowering Broad-Based Action Generating Short-term Wins Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change Anchor New Approaches in the Culture Employ Formal Management Practices Assess the Success of the Program Results of the Restructuring Nature of Structural Changes Affect on Functions Management of Human Resources Stream Line Budget Process and Obtain Budget Increases Short–term Wins Formal Assessment of Restructuring Advice for Those Contemplating Restructuring Suggestions for Future Research Limitations of the Study Appendix A - Northern University 2003 and 2006 Organizational Charts Appendix B - Invitation to Participate in the 2006 Study Appendix C - Qualitative Research Questions – Interview Guide Appendix D - Survey Instrument from the 1999 NASPA Study Appendix E – Survey Instrument from the 1996 NASPA Study References
213 213 214 215 216 219 220 221 222 222 224 224 225 228 235 236 236 237 240 241 243 245 246 249 261 266
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Percentage of Total Revenue for Public Institutions from Federal, State, Local Appropriations Percentage of CSAO’s Reporting Areas Under Their Supervision Changed Over a Five-Year Period Percentage of Student Affairs Divisions Reporting Budget Decreases How Do Budget Cuts Compare to Cuts in Other Divisions Percentage of Campuses Where Student Affairs Areas Merged or Consolidated Over the Past Five Years Proposals from State-Level Higher Education Restructuring 1989-1994 Institutional Management Level that Decided to Implement Restructuring State and Local Appropriations as a Percentage of Operating Costs Percentage of Student Affairs Areas Affected by Restructuring Percentage of CSAO's Reporting Positions Eliminated as a Result of Budget Changes or Institutional Restructuring Restructuring Strategies Employed to Accommodate Budget Decreases Theoretical Assumptions, Research Questions, and Data Sources Research Methodology Flow Chart
Page 5
2.1
46
2.2 2.3 2.4
46 46 47
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
50 54 56 69 82
2.10 3.1 3.2
82 99 108
vii
CHAPTER I
Introduction
This dissertation utilized case study methodologies to examine the restructuring efforts in the student affairs divisions at two public research institutions. Specifically, this study includes an analysis of the impact of the restructuring effort, the goals and processes utilized, and makes recommendations on how to improve future restructuring efforts. Higher education often adopts and adapts management practices that are popular in other sectors of society (Allen & Chaffee, 1981; Birnbaum, 2000). Restructuring efforts in the corporate sector increased dramatically in the late 1980’s (Horn & Jerome, 1996) and in higher education and student affairs in the 1990’s (Carlson, 2003; Engelbride and Goodale, 1998). These efforts were often characterized by a comprehensive management initiative focused on improving functionality, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, reducing costs, often involving new technologies, and reducing the workforce. The impact of restructuring efforts in student affairs is not well understood. Background The expansion of higher education has created increased opportunities that benefit individual students as well as society as a whole. Colleges and universities, often innovators of creative solutions to complex problems, adopt corporate management approaches to resolve fiscal, personnel, and political issues. Restructuring is a rubric utilized to address a range of concerns on a formal and informal basis.
1
Definition of Terms SSAO’s – Senior Student Affairs Officers are those who have the primary responsibility for supervising and leading the division of student affairs. Also referred to as Vice Presidents. Departmental Directors – those campus employees in student affairs who provide leadership to, and supervise, a specific functional area. Public Research University – a state supported institution that typically offers a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and is committed to graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied, the institution awarded 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines (extensive) or intensive where the institution awarded at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall (Carnegie Foundation, 2000). Restructuring – a comprehensive and managed approach to organizational change that focuses on the structure or functioning of a program, department or division often with the intention of improving functioning, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, and/or reducing costs. Outcomes – the intended and unintended results of the restructuring process. Variables – the factors that are assumed to affect the "impetus" for, and "processes", "purposes", and "outcomes" of restructuring student affairs divisions that will guide the collection of data needed to assess the nature of restructuring and its consequences (Dr. F. Schmidtlein, personal communication, October 19, 2005). Higher Education - Size and Scope The higher education system in the United States is a complex web of institutions generally focused on teaching, research, and service. Over the course of the past 60 years, the size, complexity and influence of the higher education system on society has increased significantly. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (2005) there are 4,236 institutions of higher education currently operating in the United States. Over 16.6 million students are enrolled at those institutions, which received over $63 billion in State funds for operating expenses and over $21 billion in Federal funds for research and
2
development (The Almanac of Higher Education, 2005). Colleges and universities employ approximately 2.75 million employees who serve as faculty, administrators, or staff members who played some role in helping over 2.2 million students earn a degree in over 400 different fields of study (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005) Campuses range in size from small, specialized institutions with a few hundred students to large multipurpose universities with combined enrollments and workforces that rival the populations of medium-sized cities. Some view colleges and universities as big businesses that need to be managed as such (Bruegman, 1995; Guskin, 1994). To others, they are not corporate entities and should not be subjected to corporate business practices (Gumport, 1993; Horn & Jerome, 1996). State and Federal Appropriations to Higher Education A number of researchers have identified financial constraint as a reason for restructuring. State funding for higher education has not remained constant but has fluctuated over the past several decades (Arnone, 2004; Hebel and Selingo, 2001; Jaschik, 1992; Lively, 1993; Schmidt, 2002). In responding to fluctuating state support, higher education has taken a number of approaches to minimize costs. Some institutions have utilized internal processes such as eliminating academic programs, reducing course offerings, using adjunct faculty, limiting the purchasing of new materials, and increasing class size (Hartle and Galloway, 1997). In addition to these approaches, a number of institutions have adopted the corporate practice of restructuring at the divisional or institutional level. Hartle and Galloway (1997) examined the role Federal policy plays in establishing and altering the environment for higher education. According to Hartle and
3
Galloway (1997) "…efforts to balance the federal budget will result in deep cuts in federal spending." Further, "In addition to the increasingly constrained federal budgetary climate, the shifting budget priorities of state governments make increased support for higher education highly uncertain" (p. 41). Throughout the early 1990’s higher education faced declining state appropriations, increased competition for funds, rising costs, calls for increased accountability, increased consumer expectations, and questions about the quality of the educational experience. After an extended period of sustained growth, higher education experienced its first two-year decrease in state support in 1991-92 (Jaschik, 1992). According to sponsors of a study by Illinois State University, this was the first two-year drop in American history. From 1990-1991 to 1992-1993, state support for colleges and student-aid programs decreased by approximately $500 million dollars. Taking inflation into account, 36 states were providing less money to public colleges and universities than they did two years earlier (Jaschik, 1992). Ed Hines, former coordinator of the study (cited in Jaschik, 1992) states this decline was leading to “…the beginning of a fundamental reshaping of higher education” (A21). According to Hines, instead of seeking ways to support higher education, lawmakers and higher education officials were “…debating how to best allocate funds, eliminate academic programs and define workable missions for colleges” (Jaschik, 1992, p. A21).
4
Table 1.1. Percentage of Total Revenue for Public Institutions from Federal, State, Local Appropriations.
Percentage of Total Revenue for Public Institutions From Federal, State, and Local Appropriations 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 Year 1997 1998 1999 2000
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2003) In the late 1990's, robust growth in many state economies relieved some of the financial pressures exerted on colleges and universities. State appropriations for the 1997-1998 fiscal year increased six percent over 1996-1997 levels and 11.5 percent over 1995-1996 levels (Schmidt, 1997). In addition, state appropriations for 1998-1999 rose 6.7 percent over 1997-1998 levels. Schmidt (1997) quotes Hines who stated "Higher education should not look at these figures and think this is a return to the good old days of never-ending expansion” (p. A23). He further stated "When the economy takes a nosedive, we will be suffering disproportionately" (Schmidt, p. A23). Recent reports regarding state funding for higher education are proving Hines’ predictions to be very accurate. Schmidt (1999) reported that public colleges and universities could expect "healthy increases" in state appropriations with a majority of the state legislatures agreed to provide increases in state aid that would exceed the inflation rate. Four years later,
5
Potter (2003) reported that half of the states reduced appropriations to public colleges. In 2004, Arnone reported that state spending on public colleges dropped for the first time in 11 years. Adoption of Corporate Management Efforts While some authors (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, and Riley, 1991; Birnbaum, 2000; Etzioni, 1991; Gumport, 1993
have sought to differentiate colleges and universities from the corporate sector, higher education is not immune to internal and external pressures to become more efficient and effective. In responding to these pressures, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness and have sought ways to become more “business-like,” adopting ideas from the corporate world (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). Birnbaum (2000) studied the adoption of business practices in higher education. In studying the lifecycle of management innovations in higher education, Birnbaum proposes that extensive use of a management innovation in a particular setting results in a common knowledge or “conventional wisdom.” As more individuals become aware of or comfortable with an innovation, they explore new sectors where the innovation may be adopted. Boundary-spanning individuals, or those who may work in a number of sectors, may play a role in bringing ideas from one sector to another. Birnbaum identifies these people as "intersector carriers” which: ...might include business leaders or legislators serving higher education boards of trustees, college presidents appointed to business boards of directors, professional associations formed at least in part to maintain linkages between higher education and external groups, academics who read journals in multidisciplinary areas such as business or human resources management, and consultants who solicit clients in both education and non-education sectors. (p. 134)
6
Birnbaum (2000) found that the generation of a management innovation in a nonacademic sector and its transference into an academic sector usually results in a "culture lag." The innovation which may have been around for some time in its original sector, is perceived as “new” by the adopting sector (Rodgers, 1995). While it is helpful to understand the processes by which innovations are transferred between sectors, perhaps the most telling aspect of the adoption process is the lack of information about the effectiveness of the innovation in its original or adopted sector. Birnbaum states “In both sectors, initial decisions to adopt management innovations appear to be based on subjective judgements disseminated by peers within a social system rather than analyses of empirical data...” (p. 134). The business world experienced a series of management reforms in the late 1980’s, including downsizing or its derivatives, rightsizing and re-engineering (Cameron, 1994). A fairly familiar term, “restructuring,” took on new importance in the corporate world as the leveraged buy-out frenzy of the 1980’s sought to create larger, more efficient corporations (Horn & Jerome, 1996). As one company bought out another, efforts were made to consolidate the workforce by reducing redundant operations. Efforts to streamline products or services generally resulted in reducing the number of employees or services, thereby reducing costs (Horn & Jerome, 1996). While restructuring is not a new management initiative, the intensity and popularity of restructuring in the late 1980’s glamorized this type of management approach. In a study of 2000 corporate executives in six countries, 94 percent reported that they had engaged in downsizing between 1993-95 (Jenkins, 1997).
7
As the literature review will reveal there are a number of working definitions regarding restructuring. For the purposes of this study, having reviewed the literature on this topic, this researcher is using the following definition of restructuring: It is generally considered to be a comprehensive and managed approach to organizational change that focuses on the structure or functioning of a program, department or division often with the intention of improving functioning, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, and reducing costs. Efforts to streamline products and services, increase efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce the workforce are not limited to the corporate sector. According to Birnbaum (2000): Institutions of higher education are always under pressure to become more efficient and effective. In response, many have attempted (either voluntarily or under mandate) to adopt new management systems and processes originally designed to meet the need of business or governmental organizations presumed to be more efficient. (p. 3) In the early 1990's shrinking state budgets constrained state appropriations to public higher education and increased efforts to control costs in colleges and universities. Budget constraints were not as challenging during the late 1990’s but have returned more recently (Arnone, 2004; Schmidt, 2004). While fiscal constraint may be one of the major driving forces for restructuring, it is not the only reason institutions restructure. The rationale to restructure can include overtures from elected officials seeking to exercise greater control over higher education. Institutions are often restructured to increase coordination, or accountability, centralize functions or to enhance power and control of operations (Marcus, 1997). Restructuring efforts are also initiated to take advantage of advances in technology, to refocus the
8
mission of the organization, to address challenging human resources issues by realigning staff, or to appear to deal with an issue without taking action. Restructuring in Student Affairs Studies by El-Khawas (1994) found that restructuring was taking place at more than half of all public institutions of higher education in the United States. A national survey of Senior Student Affairs Officers or SSAOs, also known as Vice Presidents for Student Affairs or Deans of Students, conducted by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) found that 43 percent of the respondents had eliminated positions because of budget changes or restructuring (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). A follow-up study done in 1999 by NASPA found 61 percent of the institutions surveyed reported that restructuring was taking place in student affairs (Carlson, 2000). As restructuring became popular in the corporate sector, governing boards, governors, presidents and business officers became inundated with information about this type of management effort. As noted earlier, restructuring was taking place at more than half of all public institutions of higher education (El-Khawas, 1994). While a majority of all public institutions were experiencing varying degrees of restructuring, a higher percentage of research universities had undertaken this management initiative. Seventyseven percent reported reorganizing administrative units, 59 percent redesigned administrative activity, 56 percent reorganized academic units, and 67 percent reorganized student services (El-Khawas, 1994). In the 1996 NASPA study, one out of every five chief student affairs officers experienced changes in whom they reported to in a five year period (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Three out of five SSAOs experienced changes in the areas reporting to
9
them. At research institutions, the percentage of institutions eliminating student affairs positions because of budget changes or restructuring was 57 percent. Sixty-six percent of the research institutions reported mergers or consolidations within student affairs or with departments outside of student affairs. A follow-up study done in 1999 by NASPA found 61 percent of the institutions surveyed reported that restructuring was taking place in student affairs (Carlson, 2000). According to Carlson (2000), the most common source of restructuring was the campus president, who initiated 35 percent of all efforts. The frequency of restructuring in student affairs may be associated with constrained state budgets or declining state appropriations to higher education (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). If true, student affairs may be subjected to increased restructuring activity in the current economic slump occurring in most states in 2004 when this study was undertaken. Therefore, the lessons learned from this study will be useful to higher education practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs. Purpose of the Study Corporate restructuring efforts and the adoption of those efforts by colleges and universities was noted in the introduction to this study. Corporate entities often share a fairly uniform set of goals or expectations including enhancing profits to improve financial outcomes or improving the "bottom line." These goals are not necessarily consistent with those of higher education and significant differences exist between these two sectors of society (Baldridge et al., 1991; Etzioni, 1991). However, higher education has adopted and continues to adopt management efforts from the corporate world (Birnbaum, 2000). A significant number of institutions in higher education have experienced some degree of restructuring over the past five years. A number of
10
institutions have initiated restructuring efforts in the division of student affairs. This is especially true in public research institutions (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). There are a number of reasons given for initiating restructuring efforts in student affairs; yet it is unclear if these efforts have been successful. The purpose of this study is to examine the impetus, scope and goals of the restructuring processes that took place in the student affairs divisions at two public research universities. The research questions posed in this study include: What was the impetus to restructure, what were the goals of restructuring, what processes were used to restructure, and what were the results of restructuring? This study is being proposed to further understand restructuring in student affairs and to determine the impact this process has on the student affairs divisions. Lastly, this study will examine the strategies, processes and approaches used as well as the results of the restructuring effort. The lessons learned from this study will be useful to practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs. Statement of the Problem Higher education has a history of adopting management practices that are popular in other sectors of society (Birnbaum, 2000). Restructuring efforts in the corporate sector increased dramatically in the late 1980’s and in higher education in the 1990’s (Horn & Jerome, 1996). There is a lack of empirical evidence on the effectiveness of restructuring efforts on student affairs divisions. Further, the effects of restructuring efforts are not well understood. Restructuring and other management innovations seek to increase efficiency and effectiveness in an effort to improve performance and enhance profitability. According to Horn & Jerome (1996) many prominent economists and business writers identify a
11
“first wave” of corporate restructuring as taking place in the early 1980’s. This first wave was characterized by a sharp increase in hostile takeovers (HTO’s) and leveraged buyouts (LBO’s). Birnbaum (2000) points out that a number of management innovations originally developed for the corporate world are eventually adopted by higher education. In discussing the movement of corporate practices into higher education, MacTaggart (1996) states: “Pervasive examples of restructuring, reengineering, rightsizing, downsizing, and a host of other organizational changes in the corporate world also contribute to a climate in which similar massive change is expected among public enterprises” (p. 6). Birnbaum (2000) contends that the practice of adopting business or governmental systems or processes is not new but has been taking place for over 40 years. A review of the literature notes numerous seminars, articles, presentations and books on the need to restructure higher education. The titles of various articles and books tell the tales of restructuring in higher education “When corporate restructuring meets higher education,” (Horn & Jerome, 1996), “How to start restructuring our colleges” (Lovett, 1996), “Investing in American higher education: An argument for restructuring” (Commission on National Investment in Education, 1997). Horn and Jerome (1996) point out that the focus of improvement and increased efficiency has shifted to the organizational structure of the institution, under the rubric of “restructuring.” While noting that restructuring has taken place on campuses across the country, Horn & Jerome (1996) contend it is often “…viewed as a virtual panacea for all problems – real and imaginary – confronting colleges and universities” (p. 34).
12
While there are a number of organizational characteristics that are similar between corporations and institutions of higher education, there are also a number of significant differences. Baldridge et al. (1991) identify some of the differences between businesses and higher education: goal ambiguity, problematic technology, a professionalized workforce, client involvement in decision making, and environmental vulnerability. These characteristics make colleges and universities relatively unique, complex organizations. Businesses usually have well defined products, clear goals and well developed processes which lend themselves to measures of efficiency and effectiveness (Birnbaum, 2000). Birnbaum contends that businesses are examples of tight coupling, which allows for a greater degree of hierarchical control. Unlike most businesses, colleges and universities are loosely coupled organizations which are responsive while preserving an identity and a degree of separateness (Weick, 1991). There have been some questions regarding the applicability of using corporate management efforts to improve higher education. Horn and Jerome (1996) state “What has escaped much of the restructuring debates on campuses is an awareness of the origins of organizational restructuring and the impact certain types of restructuring have had on corporate America-and how this impact will affect higher education” (p. 34). Chavez (1998) studied the impact of fiscal decline and restructuring in higher education. She stated: Studies have yet to be conducted of the meaning making and strategies utilized by SSAOs (Senior Student Affairs Officers) to deal with the current budgetary situation. Nor has research explored the possible effects that restructuring and fiscal decline are having on the organization, management styles, priorities, and philosophies of student affairs professionals. (p. 17)
13
There is a lack of information regarding the impact that restructuring has had on student affairs divisions. In addition, there is a lack of information available regarding the processes and practices utilized in restructuring. Lastly, the effects (intended and unintended outcomes) of restructuring efforts on a student affairs division are unclear. More information is needed about the impact of previous restructuring efforts in student affairs to help provide guidance and insight into future restructuring efforts. Contributions/Significance of the Study Restructuring has been and continues to be a management practice utilized in student affairs divisions (Carlson, 2003; El-Khawas, 1994; Engelbride & Goodale, 1998; Horn & Jerome, 1996). Internal and external pressures will continue to be driving factors that lead to restructuring efforts. Research indicates that restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions in public research institutions takes place at higher rates than private institutions (El-Khawas, 1994; Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Declines in state and federal appropriations may encourage leaders to maintain academic quality at the expense of other functional areas. Additional forces may increase restructuring efforts in student affairs in the future. It is unclear if restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions have achieved their goals and objectives. Therefore, this study seeks to develop a clearer understanding of restructuring in student affairs divisions, to explore the motivation or impetus for initiating restructuring, to examine the processes involved in restructuring, and to determine the outcomes of such efforts. It will also identify factors that enhanced success as well as those that impeded success. The lessons learned will be useful to practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs. Lastly, the results of this study will be helpful in identifying additional areas in need of further study.
14
CHAPTER II Review of the Literature
The literature reviewed for this study includes research on the nature, context, impetus, goals, processes and results of restructuring. Context The growth and development of colleges and universities over the past 70 years has transformed higher education into a complex and influential sector of society. Once considered a relative luxury, a college degree is now perceived by many as an economic necessity. Increased access to higher education, and increasingly differentiated academic programs, have resulted in a multifaceted and interrelated system. However, colleges and universities are not immune to some of the challenges facing other segments of society. Funding for public institutions continues to be closely tied to economic cycles, fluctuating as tax revenues rise or fall. While state laws mandate funding for health care, corrections, primary and secondary education, funding for public colleges and universities continues to be discretionary. A number of authors have expressed concern that higher education has become less responsive to societal needs, more resistive to external input, and mired in a number of issues that have tarnished the image of colleges and universities, resulting in a loss in public trust. While some may argue that funding levels have never been guaranteed and that other factors affecting higher education are not new, there is some agreement that the convergence of these factors has created a very challenging environment. In response to
15
some of these concerns, internal and external pressures have been exerted to reshape higher education. In responding to these pressures, higher education leaders have employed a number of management techniques to enhance efficiency and effectiveness, increase productivity, address personnel issues and deflect political intrusion. In the mid-1990's restructuring gained popularity as a management technique to respond to budget constraints and calls for reform. In addition, restructuring has been used to address performance, productivity, and personnel issues. This purpose of this literature review is to provide an overview of student affairs as well as research related to restructuring efforts in higher education. This dissertation focuses on restructuring of student affairs structure and practice. This section is followed by a discussion of the nature of restructuring in business and government. It then focuses on restructuring in student affairs. Overview of Student Affairs An overview of student affairs begins with the development of early American colleges which followed the English residential university approach in the seventeenth century (Fenske, 1989). The English model utilized a holistic approach to education that emphasized the intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development of students. The term in loco parentis (in place of the parent) defined the holistic approach used by college staff members. This holistic approach continued until the end of the nineteenth century (Fenske, 1989). Nuss (2003) traces the development of student affairs beginning with in loco parentis through the creation of specialized roles of professionals in positions such as
16
deans of students and the patterns and roles evident in current student affairs practice. According to Nuss, the major developmental stages of student affairs include the founding or early years (1636-1850), diversification (1850-1900), emergence of the profession (1900-1945), expansion (1945-1985), and the contemporary scene (1985present). A number of factors gave rise to the development of student affairs as a profession. Secularization, changes in the curriculum, the expansion and specialization of higher education (Fenske, 1989) and a shift in the responsibilities of faculty away from discipline and regulations (Nuss, 2003). The first program of study for student affairs practitioners was established in the early 1900’s, followed by the creation of various professional associations (Nuss, 2003). The American Council on Education supported efforts to study student personnel practices in the 1930’s. The resulting report, The Student Personnel Point of View, was first published in 1937 and revised in 1949 (Nuss, 2003). Nuss states: “The principles outlined in both the 1937 and 1949 Student Personnel Point of View influenced the philosophical development of the profession and persists today as guiding assumptions” (p. 72). Student Affairs Structure and Practice The Student Personnel Point of View outlined a series of student needs and the personnel services needed to help students achieve optimum development (American Council on Education, 1949). As a result of changes in higher education and the context in which it operates, the responsibilities of student affairs has expanded and become increasingly complex, often resulting in linkages with other campus offices (Dungy, 2003; Sandeen, 1989).
17
In discussing the functional areas in student affairs, Dungy (2003) notes that size of the institution and the available resources influence the organizational structure of student affairs. Dungy categorizes functional areas into two categories, noting that some areas are considered “traditional” and others as “emerging.” (p. 342). The areas of admissions, orientation, housing, counseling, student activities, and placement comprise some of the more traditional responsibilities of student affairs (Sandeen, 1989). In addition to these functional areas, student affairs divisions may be responsible for athletics, campus safety, college unions, community service programs, commuter services, dining services, disability support services, enrollment management, fundraising, Greek affairs, health services, international student services, judicial affairs, leadership programs, lesbian, gay, bisexual student services, multicultural student services, recreation and fitness, religious services, and women’s centers (Dungy, 2003). In examining student affairs research and practice, Blimling (2001) identified two separate student affairs philosophies; one focused on management, the other on education. Each philosophy is further divided into two communities of practice or orientations. According to Blimling, the management philosophy includes a student administration orientation and a student service orientation. The educational philosophy includes a student development orientation and a student learning orientation. The student administration orientation focuses on leadership and organizational issues while using efficiency and effectiveness as core criteria (Blimling, 2001). Student administration is characterized by a focus on “…the administration of resources available to students” (p. 388). The student service orientation shares some of the concepts of student administration, incorporating a business perspective which views students as
18
consumers. Student services focuses on providing “…high quality student services that are cost-efficient and result in student satisfaction” (Blimling, 2001, p. 389). The educational philosophy in student affairs is comprised of student development and student learning orientations. Based in psychology, the student development orientation focuses on the psycho-social and cognitive growth of students (Blimling). Practitioners seek to provide programs and activities that facilitate growth at various stages of development. In the student learning orientation, student affairs educators are viewed as partners in the learning process. According to Blimling, “The basic premise of this community of practice is that the work of student affairs educators is realized through the process of engaging students in various forms of active learning and that these experiences result in skills and knowledge consistent with the learning mission of higher education” (p. 390). The student learning orientation has recently gained momentum within the profession. Numerous publications including the Student Learning Imperative (ACPA, 1994), Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs, (ACPA/NASPA, 1997), Student Learning as Student Affairs Work (Whitt & Associates, 1998), Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004), and Learning Reconsidered II (Keeling, 2006) serve to advance student learning. The Nature of Restructuring Authors have discussed the dimensions of restructuring including efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness, structural changes, the health or well being of the organization, and changes in processes and relationships. One of the earliest references to restructuring in higher education comes from a work by Stanley Ikenberry entitled:
19
"Restructuring the Governance of Higher Education," which appeared in the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Bulletin in winter 1970. In discussing growth in the 1960’s, Ikenberry points out that expansion was a hallmark of higher education marked by multiplication and duplication within a framework of traditional models of organization. Ikenberry states: The familiar models worked reasonably well in an earlier day, in less complex institutions in which most faculty knew each other personally and were engaged in the institution’s primary mission, teaching. Perhaps such conditions continue to predominate in some colleges and universities, but for the rapidly expanding two-year college, the emerging university, the multipurpose state college, the now classic multiversity, and others, the model no longer approximates reality. (p. 371) While Ikenberry's statement refers to a period of growth in higher education, restructuring has more recently been associated with budget decline. Restructuring Defined in the Literature The use of the word "restructuring" in higher education literature has increased steadily since 1980. A word search on the ERIC database yielded 126 hits searching under the terms "Restructuring" and "Higher Education" in the 1980-1984 time frame. In the 1995-1999 time frame, this same search resulted in over 618 hits, a 390 percent increase. Restructuring can take place at a number of different levels including state systems, institutional, divisional or departmental. Given its popularity, one might assume that there is a common understanding or definition of restructuring. Unlike some other management processes, a widely accepted definition of restructuring does not exist. A number of authors have offered their own descriptions of restructuring.
20
In reviewing corporate restructuring efforts (Nicklin, 1995) offers descriptions of a number of business buzzwords used in academe: Downsizing, rightsizing: reducing the number of employees through attrition or layoffs, in an effort to operate within a target budget. Re-engineering: rethinking and radically redesigning business processes or academic programs to increase quality, service, and speed, while reducing costs. Restructuring, reorganizing: consolidating employees jobs and duties, often as a result of downsizing or rightsizing. (p. 34) Gumport and Pusser (1997) analyzed restructuring initiatives and identified “…three distinct strands of action: reengineering, privatization and reconfiguring. Taken together, they constitute the essence of contemporary restructuring” (p. 461). The literature on restructuring falls into a number of broad categories including efforts to enhance efficiency and effectiveness, the well being of the organization, and processes and relationships. Efficiency and effectiveness. According to Horn & Jerome (1996) restructuring was born in the corporate world of hostile takeovers and leveraged buyouts. Restructuring efforts usually include announced plans to increase efficiency, visible changes in mid-level administration, and visible changes in organizational structure. In defining restructuring in the corporate world, DePamphilis (2003) notes "Corporate restructuring is a catchall term that refers to a broad array of activities from mergers, acquisitions and business alliances to divestitures and spin-offs” (p. 5). Restructuring is defined as "Actions taken to expand or contract a firm's basic operations or fundamentally change its asset or financial structure are referred to as corporate restructuring activities." DePamphilis (2003) describes
21
operational restructuring in terms of efficiency stating "Operational restructuring refers to the outright or partial sale of companies or product lines or to downsizing by closing unprofitable or non-strategic facilities" (p. 5). A second form or corporate restructuring is financial restructuring which "…describes actions by the firm to change its total debt and equity structure" (DePamphilis, 2003, p. 5). Gumport and Pusser (1997) define reconfiguring as a form of restructuring. According to Gumport and Pusser, the goals of reconfiguring are to enhance organizational efficiency, flexibility, and improved response time. A number of authors use the terms restructuring and downsizing interchangeably, as these efforts may have some degree of overlap. Cameron (1994) defines downsizing as "…a set of activities, undertaken on the part of management of an organization and designed to improve organizational efficiency, productivity, and/or competitiveness. It represents a strategy implemented by managers that affects (a) the size of the workforce, (b) the costs, and (c) the work processes” (p. 192). Health/well being. In discussing restructuring in colleges and universities, Davies (1996) points out that for some, “…restructuring means taking steps to insure an institutions’ capacity to serve its students and sponsors as changes occur in knowledge, technology, and external demands made in higher education" (p. 1). Further, Davies states that “Sometimes the impetus to restructuring is the desire to reach the next level of excellence; sometimes it is the will to survive another semester” (p. 1). Eaton (1995) describes restructuring in higher education as “…a serious rethinking of higher education’s resources, uses, and expected results….[It] is one way to
22
approach insuring the health of this important national enterprise and enhancing both its efficiency and effectiveness” (p. 20). Davies (1996) notes that “...restructuring takes a view of the academy that stresses the well-being and effectiveness of the institution as a whole rather than of single parts in isolation” (p. 1). Processes/relationships. MacTaggart (1996) notes that restructuring "...refers to shifts in authority among the various individuals, agencies, administrations, and boards that collectively oversee the way public, and sometimes, private, higher education is led, funded, and managed" (p. xi). Richard Novak, in MacTaggart (1996) discusses institutional restructuring noting that it “…is a campus-based self-examination requiring no changes in state governance laws” (p. 29). Further, MacTaggart states: It is the internal reordering of both administrative and academic priorities by reexamining the incentives for growth and cost escalation. It goes beyond cost cutting or retrenchment to change internal administrative and academic work processes through resource reallocation and applications of new educational technologies designed to increase efficiency, productivity, and consumer orientation. (p. 30) As cited in Jenkins (1997) Lee Perry, professor of organizational behavior at Brigham Young University, points out that restructuring involves not just size (workforce reductions) but changes in the processes and relationships. Gumport and Pusser (1997) identify re-engineering as one strand of contemporary restructuring efforts, based upon the use of technology which allows managers to rethink basic processes. Further, re-engineering allows organizations to redesign the nature of work. Gumport and Pusser (1997) state “When adapting corporate strategies that attempt to reengineer core work processes (Hammer and Champy, 1993), higher education
23
organizations have been called upon to rethink the nature of the work to be done and to redesign processes as well as culture” (p. 461). Gumport and Pusser (1997) describe another form of restructuring called as "reconfiguring" which “...aims to reshape organizational structures in order to facilitate implementation of reengineering processes” (p. 461). Nicklin (1995) differentiates restructuring from similar management approaches noting that restructuring focuses more on consolidating jobs and work duties. Defining Restructuring for This Study A review of the literature provides a number of different dimensions to restructuring. Restructuring is seen as a managerial response to improve efficiency and effectiveness, as a means to ensure the well being of the organization, and as a means to change processes or relationships. Because a single, commonly accepted definition does not exist, for the purposes of this research, restructuring is defined as a comprehensive and managed approach to organizational change that focuses on the structure or functioning of a program, department or division often with the intention of improving operations, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, and reducing costs. Historical Overview In order to better understand current restructuring efforts, one must recognize that restructuring is not a new management approach. One could argue that restructuring is an accepted organizational practice that has been taking place for quite some time. What seems somewhat unusual is the relative increase in the popularity and formalizing of this management approach in the corporate world, in government, and in higher education.
24
Restructuring in Business In providing a perspective on large-scale change in the corporate sector, Nadler and Heilpern (1998) point out that the current environment can be traced back to the mid1980's. Increased competition from abroad pressured companies to "…improve quality, increase productivity, and heighten overall efficiency." According to Nadler and Heilpern (1998) global competition, new technology, and changes in public policy, including deregulation, are the basic market forces which have converged to create an environment where there is a continued need for constant change. Nadler and Tushman (1997) point to the restructuring effort undertaken by General Motors in 1984 as one of the largest, most public, redesign efforts in the corporate world, which may have contributed to other large scale restructuring efforts in the business world. Cameron (1994) studied downsizing activity in the corporate sector. Cameron (1994) cites the work of Bennett (1991) and Buch (1992) who reported that over 85 percent of the Fortune 500 companies had downsized in the previous five-year period and that 100 percent planned to downsize in the next five year period. Nadler and Heilpern (1998) contend that “This current period of large scale change in our major organizations started in the mid-1980’s, driven by competitive pressure on U.S. companies to improve quality, increase productivity, and heighten overall efficiency” (p. 5). In projecting into the future, Nadler and Heilpern (1998) state the “...response to competition from abroad continued unabated through the mid-1990's and seems likely to remain a fact of organizational life into the next century" (p. 5).
25
Champlin and Knoedler (1999) state: The view that corporate restructuring is not only inevitable, but necessary, has become commonplace in American policy and business circles. Only by imposing job losses and shedding unnecessary costs can American business hope to compete in the "new global economy" and regain the position of dominance it held during the "golden age" of American capitalism after World War II. (p. 1) This narrative of corporate restructuring as necessary and inevitable hinges on the notion that the job losses and other unfortunate consequences of restructuring are simply the result of impersonal market forces over which businesses and governments have no control. The new global economic environment requires "leaner and meaner" as well as larger and more powerful corporations (Champlin & Knoedler, 1999). In studying restructuring activity, DePamphilis (2003) noted that the decade of the 1990's was unlike any other in US history. According to DePamphilis, the number and dollar volume of corporate restructuring activity between 1990 and 1995 exceeded the previous record achieved in the 1980's. DePamphilis (2003) attributes this high level of activity to a number of factors including highly favorable financial environments where soaring stock multiples and low interest rates combined with a regulatory environment that focused more on enhancing operating efficiency than the size of the transaction. Burke and Nelson (1997) identified mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, and privatization as three newly emerging sources of organizational change. Citing the work of Marks (1994), Burke and Nelson (1997) contend that these three sources of organizational change are "…interrelated because all represent the effects of economic recession and attempts by organizations to survive and to increase productivity" (p. 21).
26
To provide an example of how pervasive restructuring is in the corporate world, typing the word "restructuring" into an Internet search engine yielded 2.6 million hits. As evidence of the extensive use of restructuring in the corporate world a professional association exists to assist business leaders with their restructuring efforts. The Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors (AIRA) was founded in 1984 and hosted its 21st annual conference in 2005. In 1992, the association established a certification program “to recognize those professionals that demonstrate a high level of competency through not only the completion of a course of study and examination but by providing evidence of comprehensive experience.” (http://www.airacira.org/). Members of the AIRA are encouraged to participate in the Certified Insolvency & Restructuring Advisor (CIRA) program, to “Improve your competence and gain recognition.” In order to receive certification, the applicant must meet a number of minimum standards including “…4,000 hours of specialized business turnaround, restructuring and bankruptcy experience within an eight year period ending no earlier than the exam completion date.” (http://www.airacira.org/). As further evidence of the acceptance of restructuring in the corporate world, those interested in restructuring can subscribe to the daily newsletter “Restructuring Today” which outlines activities associated with this management approach. Cascio (2002) notes that companies that choose to restructure should use this opportunity to focus on those areas of the business where the company enjoys its greatest competitive strengths. By focusing on employees as assets, instead of costs to be cut, managers will enjoy several advantages including more positive employee relations. Cascio (2002) identified practices to avoid when restructuring as well as approaches to
27
restructure "responsibly." In studying corporate restructuring and downsizing efforts since the early 1990's, Cascio (2002) identities ten mistakes to avoid when restructuring. This list includes: -failing to be clear about long and short term goals -using downsizing as a first resort, rather than a last resort -using nonselective downsizing -failing to change the way work is done -failing to involve workers in the restructuring process -failing to communicate openly and honestly -handling ineptly those who lose their jobs -failing to manage survivors effectively -ignoring the effects on other stakeholders -failing to evaluate the results and learn from mistakes. (p. 85) In trying to promote responsible restructuring efforts, Cascio (2002) provides the following suggestions: -build a plan for restructuring into the overall economic plan for your business -carefully consider the rationale behind restructuring -consider the virtues of stability -before making any final decisions about restructuring, managers should make their concerns known to employees and seek their input -don't use downsizing as a "quick fix" to achieve short-term goals in the face of long-term problems -get lean without getting mean -if layoffs are necessary, be sure that the process of selecting excess positions is perceived as fair and that decisions are made in a consistent manner -communicate regularly and in a variety of ways to keep everyone abreast of new developments and information -give survivors a reason to stay and prospective new hires a reason to join -train employees and their managers in the new ways of operating
28
-examine carefully HR systems in light of the change of strategy or environment facing the firm. (p. 89) Bridges (1991) studied change process noting that there are differences between a change and a transition. According to Bridges, change is often the result of external pressures, while a transition is the result of internal accommodations. Further, Bridges (1991) states “Transition is the psychological process people go through to come to terms with the new situation.” (p.3) Noting the relationship between change and transition, Bridges (1991) states “Unless a transition occurs, change will not work” (p. 3). Kotter (1996) provides a number of insights into why major change efforts fail and suggests an eight stage process to help leaders achieve transformational change in organizations. Kotter offers the following suggestions: -establish a sense of urgency -create the guiding coalition -developing a vision and strategy -communicating the change vision -empowering broad-base action -generating short-term wins -consolidating gains and producing more change -anchoring new approaches in the culture. (p. 21) This framework will be used in Chapter V to analyze the results of this case study. Restructuring in Government Restructuring efforts have been instituted to address concerns in a number of different types of organizations. Federal, state, and local governments have participated in restructuring efforts. Research on restructuring efforts in the public sector often focuses on increasing efficiency and seems to fall into two broad categories: efforts to
29
restructure agencies and service providers, and the impact public policy has on regulating or deregulating various industries (Warner, n.d.). Efforts to restructure and reinvent government were popularized in a book by Osborne and Gaebler (1992) who argue the bureaucratic model of governance is not able to meet the needs and demands of the American public. Increased interest in quality and choice are pressuring governments to change the way it provides public services (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). To better meet the needs of the American public, Osborne and Gaebler contend that government should decentralize authority, reduce bureaucracy, promote competition, and focus on results. The Brookings Institute tracks Federal legislative efforts to improve government performance. Citing nine laws passed since 1964, the Brookings Institute notes that "The Federal government has passed a variety of laws to improve its services, attract better employees, ensure fairness, reduce corruption, and raise the overall efficiency of its institutions." Further, "Congress has pursued these goals by rearranging the Federal bureaucracy, adding and removing regulations, and restructuring problem agencies." (Brookings Institute, 2005). A number of laws were passed to address concerns in specific agencies. In 1970, legislation was passed to restructure the Post Office Department, forming a semi-public, for-profit company called the US Postal Service. In 1978, Congress passed legislation that restructured the Civil Service Commission, replacing it with the Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board. To improve services and enhance operations, the legislation also "…required that all hiring and promotion be based on relevant ability and skills……and outlined procedures for firing incompetent employees."
30
The Government Performance and Results Act, passed by Congress in 1993 requires all Federal agencies to develop and administer performance standards and required all Federal agencies with budgets in excess of $20 million to submit five-year goals. In addition, the bill directed the Office of Management and Budget "…to submit a performance plan for the entire Federal government along with its budget beginning in fiscal year 1999" (Brookings Institute, 2005). Since 1993, a number of Federal agencies have undergone restructuring efforts including the Internal Revenue Service, Homeland Security, and the intelligence community. In 1998, Congress passed the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act which resulted in a major reorganization of the IRS. According to the Brookings Institute, the bill reorganized "The agency by replacing the existing nationalregional-district structure with units addressing particular types of tax issues." It also "…shifted the burden of proof in tax evasion cases from the taxpayers to the agency" (Brookings Institute, 2005). A report given by the U.S. General Accounting Office (1995) to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee provides context for governmental reorganization efforts: The case for reorganizing the federal government is an easy one to make. Many departments and agencies were created in a different time and in response to problems very different from today's. Many have accumulated responsibilities beyond their original purposes. As new challenges arose or new needs were identified, new programs and responsibilities were added to departments and agencies with insufficient regard to their effects on the overall delivery of services to the public. (pp. 2-3) In responding to the needs of society, governments have attempted to improve services through privatization (Warner, n.d.). Warner notes that privatization is a
31
worldwide phenomenon. Further, "In recent years all levels of government, seeking to reduce costs, have begun turning to the private sector to provide some of the services that are ordinarily provided by the government. The fundamental belief that market competition in the private sector is a more efficient way to provide these services and allows for greater citizen choice." Referring to the work of Savas (1987) on privatization, Warner notes, "Proponents argue private firms are more efficient than governments because of economies of scale, higher labor productivity, and fewer legal constraints." According to Warner (n.d.) governments have attempted to privatize some functions while restructuring others. Warner has written a number of articles on restructuring local governments, contending that “Fiscal stress, changing public expectations and shifting responsibilities for services due to devolution have prompted many local governments to consider restructuring service delivery." Warner has established a website “…to provide local governments and public sector employees with information on restructuring trends and innovations in public sector service provision, public-private partnerships, privatization, inter-municipal cooperation and contracting back-in (Warner, n.d.). Warner and Hefetz (2001) studied the strategies local governments used to restructure government services. Using data from a national longitudinal survey data from the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), Warner and Hefetz found that restructuring service delivery was the most common approach to restructuring local governments, occurring in 60 percent of all efforts. In addition, Warner and Hefetz found that "Ninety percent of all public service restructuring takes the
32
places of three forms - privatization to for-profit companies, privatization to non-profits, and inter-municipal cooperation" (p. 2). In analyzing data from the ICMA survey Warner and Hefetz (2001) note that fiscal stress often pressures local governments to restructure service delivery. In noting the link between fiscal stress and privatization, Warner and Hefetz (2001) note "Indeed, the up and down pattern of the privatization trends does appear to mirror the overall economy's cycles.” Governmental efforts to restructure will most likely continue. The Volcker Commission recently released a series of recommendations to reorganize government. In outlining the need to restructure government the report states "Fundamental reorganization of the federal government is urgently needed to improve the capacity for inherent design and efficient implementation of public policy." (Brookings Institute, 2005). In addition, the White House submitted a proposal to streamline government and increase effectiveness called the "Government Reorganization and Program Performance Improvement Act of 2005." One of the controversial components of this proposal is a ten-year sunset clause for most Federal agencies. Agencies would face automatic elimination unless reauthorized by Congress (Shull and Hughes, 2005). Restructuring in Higher Education A number of factors appear to have created the growing interest in restructuring institutions. In discussing restructuring and the failure of reform, MacTaggart (1996) identifies the most intensely felt external pressures that will affect higher education: changing public attitudes, economic pressure, corporate restructuring, reinventing government, and emerging political pressures.
33
Changing public attitudes. In providing a historical context for higher education, Clark Kerr (cited in Jones and Nowotny, 1990) examined conflict and changes in each decade in the twentieth century. Kerr characterizes the 1960’s and 1970’s as transformational, while changes in the 1980’s were described as "Minor." In the 1980's, enrollments, financing, and academic programs were all fairly static. Kerr’s impression of the 1990’s was a period where there would be major changes or conflicts. Concerns with athletic programs, rising tuition, alleged misconduct in scientific research and denial of free speech influenced the public impression of colleges and universities. In citing Sykes (1988), Kerr states that “The universities ‘will be saved’ not by themselves but rather by legislators, governors, parents and students, and perhaps even some trustees…” (p. 9). Kerr noted the need for higher education “…to put more effort into rebuilding the public trust that has eroded over the past 30 years as scandal and complaints have accumulated and into resisting increased external coordination and control” (p. 15). In perhaps an even stronger statement, Kerr cites a 1989 draft report from the Education Commission of the States: We sense a growing frustration-even anger-among many of the nation’s governors, state legislators, and even corporate leaders that higher education is seemingly disengaged from the battle. Colleges and universities are perceived more often than not as the source of the problems rather than part of the solution. The issues raised are usually specific: lack of involvement in solutions to the problems of urban schools, failure to lead in the reform of teacher education, questions about faculty work load, and productivity and lack of commitment to teaching or the escalating, and seemingly uncontrollable cost of a college education. But whatever the issue, the overall sense of many outside of colleges and universities is either that dramatic action will be needed to shake higher education from its internal lethargy and focus, or that the system must be bypassed for other institutional forms and alternatives (p.16).
34
In discussing external pressures that threaten higher education MacTaggart (1996) states: “Simply put, the challenge facing public higher education is to regain credibility by reforming itself to meet higher public expectations” (p. 3). In anticipating the potential for greater intrusions from the state, MacTaggart adds: “A review of current attempts to improve management, performance, and reputation of the enterprise in the minds of the public and its elected representative suggests that these efforts at reform have not gone nearly far enough” (p. 3). Economic pressure. In reviewing some of the challenges of the 1980’s Gumport and Pusser (1997) point to the work of numerous scholars who have identified the following ongoing challenges: rising tuition, increasing administrative costs, low productivity. “It was widely agreed that, as financial stress increased, more precise alignment of resourcedependent relationships would be a key strategy” (p. 458). Zemsky and Massy (1990) noted that “...faculty salaries regained and then exceeded their buying power of the early 1970’s, as administrative and academic support staffs expanded, as building booms spread across our campuses…”. Further, “Looking for allies as well as analogies, our colleagues began citing the experiences of American firms that had developed bloated bureaucracies and financial strategies yielding shortterm profits at the expense of long-term growth” (p. 16). Zemsky and Massy (1990) contend that the number of administrators has increased as a result of an “administrative lattice” based upon a number of factors including increased regulations. The term “academic ratchet” was used to describe the one-way expansion of opportunities for
35
faculty research and service. The expansion of administrators and faculty has increased the costs of higher education. Chait (1990) identifies a number of ongoing trends that were likely to accumulate in the 1990’s. Included in these trends is "Mounting public resistance to the spiraling price of higher education that places pressure on boards to cure the so-called cost disease" (p. 25). According to Shirley (1994), Public disenchantment with costs and managerial irresponsibility is soon reflected in State capitals, of course, and this often leads to pressures for greater accountability and in particular, cost containment. These economic and political pressures have reached such heights that higher education institutions – public and private alike – must respond with significant institutional reform efforts. (p. 8) Kotter (1995) contends that the "pressure of increasing costs of education coupled with demands for access and enhanced learning outcomes and rapid advances in technology, will force radical change in the administrative and educational practices in American higher education" (p. 7). Eaton (1995) points out that public support for higher education is diminishing. In examining federal, state and local revenues to higher education, Eaton found that “...higher education is receiving less public money than it has in the past and, when increases in funding are available, those increases are smaller than in past years” (p. 6). According to Breneman (1993) higher education’s share of state appropriations has steadily declined since 1968. Breneman identifies this period of declining appropriations as the “new austerity” (p. 6). Lovett (1996) points to public scrutiny and shrinking state and federal budgets as a basis for the need for fundamental changes in higher education (p. 18).
36
Adopting corporate practices. In discussing ongoing trends that were likely to affect higher education in the 1990's, Chait (1990) anticipated "Intensified calls for accountability that promote ‘business-like behaviors’ such as marketing, strategic planning, and performance" (p. 25). In responding to pressures to contain costs, preserve quality and increase efficiency and effectiveness, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to become more “business-like” (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). The incorporation of business practices into higher education is not new. According to Callahan (1962) business practices were adopted into educational administration as early as 1900. The scientific method, popularized in the late 1800's and early 1900's, was perhaps the first management technique adopted by higher education. In tracing the introduction of management practices in higher education, Birnbaum (2000) identifies two "revolutions." The first focused on "managerialism" based on the scientific method, which served as the basis for future studies focused on efficiency. The second revolution focused on "rationality" which grew out of the use of management information systems and systems methods starting in the 1940's (Birnbaum, 2000). In discussing the rationality framework Birnbaum (2000) states: "Institutional goals and objectives had to be clearly defined, measurable standards of performance set, ways of assessing alternatives developed, and a common database using agreed-on definitions constructed" (p. 24). In defining one form of rationality, Birnbaum (2000) writes "The hallmarks of decision rationality in higher education management have included a commitment to cost-benefit analyses and the importance of measurement, a pro-innovation bias, and a
37
Neo-Darwinian belief that change and improvement are closely related (if not identical)” (p. 28). Rhoades (1995) points out that a neoclassical view of productivity exists, suggesting that minimizing direct costs or the costs associated with productive labor are the primary means to increase productivity. According to Rhodes (1995) “Higher education is labor intensive, with most of its expenditures – around 85 percent - being for personnel… The problem, then, in regard to organizational inefficiency, lies in the productivity of the workforce (faculty) and in that workforce’s allocation of effort” (p. 18). In outlining the problem of assessing organizational effectiveness, Cameron (1983) notes that "…different approaches to assessing effectiveness are products of different arbitrary models of organizations; the fact that the construct space of effectiveness has never been bounded; the fact that effectiveness is a product of individual values and preferences" (p. 2). Further, Cameron (1983) points out that managers and members of the lay public are less interested in these issues. However, "Researchers, on the other hand, are less willing to accept any arbitrary criteria of effectiveness in their assessments, so they struggle to identify indicators that can be measured reliably, that relate to organizational performance (i.e., the indicators possess validity), and that may have some theoretical utility” (p. 3). Cameron (1991) states “Difficulty in empirically assessing organizational effectiveness has arisen because no one ultimate criterion of effectiveness exists" (p. 300). In addressing the challenges associated with assessing organizational effectiveness, Cameron identifies two problem areas which include the selection of the type of criteria
38
used to measure effectiveness, and the sources of the criteria. Cameron refers to the work of a number of scholars in stating that effectiveness is often based on outputs and goal accomplishment. Colleges and universities share a number of organizational characteristics with other complex organizations such as corporate entities, industrial organizations and government agencies. Colleges and universities also share a number of similarities (common elements) with corporate, not-for-profit, and governmental organizations (Baldridge et al., 1991; Etzioni, 1991). However, a number of researchers have pointed out that while colleges and universities share certain organizational characteristics with other organizations, there is a significant body of knowledge that outlines the differences between colleges and universities and other organizations (Baldridge et al., 1991). According to Baldridge et al. academic organizations differ from other organizations in a number of significant ways: goal ambiguity, client service, problematic technology and a highly professionalized and autonomous workforce. While corporate entities often focus on the customers who purchase their products, Heydinger (1997) notes that …there is a strong belief among many people working in colleges and universities that their mission is much different than the traditional service institution in which the customer (that is, for the instructional mission, the student) knows best. Often this argument centers on a confusion of who really is the customer. Is it the student? The parents? Is it future employers? Or is it really the community? (p. 117) While some authors (Baldridge et al., 1991; Birnbaum, 2000; Etzioni, 1991) have sought to differentiate colleges and universities from the corporate sector, higher education is not immune from similar internal and external pressures to become more
39
efficient and effective. In responding to these pressures, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness and have sought ways to become more “business-like,” often adopting ideas from the corporate world (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). Birnbaum (2000) contends that the practice of adopting business or governmental systems or processes is not new but has been taking place for more than 40 years. Birnbaum studied a number of management innovations that affected higher education. The three management innovations that were identified in the 1960 to 1985 time frame included Planning Programming Budgeting System (PPBS), Management by Objectives (MBO), and Zero-Base Budgeting (ZBB). Each of these management innovations were created by either the government or in industry and were later transported into higher education (Birnbaum, 2000). Schmidtlein (1999) noted "New theories on organizational behavior, structure, and processes are transmitted to new generations of students and practitioners, leading to new management concepts, techniques, and processes" (p. 572). Schmidtlein cites several examples including Program Planning and Budgeting Systems (PPBS); Program Evaluation and Review Techniques (PERT); strategic planning, and Total Quality Management (TQM). In discussing new concepts, techniques and processes, Schmidtlein (1999) notes that the persistence of new approaches is dependent on the accuracy of the underlying theories in depicting organizational reality. If the underlying theories are inaccurate or incompletely describe reality, they will eventually be abandoned (Schmidtlein, 1999). In addition to PPBS, MBO and ZBB, Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), Business Process Engineering (BPR), “performance based
40
funding,” “re-engineering,” “rightsizing,” and “restructuring” have been introduced into higher education (Birnbaum, 2000). Allen and Chaffee (1981) studied the introduction of business management practices in higher education, establishing criteria to determine if the innovation is a fad. Birnbaum (2000) has studied the adoption of corporate management innovations in colleges and universities, outlining a life-cycle approach for such efforts. Birnbaum (2000) contends that management innovations or fads are usually created in the corporate sector, then introduced into higher education. In examining restructuring efforts in higher education, Rhoades (1995) found that: A dual governance system (academic and administrative) creates an institutional divide where separate processes may take place at the same time. In a competitive and protectionist environment, academics argue for the sanctity of their programs while watching the number of administrators grow. Conversely, administrators state they have cut their staff because tenured faculty and their programs are protected. (p. 19) Rhoades continues “Faculty have major responsibility in curricular matters; administrators have responsibility in business matters” (p.19). Therefore institutions are more likely to utilize a business management technique on the administrative side of the organization. Rhodes (1995) points out that there have been few efforts to restructure the academic side of higher education. Slavin (1989) notes that "One major factor inhibiting systematic progress in education is the lack of agreement about what constitutes progress and what constitutes adequate evidence to support action" (p. 753). In discussing why new practices are embraced in education Slavin notes "…educators rarely want or demand hard evidence before adopting new practices on a wide scale. Of course every innovation claims
41
research support for his or her methods, at a minimum, there is usually a ‘gee-whiz’ story or two about a school or district that was ‘turned around’ by the innovation" (p. 753). Birnbaum (2000) notes “After being hailed for its great promise, each was eventually abandoned, only to be replaced shortly thereafter by another fad” (p. 125). Carnevale, Johnson and Edwards (1998) points to the work of Paul Light, director of public policy programs at the Pew Charitable Trusts who argues “…that public organizations have undergone too many waves of reform in recent years – none of which is ever fully implemented or evaluated” (p. B6). Slavin (1989) states "If faddism in education is ever to end, decisions about adopting or maintaining programs must be based on reliable data" (p. 753). Horn and Jerome (1996) contend “Despite the ambiguous results of corporate restructuring, other institutions, including higher education, have jumped on the restructuring bandwagon to find ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness” (p. 35). Horn & Jerome point out that “Although institutional arrangements prevent buyouts, university administrators are behaving similarly to their counterparts in the corporate world. This behavior is typified by: -announced plans to increase efficiency -visible changes in mid-level administration -visible changes in organizational structure. (p. 35) Birnbaum (2000) argues: Still, management fads in the academic sector continue to be created or reinvented despite the absence of data suggesting that they have been successful and in the face of failure of most of them to be widely adopted by the sector. Why does this happen? Those who develop the fads, as well as those who support them, appear to view academic organizations through the lens of an organizational paradigm that emphasizes the importance of goals, rationality, and causality. (p. 140)
42
Political pressure. Numerous authors outline the pressures from elected officials to make changes in higher education. It is widely understood that Federal and State governments provide the legal context and significant levels of funding for public higher education, and through a political lens are often viewed as engines that drive economic well being. In 2001, State spending on higher education totaled 62.9 billion dollars, while Federal spending on higher education exceeded 19.7 billion dollars (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Given the financial support from government and the role colleges and universities play in economic development, elected officials often have a vested interest in higher education. Marcus (1997) studied restructuring proposals submitted in 29 states over a five year period. Of the 49 proposals submitted, 51 percent were submitted by legislatures while 18 percent were submitted by governors. Elected officials accounted for nearly 70 percent of the restructuring proposals submitted between 1989 and 1994. An example of gubernatorial interest in restructuring is provided by former Governor Wilder in Virginia. In reporting on restructuring efforts in Virginia, Carrier (Education Commission of the States, 1996) noted that Wilder “…pointed his finger at all of us in Virginia Higher Education. He said, in effect ‘Either you make changes in the way you deliver higher education in Virginia, or we, in government and the public, will’” (p. 3). One of the largest restructuring efforts in higher education took place in Alaska in the mid-1980's (Gaylord and Rogers, 1988). The state economic collapse, caused by fluctuations in oil prices, resulted in a significant restructuring effort that "...created three
43
multi-campus institutions from three universities and eleven community colleges over a two-year period" (Gaylord & Rogers, 1988, p. 3). Restructuring activities were not limited to interest in or pressure from elected officials. A 1990 taxpayer initiative in Oregon caused a review process that resulted in a nearly 25 percent reduction in state support to public higher education. Oregon used a review process “modeled after similar reorganization efforts in large corporations” (Education Commission of the States, 1996, p. 2). Institutions of higher education will continue to respond to changes in their external environment. Changing public attitudes, economic pressure, corporate restructuring and emerging political pressures will continue to affect colleges and universities often resulting in the adoption of business processes such as restructuring. Restructuring in Student Affairs Rhoades (1995) noted that most colleges and universities were restructuring not just their academic programs but their administration as well. Rhoades contends that administrative restructuring follows two patterns. In the first pattern, institutions are more likely to reorganize offices and activities than reduce staff or administrative layers. Citing the research of El-Khawas (1994) Rhoades notes that approximately two-thirds of all institutions were reorganizing administrative offices, over half were redesigning administrative activity, about one-third were reducing administrative layers, and 29 percent were reducing senior administrative positions. According to Rhoades (1995, p. 30), a second pattern involves the contracting out of services and increasing revenues through fundraising activities or by charging fees for facility use.
44
Kotter (1995) promotes the restructuring of student affairs divisions, stating “As institutions redesign themselves to meet new demands, student services must also redesign roles, processes, and organizational structures" (p. 7). In discussing restructuring efforts at James Madison University, Carrier (1996) states “Finally, I must emphasize that student services are very much a part of restructuring and very much a part of the educational experience of our students” (p. 4). In 1996, this researcher worked at the National Association of Student Personal Administrators (NASPA) national office as a doctoral intern. Part of my responsibilities were to develop an instrument that assessed the level of restructuring taking place within student affairs in all institutional types and to analyze how campuses were responding to restructuring initiatives. Several members of the NASPA staff along with Elizabeth Whitt, the chair of the research committee, and Alicia Chavez, a doctoral student, provided advice on the instrument. The 15-item survey was mailed to 625 randomly selected member institutions in the fall of 1996. Of the 625 surveys that were mailed, 382 were returned, resulting in a return rate of 61 percent. The results of this study provided a considerable amount of data related to the extent of restructuring that was taking place within student affairs in a number of critical areas. The results of the 1996 study conducted for NASPA found that 59.9 percent of all institutions reported the areas of supervision reporting to the Vice President of Student Affairs had changed over the past five years. Further, changes in the reporting structure were not uniform across campus types.
45
Table 2.1. Percentage of CSAO’s Reporting that Areas Under Their Supervision Changed Over a Five Year Period Yes No NA All 59.9 26 14.1 Research 70 22 8 Doctoral 60 20 20 Comprehensive 64.4 22.9 12.7 Liberal Arts 54.1 31.6 14.3 Two-Year 51.4 32.9 15.7
From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) In researching restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that slightly more than a fifth of all student affairs divisions reported budget decreases. In comparing budget decreases by institutional type, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that a larger portion (31.7%) of the research institutions reported budget decreases. Table 2.2. Percentage of Student Affairs Divisions Reporting Budget Decreases All 21.2 Research 31.7 Doctoral 10 Comprehensive 23.4 Liberal Arts 23.9 Two-Year 13.3
From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) In examining how budget cuts to student affairs compared to budget cuts to other divisions, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that over a quarter of all institutions responding to the survey reported that cuts were more severe. Approximately 13 percent stated budget cuts were less severe than cuts to other divisions. Table 2.3. How Do Budget Cuts Compare to Cuts in Other Divisions? All Research Doctoral Comprehensive 26.1 31.3 19 More Severe 25.6 17.4 6.3 19 Less Severe 13.2 61.2 56.5 62.5 61.9 The Same From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) Lib. Art. 28.6 3.6 67.9 Two-Year 30 20 50
In addition to budget decreases, 46 percent of all institutions responding to the survey reported that offices were merged or consolidated with other offices. The
46
percentage of research institutions reporting mergers or consolidations was higher than other institutional types. Table 2.4 outlines the frequency of mergers and consolidations across different campus types. In addition, research institutions eliminated positions at a slightly higher rate (56%) than other institutions (43%) (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Table 2.4. Percentage of Campuses Where Student Affairs Areas Merged or Consolidated Over the Past Five Years. All Research Doctoral Comprehensive 46.3% 66% 56.4% 48.7% From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) Liberal Arts 35.1% Two-Year 38.6%
Carlson (2000) refined a number of questions on the 1996 survey and redistributed it in 1999. Data from Carlson helped clarify a number of items and improved the usefulness of the information collected by the instrument. Carlson added questions dealing with the merging of offices within student affairs, the person most responsible for initiating restructuring, as well as which offices had been added, merged, or eliminated from the division. Of the 1,145 surveys that were sent out, 607 were completed, resulting in a return rate of 53 %. Carlson (2000) found that 61 percent of the institutions had restructured their student affairs divisions from 1996-1999. The results of the work of Engelbride and Goodale (1998), Chavez (1998) and Carlson (2003) are detailed later in this literature review. Sources of the Impetus to Restructure The impetus for change in higher education comes from a variety of sources, some external, others internal. Generally, the impetus for restructuring efforts can be described in economic, political, ideological (e.g. to appear progressive), or human
47
resource terms. Given the complex nature of higher education, the impetus to restructure can also be a combination these factors. Heydinger (1997) notes there are two primary organizational change strategies: “Outside-in” and “Inside-out.” In “Outside-in” strategies, the impetus for organizational changes comes from outside "…often being superimposed by another organization or governing body" (p. 115). Further, Heydinger describes "Inside-out strategies are those in which the organization decides on its own that it must change and sets about to craft a strategy that will yield the desired results" (p. 115). For the purposes of this study "Outside-in" strategies will be characterized as "External" sources of restructuring efforts; "Inside-out" strategies will be characterized as "Internal" sources of restructuring. External Sources The impetus to restructure can come from external sources. Governors, legislators, governing boards, consultants, or professional associations, including accrediting bodies, are often the initiators of restructuring efforts (Birnbaum, 2000; Carlson, 2003). In evaluating why organizations adopt new management techniques, Birnbaum (2000) notes that "If an organization has clear goals and understands its management technology, it might be able to predict whether an innovation would improve its efficiency" (p. 152). Birnbaum contends that when organizational goals are not clear, state systems and institutions develop patterns of imitation: "When one state adopts an innovation, it may spread to other states as part of a process of imitation, even in the absence of credible evidence that the innovation is instrumentally effective" (p. 153).
48
Birnbaum (2000) contends that higher education is often characterized as being in a state of crisis, pointing out that this claim has been made for so long that "crisis" seems to be a natural state. Warren Bennis provides an example of this approach, writing in 1973 "Unquestionably, universities are among the worst managed institutions in the country" (Cameron, 1983, p. 19). Such statements, even without data to support them, can serve as the focal points for external actors who seek to restructure higher education. According to Birnbaum "Claims of crisis serve to support ideologies, and gain attention, power, and control of organizational and symbolic processes in a noisy policy environment” (p. 144). Further, "Institutions that uncritically accept these claims of crisis or stagnation become receptive to management innovations" (p. 144). In response, "Institutions may adopt new management techniques to satisfy critics and symbolize their intention to reform" (p. 145). Birnbaum quotes the work of Eccles and Nohria (1992) who state "The quest for new organizational practices for new words, new structures, new designs, new systems, and new strategies-has become a rather frenzied pursuit" (p. 4). Calls for restructuring also come from external groups that are directly involved in higher education. The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) promoted a form of restructuring called “rightsizing” in an article which appeared in "Business Officer." Numerous articles have appeared in this publication including “An Organizational Model of the 21st Century: Adopting the Corporate Model for Higher Education” written by Bruegman (1995). NACUBO also supports publications focused on restructuring including "Practical Approaches to Rightsizing", "Organizational Paradigm Shifts," "Managing a Comprehensive Change Effort." Other publications are available from the NACUBO Store (NACUBO, 2005).
49
A group called the Alliance for Higher Education was formed to help colleges improve in the following areas: retention and graduation rates, job placement, citizenship, and international awareness (Lively, 1992). Members of the group included the director of the Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research, the executive vice-president of the McKnight Foundation, the executive director of the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), and the student body president of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. James Mingle, former executive director of SHEEO, stated “It seems unrealistic that, while the rest of the American economy and institutions go through fundamental restructuring, higher education is immune” (Lively, 1992, p. A12). Restructuring efforts also take place in state higher education governance systems. Marcus (1997) analyzed restructuring in state-level higher education governance initiatives that took place from 1989 to 1994. In this study, Marcus found that 49 proposals had been submitted in 29 states. Governors, legislators, and state higher education entities were the most frequent source of restructuring proposals. Table 2.5. Proposals for State-Level Higher Education Restructuring, 1989-1994 Source of Proposal Governor Legislature State-level higher education entity Multiple & other Total From Marcus (1997) Number of Proposals 9 25 10 5 49 Percentage of All Proposals 18 % 51 % 20 % 10 % 100 %
50
In addition, Marcus (1997) found that the source or originator of the proposal was positively correlated with enactment. Eighty percent of the restructuring proposals developed by state-level boards were enacted (Marcus, 1997). A study by the North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research examined efforts to reorganize governance patterns in public higher education. According to Selingo (2000) the report found "…that after two decades of little activity, the 1990's marked a ‘second wave’ of changes in higher education governance structures. In the last decade, 11 states have overhauled how they oversee higher education and four others are considering changes..." (para. 2). These efforts, initiated by state lawmakers, are taking place as demands for accountability increase and plan for a surge in enrollment (Selingo, 2000). In Minnesota, the legislature passed a bill that merged technical colleges, community colleges and state universities (Titus, 1998). The 1991 legislation, backed by Senator Roger Moe, did not specify general goals or articulate intentions, but was included in the higher education appropriations bill (Titus, 1998). While elected officials may be a source of restructuring efforts, they are not the only source. In Oregon, a 1990 taxpayer initiative caused a review process that resulted in a nearly 25 percent reduction in state support to public higher education. Oregon used a review process “modeled after similar reorganization efforts in large corporations" to restructure (Education Commission of the States, 1996, p. 2). More recently, changes in some of the accreditation standards or requirements are resulting in a renewed focus on student learning. A number of the regional accrediting bodies have enhanced their focus on assessment and outcomes. The Middle States
51
Commission on Higher Education included a standard on assessing student learning in 2002 (Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002). The Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools established a core requirement focusing on quality enhancement and student learning. Instituted in 2004, this standard “…requires an institution to develop an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) and show that the plan is part of an ongoing planning and evaluation process. Engaging the wider academic community, the QEP is based upon a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the learning environment for supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution.” (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2004). New standards or core requirements, such as those initiated by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education or the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, are placing additional pressures on institutions to examine their current administrative structures and practices as they relate to student learning. Internal Sources The impetus to restructure can come from internal sources including Trustees, Presidents, and Vice Presidents such as the Vice President for Business and Finance, or the Vice President for Student Affairs (Birnbaum, 2000; Carlson, 2000). Birnbaum (2000) contends that one state may imitate the efforts of other states to resolve similar issues. Presidents or Trustees may become aware of the management efforts of other institutions, giving rise to another level of imitation at the institutional level. Birnbaum notes "…similar institutions might tend to adopt similar fads, both because they might be
52
facing similar performance gaps and because they are more likely to be influenced by institutions like themselves" (p. 153). Birnbaum (2000) studied the sources and modes of transfer of management innovations. According to Birnbaum a major vector for the transmission of corporate practices in higher education may involve individuals who serve on both academic and non-academic boards. These "boundary spanning" individuals, often internal actors such as board members or trustees, bring business or governmental management practices into higher education. Trustees also serve as vectors to transfer business practices into higher education. In writing about current trends in higher education, Kennedy (1995) stated "One perfectly understandable response is a tendency to imitate what appears to be popular and successful in other domains. Since this is the decade of privatization and productivity, we should not be surprised that one of the new directions being taken entails the adoption of corporate norms" (p. 12). Kennedy contends that "The corporate values that academic institutions are being urged to adopt - frequently by trustees who come about them quite naturally - often fit uncomfortably into the university environment" (p. 12). The role internal actors play in initiating restructuring efforts in student affairs is outlined in a study done by Carlson (2003). In a study of 607 participating student affairs divisions, Carlson (2003) found that 30 percent of the efforts came from a "Suggestion provided/solicited from within the institution," while 19 percent reported that the need for restructuring was determined by a "Decision maker reached a decision independently without external input" (p. 80).
53
Carlson (2003) found that college presidents were the most likely source of restructuring efforts (35%), followed by the senior student affairs officer (17%). The President and the SSAO collaborated to initiate restructuring in four percent of the responses, the Boards of Trustees accounted for only one percent (Carlson, 2003).
Table 2.6. Institutional Management Level That Decided to Implement Restructuring
President Senior Student Affairs Officer President and SSAO Board of Governors/Trustees Other Source: Carlson (2003) Carlson (2003) found that:
35% 17% 4% 1% 8%
Contrary to the impression of some student affairs professionals, the determination of the need for change, whether restructuring, budget, or personnel, came not from an outside consultant, or from a college president or chancellor acting on their own counsel, but rather, by an almost two to one margin, from a suggestion from within the institution. (p. 92) Rationale to Restructure External and internal actors often use a number of rationales to support claims that restructuring is necessary. Difficult economic times, calls for increased accountability, political intrusion, efforts to improve efficiency or effectiveness, the need to take advantage of technology to streamline processes are often used to justify restructuring. Such rationales generally fall into to five broad categories: economic, political, ideological, technological, and human resource.
54
Economic – fiscal constraint. Economic or fiscal constraint is one of the most common rationales used to restructure. In discussing why a number of states initiated restructuring efforts in the mid-1990’s, Lenth (1996) identified changes in financial support, rising costs and shifting educational needs as factors requiring leaders to change how they think about and manage institutions of higher learning. In introducing her call for institutional restructuring, Lovett (1996) points to public scrutiny and shrinking state and federal budgets as a basis for fundamental changes in higher education. In studying why restructuring was initiated in state-level higher education systems, Marcus (1997) identified six rationales used to justify restructuring. Of those identified, Marcus found that the desire to reduce or contain costs was the most frequently cited. Of 49 proposals initiated from 1989-1994, 55 percent focused on cost containment. Marcus notes that about half of the proposals "...specifically sought to reduce program duplication across the state" (p. 407). In examining federal, state and local revenues to higher education, Eaton (1995) found that “...higher education is receiving less public money than it has in the past and, when increase in funding are available, those increases are smaller than in past years” (p. 6). According to Breneman (1993) higher education’s share of state appropriations has steadily declined since 1968 creating what Breneman called the “new austerity” (p. 6). In 1992, Jaschik stated that “State appropriations for higher education this year are about one percent less than they were two years ago-probably the first two-year drop in the country’s history” (p. A21). Jaschik quotes Edward Hines, Director of a study, who said “...that the bleak state budget picture has lead to the beginning of a fundamental
55
reshaping of higher education” with State lawmakers and educators deliberating how best to reallocate existing funds, eliminate programs, and redefine workable missions for colleges. Seventeen states lowered state appropriations to public colleges and universities. Taking inflation into account “…36 states are providing less money than they did two years ago” (Jaschik, 1992, p. A21). In 1997, state appropriations to higher education increased by six percent, the highest rate since 1990 (Schmidt, 1997). Hebel and Selingo (2001) reported that the decade of generous state budgets for public colleges was over with 20 states cutting budgets between one percent and five percent. In 2002, spending on higher education grew by the smallest rate in five years (Schmidt, 2002). Spending on higher education declined 2.1 percent in 2003 but rebounded by 3.8 percent in 2004 (Hebel, 2004). Table 2.7. State and Local Appropriations as a Percentage of Operating Costs
S ta te a n d L o c a l Ap p ro p ria tio n s a s a P e rc e n ta g e o f O p e ra tin g C o s ts
60 55 Percentage 50 45 40 35 30
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 96
Y ear
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2003)
56
In the early 1990's dramatic cuts in state appropriations to public higher education resulted in severe financial pressures (El-Khawas, 1994). Several years of cuts to state appropriations, combined with mid-year reductions, diminished core operating support. El-Khawas (1994) identified four primary strategies to respond to financial constraints: expenditure control, identification of new sources of revenue, reorganization, and selective decisions about academic programs. El-Khawas noted that 77 percent of research universities in the study reported reorganizing administrative units, the highest of any type of institution. Sixty-seven percent of the research universities reported reorganizing student services. As noted earlier, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that the percentage of chief student affairs officers at research institutions reporting structural changes, decreases in their budgets, and merged or consolidated functions was higher than in other institutional types. Mielke and Schuh (1995) point out that inflation, unfunded federal mandates and shifts in state funds all contribute to financial strain. "In this environment, with resources in short supply and decision making challenging, the student affairs officers could be faced with having to reduce costs, restructure units, or reassigning staff” (p. 75). Political. Authors have articulated a number of reasons why external and internal actors initiate restructuring efforts including attempts to enhance centralization, improve coordination, exercise power and control, or appear to deal with an issue without taking action. In discussing the rationale for politicians to make changes in higher education, Heydinger (1997) notes that "...all evidence indicates that such ‘levers for change’ will
57
look increasingly attractive to state legislatures, particularly if they perceive institutions as being unresponsive to the ‘real’ higher education needs of their state" (p. 115). In discussing restructuring efforts in the State of Maryland, Berdahl and Schmidtlein (1996) note that the governor “...placed higher education at the top of his legislative agenda, proposing a major restructuring of the states higher education system to provide greater operating efficiency and fiscal and academic accountability” (p. 157). In examining statewide restructuring efforts in Maryland, Berdahl and Schmidtlein (1996) point out that the multi-layered higher education system was perceived differently by various leaders. While the Board of Regents presented information to support increased State support, the State had a slightly different view. In describing the view of the State, Berdahl and Schmidtlein state “From the State point of view, in contrast, the reform concerns were less about finances and more about issues of efficiency, duplication of programs, quality and excellence and accountability” (p. 163). In studying restructuring and redesign in the corporate world, Nadler and Tushman (1997) state that some managers initiate such efforts because "…it offers managers - particularly those just starting out in a new position - a clear opportunity to put their personal stamp on an operation" (p. 11). Marcus (1997) found that 22 percent of the restructuring proposals studied between 1989 and 1994 "...sought to increase the authority of the governor and/or legislature over higher education" (p. 408). Of those proposals, 64 percent were enacted. Further, Marcus found that "Power struggles between institutions and the state board and other governmental entities were involved in 18 percent of the proposals, 56 percent of which were enacted" (p. 408).
58
Marcus cautions higher education leaders to resolve power struggles before elected officials get involved. In his study, Marcus (1997) found that …the correlation between the existence of a power struggle and the effort to increase the role of the governor and legislature in higher education apparently confirms the observation that if the institutions and the state-level board are battling each other or if the state-level board is not able to mediate power struggles occurring among institutions, then elected officials may seek to restore order by taking a strong hand themselves. (p. 410) Marcus (1997) concludes by stating power struggles between institutions or institutions and the state-level board may result in "...a narrowing of the arm's-length distance between elected officials and higher education" (p. 410). Centralization. In providing a historical overview of state-level higher education trends, Marcus (1997) characterized the 1970's as a period of increased centralization. In the 1980's, a focus on quality and accountability coincided with major studies of effectiveness in 27 states, 14 of which implemented reforms. According to Marcus (1997), 12 of those 14 states were moving "…in the direction of centralization" (p. 402). While acknowledging that the relationship between state-level boards, institutional governing boards and their member campuses is dynamic, Marcus (1997) notes that in the first half of the 1990's, three states "…adopted both consolidation and deregulation aspects, increasing institutional autonomy and, simultaneously, concentrating more authority in the governor's office” (p. 402). Novak (1996) notes that "The impetus toward centralization of state governance structures continues. It is based on the belief that efficiency and productivity are best achieved through centralized operations and decision making or that more, rather than
59
less, scrutiny is called for during times of declining resources" (p. 35). Novak (1996) cites examples of centralization efforts in the states of Maryland, Minnesota, Texas, and Nebraska to support his claim. Coordination. The role that state-level boards, institutional boards and institutional leaders play in the management of higher education is dynamic. Berdahl (1971) described and analyzed the basis for the structures and underpinnings of state-wide governing bodies. Marcus (1997) traced the shifts between centralization and decentralization efforts. Coordination is often associated with centralization efforts, while autonomy is often associated with decentralization efforts. Marcus found that of the 49 restructuring proposals he studied, 45 percent sought to improve coordination. An equal number sought to enhance institutional autonomy. In Maryland, there was some concern that having 13 public institutions governed by four different and competing governing boards did not “…provide effective coordination” (Berdahl & Schmidtlein, 1996, p. 163). A commission examining higher education recommended the creation of a governing board “with teeth” (p. 165). That recommendation, in combination with an action-oriented governor provided the momentum to make major changes in how higher education was governed in Maryland (Berdahl & Schmidtlein, 1996). In studying the restructuring of three separate systems in Minnesota, Titus (1998) found that increased coordination was a priority of the state legislature. The enacting legislation to restructure specifically stated that coordinated degree programs and coordinated financial aid were part of the mission of the Higher Education Board.
60
Accountability. Elected officials and campus leaders often seek to improve institutional productivity. Marcus (1997) found that the desire to increase accountability was the second most frequent rationale given to support restructuring higher education at the state-level. Twenty-five of 49 restructuring proposals identified by Marcus (1997) focused on increasing accountability. Further, 15 of those 25 proposals sought to increase productivity. Marcus found that restructuring proposals focused on improving accountability had the highest success rate of all proposals (68 %). Efforts to determine the underlying issues in those proposals seeking to improve accountability provided some interesting results. According to Marcus, (1997) nestled in the issue of accountability were efforts to improve institutional outcomes, which appeared in nine of the 49 proposals, and public dissatisfaction with higher education, which appeared in six of the 49 proposals. The study of restructuring efforts in the state of Minnesota, Titus (1998) notes that accountability was one of the underlying forces in the strategic plan. Citing the 1996 Legislative Agenda, Titus states that the restructuring framework “…was predicated on an accountability model…” (p. 118). According to Titus, “The three primary objectives of the accountability model are: (1) focus on results; (2) provide managers and leaders with appropriate authority and responsibility; (3) hold those individual accountable through routine, strong, and effective evaluation” (p. 118). Ideological. Authors have articulated a number of reasons why external and internal actors initiate restructuring efforts. One underlying tension involves the philosophical view of
61
higher education. Is higher education a social institution that is shaping or molding the next generation of citizens or an expense that must be managed using a free-market approach? In discussing the role of higher education, Boyer (1997) states that "Historically, higher learning in this country was viewed as a public good" (p.76). The role of the early colleges was to "...prepare civic leaders for the country" (p. 76). "Not that long ago, it was generally assumed that higher education was an investment in the future of the nation - that the intellect of the nation was something too valuable to lose, and we needed to invest in the future through the knowledge industry” (p. 85). Boyer contends that more recently that view has changed stating: "…increasingly today, as I listen to the politicians and the public policy people, even the press, the work of higher learning in this country is being viewed as a private benefit and not as a public good…" (p. 76). According to Boyer, current leaders have lost the vision for higher education. "Student tuition continues to rise as an alarming rate, with virtually no public policy debate or vision about the mission of public learning, no sense that to invest in young people is to invest in the future of the world" (p. 76). In extolling the virtues of the modern multiversity, Kerr (1963) stated that higher education "…has few peers in the preservation and dissemination of the external truths; no living peers in the search for new knowledge; and no peers in all history among institutions of higher learning in serving so many of the segments of an advancing civilization" (p. 45). Peterson et al. (1997) cite the work of Kerr (1987) who observed that there has been revolutionary change rather than evolutionary change in the environment resulting in a "new age" for colleges and universities.
62
The challenges facing institutions require a new paradigm for how we think about postsecondary education. Our institutions are beginning to exist in a fundamentally changed context, from a loose system of postsecondary institutions to one that might be better described as a postsecondary knowledge industry. (p. xix) Balderston (1997) points out that financial stringency and conflicting demands have resulted in "serious new stresses" for universities (p. xi). According to Balderston, "In the past, these institutions were capable of growing in many directions without having to assess mission or scope and without being specifically accountable, financially or otherwise, to funding agencies, the tax-paying public, faculty of students" (p. xi). Even though universities graduate large numbers of students, conduct research, and provide service, "…the task of justifying the continued investment in higher education is formidable" (p. xi). In an effort to balance multiple funding pressures, elected officials have increasingly shifted the burden of funding higher education from the state to students. The increased reliance on students to shoulder an increased portion of higher education is evidenced by the increased cost of attendance. Peterson and Dill (1997) note that higher education is changing to a postsecondary knowledge industry and trace a number of factors affecting higher education. The higher education amendments of 1972 transferred federal student aid from the institution to individuals and broadened the number of institutions able to accept students with federal financial aid. This shift in aid to the student and the increased number of institutions able to accept these students "…redefined the competitive relationship and nature of the industry" (p. 6). The marketoriented environment developed in the 1970's created a competitive environment that has continued.
63
In discussing the state support for public higher education, Dill (1997) cites the work of Slaughter and Leslie (1997) who found state governments cutting per student aid as a result of rising expenditures and voter revolt over taxes. To make up for lost state support, colleges and universities are raising tuition and fees. Citing research done by the College Board, Hoover (2004) notes that the cost to attend a four-year public college rose 14% in 2003 and an additional 10% in 2004. In decrying diminished state support, Katharine Lyall, president emeritus of the University of Wisconsin, states: "...we have to ask what it means to be a public institution." Further, "America is rapidly privatizing its public colleges and universities, whose mission used to be to serve the public good" (Dillon, 2005, p. 1). Technological. The literature on the role technology has played on manufacturing is extensive. Technological advances in machinery has affected nearly every segment of industry ranging from the automobile industry (Cameron, 1987) to food production (Burke and Nelson, 1997). In a 1999 study conducted by the American Management Association, Marks (1994) identified new technologies as one of the major reasons businesses restructure and downsize. Hammer and Champy (1993) contend that technological advances allow leaders to critically examine work processes. Since many work processes were designed using paper as the primary medium, electronic processes create opportunities to radically redesign how work is done. According to Fink (1997) the importance of the physical location of campuses and the facilities that comprise them is decreasing. Advances in computer-based technologies are presenting students with distance learning opportunities, removing the need to come
64
to campus to attend classes. Students can register for classes, pay their tuition, order books, research books in the library, attend classes and submit homework without ever stepping foot on campus. Human resources reasons. One restructuring strategy that often involves the entire organization is known as “Workforce Reduction.” This approach, which focuses on reducing personnel costs, is often applied throughout the organization. In a workforce reduction effort, executives are told to reduce their workforce by predetermined reduction targets, often using an acrossthe-board approach. In referring to workforce reduction strategies used in his study of 30 organizations, Cameron (1994) found that “They were almost always implemented across the board since the objective was to reduce headcount quickly" (p. 194). Cameron (1994) notes "...quick hit, across-the-board cuts get attention…" [but such] ‘grenade-type’ strategies utilize a non-prioritized method regarding personnel loss" (p. 194). In addition, workforce reduction efforts often create problems since the same amount of work must be carried out with fewer employees, which may increase employee burnout. In referring to workforce reduction strategies (Cameron, 1994) states "...when implemented in the absence of other strategies, ‘grenade-type’ approaches were rarely positive and were generally negative in their consequences" (p. 197). A second approach, called “Systemic Strategies,” is a downsizing approach that focuses "...on changing the organization's culture and the attitudes and values of employees, not just changing the size of the workforce or the work." (Cameron, 1994, pp. 198-199). Further, Cameron states this form of "Downsizing is also equated with simplification of all aspects of the organization - the entire system - including suppliers,
65
inventories, design processes, production methods, customer relations, marketing and sales support, and so on" (p. 199). In this form of downsizing, employees are critical components in the change process. According to Cameron "Instead of being the first for elimination, employees are defined as resources to help generate and implement downsizing ideas" (p. 199). In his study of 30 organizations over a four-year period, a third of the organizations implemented Systemic Strategies as part of downsizing efforts. Cameron (1994) identifies worker attrition as a powerful Workforce Reduction strategy. This across-the-board reduction approach involves hiring freezes that inhibit replacing employees who leave the organization. Cameron states that this approach deprives organizations of "crucial skills and human resources" (p. 202). Cameron cites a survey by Ernst and Young that involved 548 downsized firms which found that "...87 percent of those companies had difficulty keeping star performers…" (p. 202). Anecdotal information suggests that organizations may restructure in an effort to remove or work around employees that are difficult to work with, are not productive or not politically aligned with current leadership. While this type of activity may be taking place, empirical evidence on this approach is lacking in the literature. Functions in an organization. Restructuring or downsizing activities can be focused on redesigning the work done within the organization. Work redesign is a strategy that focuses change on work processes and organizational arrangements (Cameron, 1994). Work redesign seeks to reduce work by redesigning tasks, merging or consolidating units, eliminating functions, hierarchical levels, groups, divisions, or products or reducing hours (Cameron, 1994). This approach is considered a medium-term strategy that may "...require(s) some
66
advanced analysis of the areas that should be consolidated or redesigned, followed by an elimination or a repositioning of sub-units within the organization to reduce required tasks" (p. 198). Cameron states that downsized organizations that utilize this approach "...can achieve a greater degree of efficiency because of its simplified structure" (p. 198). In a study of 30 organizations, Cameron (1994) found that half of them "...implemented a redesign strategy as least once in the study" (p. 198). Area and Scope of Restructuring Restructuring efforts may involve the entire organization, a division within the organization, or functions within the organization. Extent of the restructuring effort. Chavez (1998) analyzed the types of strategies student affairs leaders utilized in restructuring. With an overarching goal of maintaining maximum service to students, Chavez found the following results of restructuring efforts: 1) Flattening of the structure through the elimination of administrative layers; 2) consolidation or merging of similar student life areas; 3) a trend toward combining health and counseling/psychological services; 4) the creation of centralized student service areas that combine a number of informational and payment services; 5) changes based on philosophical beliefs about organizations; 6) a widespread increase in collaborating with faculty to provide more integrated learning experiences for students and/or to share resources for new or continued initiatives; and 7) restructuring based on opportunities that arise. (p. 96) Chavez (1998) notes that the elimination of administrative layers is one restructuring outcome. In quoting respondents from her study, Chavez provides the following examples: “I had an Associate VP and Dean of Students retire and I made the
67
decision to flatten the organization in order to look at redirecting money to enhance our career center” (p. 97). Chavez quotes another who stated “There were some positions that were eliminated, while not having merged departments, we now have some areas in which a single director is directing two different departments, minimizing high level administrative leadership” (p. 97). Merging and consolidating student affairs areas with a similar function is another restructuring strategy for senior student affairs officers (Chavez, 1998). In response to budget reductions or in an effort to increase efficiency, some SSAO’s merged offices. One SSAO responding to a $1.2 million cut stated “….we had to go right into it and so that led to sort of looking at where we want to be and how we could be more efficient and were there redundancies across the division. And it led to really streamlining the division from six major units into three” (p. 98). In addition, Chavez found that SSAO’s reported merging student health centers and counseling centers to achieve economies of scale and to utilize the funding stream generated by the student health center fee to offset costs. As noted earlier, Carlson (2003) found that 61 percent of the student affairs divisions had restructured between 1996 and 1999. The study reported indicated specific functional areas affected by restructuring and whether the functional area was transferred to student affairs, eliminated, combined with another area, or transferred within the University. Table 2.8 lists the percentage of respondents indicating if the functional area had been restructured and what action had taken place.
68
Table 2.8. Percentage of Student Affairs Areas Affected by Restructuring Functional Area Financial Aid Counseling Career Planning Athletics Health Services Registrar Dean of Students Campus Security Food Service Student Activities Student Unions Housing/Res. Life Admissions Book Store Greek Life Alumni Services From Carlson (2003) As noted in the above chart, financial aid was the functional area most frequently affected by restructuring. Financial aid was most often transferred to another division (academic affairs) or combined with another office (admissions). The counseling function was the second most frequently affected area with the highest percentage of those affected Affected and Added 19.1 14.5 13.7 13 10.4 9.7 9.7 9.6 8.2 6.8 5.9 5.9 4.7 4.3 3 2.8 2.6 2 2 4.1 1.6 1.3 3.3 2 2.8 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.8 Eliminated Combined 1.8 3.8 2.1 0.5 3 0.7 3.3 0.5 0.5 2.1 0.7 1.6 2.3 0 0.7 0.3 4.3 4.6 5.6 2.1 2.1 3 1.3 2.1 2.1 2 1.7 0.8 4 1.5 0.5 0.5 Transferred 8.9 4 3.8 5.9 3.1 4.8 1.8 4.8 2.8 1.3 2.1 2.1 6.6 1.6 0.8 1.2
69
combining counseling with student health services. On nearly five percent of the campuses, the counseling function was transferred; on nearly four percent, it was eliminated. Career planning was most often combined with enrollment management/admissions or transferred to academic affairs. Admissions was most frequently combined with enrollment services or transferred to academic affairs. Athletics was added to student affairs on 4.1 percent of the campuses, and transferred to the president's office or administrative services (5.9 percent). Restructuring also affected additional areas not discussed above but captured under the heading of "Other." This included the areas of multicultural affairs, community service, students with disabilities, and recreation and sports. Processes Employed to Undertake Restructuring A number of processes are utilized to initiate restructuring efforts. The principal processes by which restructuring efforts are implemented fall into two categories: bureaucratic or top-down directives which may come from the president or board of directors; and collegial or participatory processes that involve employees and other stakeholders. Bureaucratic – top-down approaches. In order to implement change, directives often have to come from those in authority. Nadler and Tushman (1997) state that “Managing major change in an
organization is always difficult. Implementing a redesign is particularly risky; more reorganizations fail because of poor implementation than because of faulty design” (p. 184). Further, Nadler and Tushman note that "All too often, managers develop a new design behind closed doors, either alone or with the assistance of one or two trusted
70
consultants or trusted advisors, and then present their executive teams and the organization with a complete, finalized package" (p. 188). One example of top-down restructuring efforts involves the identification of targets or goals and the across-the-board adjustments that are necessary to achieve those goals. According to Cameron (1994), Workforce Reduction strategies which focus on eliminating headcount or reducing the number of employees, are "...usually executed immediately via top-down directives. They were almost always implemented across-theboard since the objective was to reduce headcount quickly" (p. 197). Cameron characterizes such efforts as "grenade-type" downsizing which includes reductions via attrition, layoffs, and outsourcing. In a study of state-level restructuring, MacTaggart (1996) provides examples of bureaucratic processes that initiated restructuring. In 1991, the legislature in Minnesota passed a bill, later signed by the governor to restructure higher education in that state. The legislation joined the community colleges, technical colleges, and state universities, forming the Minnesota State College and Universities. In a criticism of higher education leaders and elected officials (Lenth, 1996) states “Even when post-secondary institutional leaders and state-level policy makers agree that restructuring is necessary, they have limited practical experience with proven policy and procedural frameworks that generate success” (p. v). In summarizing the organizational effects of downsizing Cameron (1994) states that "…the most commonly implemented form of downsizing - across-the-board, grenade-type- approaches is associated with organizational dysfunction" (p. 206). Further, Cameron states, “Typical top-down approaches, which typically assume, albeit
71
implicitly, that human resources are really human liabilities, are simply not effective” (p. 211). As noted earlier the management level that most often decided to restructure student affairs was the campus president, who initiated 35 percent of all efforts. The senior student affairs officer initiated 17 percent of all student affairs restructuring efforts. The president and the SSAO collaborated to initiate restructuring in four percent of the responses. Boards of Trustees accounted for only one percent of the restructuring efforts (Carlson, 2003). Participatory restructuring. Horn & Jerome (1996) state “While in some cases the decision to restructure was a command decision from above, the successful process involved workers at all levels taking an active role in changing their work environment into something much like the traditional academic model” (p. 36). To effectively reshape an organization, Nadler and Tushman (1997) offer a series of suggestions to managers contemplating restructuring. The first suggestion involves building a critical mass of support in key power groups. In discussing the steps to build a critical mass, Nadler and Tushman state the following “The first – and, by far, the most crucial – is participation. The single most common flaw we see in failed change efforts is an absence of appropriate participation by people who are expected to become major stakeholders in the future state” (p. 188). Nadler and Tushman continue: “The predictable responses are skepticism, resentment, and resistance” (p. 188). Cameron (1994) studied the factors that were predictive of organizational effectiveness in firms that have downsized. Efforts to change the organization's culture
72
and attitude, known as Systemic Strategies, increased communication and participation, increased employee effort, and gradual, incremental implementation were found to be significant predictors of organizational effectiveness. In discussing the effectiveness of downsizing strategies, Cameron (1994) states that "...gradual, incremental implementation of downsizing and conducting a systematic analysis in advance of downsizing are significant predictors of organizational effectiveness" (p. 203). Further, Involving employees through participation and increasing communication were also important factors in the effectiveness analyses, as was having an established set of downsizing goals and targets independent of outside mandate or encroachment. Rather than merely reacting to a mandate from a parent company to cut headcount, for example, effective firms used the mandate as an opportunity to accomplish other more laudable goals. (pp. 203-204) Cameron states: "Taken together, a picture emerges of effective downsizing firms being characterized by planning, up-front investment in analysis, participation, and information exchange" (p. 204). In summarizing the factors that affect organizational effectiveness, Cameron states that organizations that downsize tend to be more effective when "...they implement planned, systematic downsizing, where participation and involvement of employees is prevalent, and where the firm has an advanced and improving quality culture. Ineffectiveness is associated with stagnant quality and downsizing that relies mainly on workforce reduction strategies" (p. 204). Use of committees. In studying restructuring and redesign efforts in the corporate world, Nadler and Tushman (1997) cite the approach taken at Corning Incorporated, which restructured in the mid-1980's as an example of a successful committee approach. To instill dramatic and lasting change at Corning, the chairman of the board added a series of committees to
73
focus on policy and management. In addition to an inner circle of eight senior managers, Corning added a committee comprised of 30 executives that met four to five times per year. A third concentric circle, which included 130 of the top managers in the company, was formed to complete an approach that focused on inclusive leadership (Nadler and Tushman, 1997). In outlining the administrative restructuring process used on the institutional level Madson (1995), notes that while the directive to restructure came from the campus president, "The project approach assumed an open, flexible, progressive style of looking at management, not just tinkering with the existing bureaucratic line structure" (p. 94). The president held meetings with key stakeholders including the faculty to gain input and support to restructure the administration. This process was followed by the formation of a 16 member Administrative Restructuring Transition Team (ARTT). The ARTT broadly involved the campus community, dividing into eight pairs to talk to every staff member to discuss restructuring goals and outline options for each functional area (Madson, 1995). The initial outcome of this effort was an identification of structural, performance and technological problems that resulted in the changes in reporting relationships and enhanced training for staff. The institution continued to examine administrative restructuring options as the ARTT continued it's work (Madson, 1995). Carlson (2003) is one of the few researchers who provides an overview of the processes utilized in restructuring student affairs. In comparing restructuring and reorganization efforts in business and student affairs, Carlson (2003) found that one technique, such as benchmarking, reengineering or TQM, was usually found to dominate in the business literature. In studying restructuring in student affairs, Carlson found that
74
no one technique was dominant "Rather, a variety of techniques are ‘mixed and matched’ to fit the situation” (p. 98). Citing Ewell (1999), Carlson contends that this is consistent with academes lack of trust in a "one size fits all" approach. According to Carlson (2003), of those who restructured, 25 percent used reengineering, 20 percent used employee empowerment, 18 percent used a horizontal management shift, 17 percent used Total Quality Management, eight percent decentralized support functions, seven percent outsourced, and 15 percent used other methods including the combination of departments for efficiency, directive from upper management. Implications for the Design of the Study A number of researchers have described the processes utilized to implement restructuring. Bureaucratic approaches are closely linked with across-the-board cuts and workforce reduction strategies. While the decision to restructure may come from the top, participatory approaches may be more compatible with the traditional academic model. A limited number of formal techniques were used in restructuring student affairs divisions including reengineering and total quality management. Carlson (2003) found that employee empowerment and horizontal management shift were two additional approaches that were also used. It is unclear if there is any consistency in the implementation or application of these approaches. Given the potential variation in implementing restructuring, attention must be given to identify which approach was utilized and clarify the processes used to implement restructuring.
75
The Results of Restructuring The business literature regarding the results of restructuring, and similar efforts, is fairly extensive. Research examining the results of restructuring efforts on student affairs divisions is far less comprehensive. Empirical data on the results of restructuring in student affairs is limited. The results of restructuring fall into two general categories: intended and unintended. For the purposes of the section, improvement will be considered the intended outcome while dysfunction and instability will be considered unintended outcomes. Intended Results Restructuring can have a number of intended outcomes often associated with outcomes. The following section will address intended outcomes in business, government, higher education, and student affairs. Results of restructuring in business. One of the intended outcomes of restructuring efforts in the corporate world involves attempts to reduce costs and increase productivity, often by reducing the number of employees. Cameron (1994) noted that "Unfortunately, whereas most companies have implemented some form of downsizing in the past half decade or so, very few systematic or predictive studies have been conducted on effective strategies of downsizing or its effects" (p. 191). Most of the results of restructuring seem to be measured in the number of jobs lost. The National Organization for Downsized Employees (NODE) estimates that nearly 3 million workers were downsized between 1991 and 1995. NODE estimates that
76
another 580,000 workers were downsized and additional 615,000 workers were downsized in 1997 (National Organization of Downsized Employees, 2005). Citing the work of Cameron, Freeman and Mishra (1991), Cummings and Worley (1997) state that more than 85 percent of the Fortune 1000 companies reduced whitecollar workers between 1987 and 1991. Further, Byrne (1994) provides an abbreviated list of companies that have restructured through downsizing including IBM, General Motors, GTE, AT&T, and Kodak. According to Byrne (1994) as cited in Cummings and Worley (1997), there are a number of examples where restructuring has had positive outcomes. Florida Power and Light, General Electric, Motorola, Texas Instruments, Boeing, Chrysler, and HewlettPackard are identified as companies that have restructured successfully. A number of studies have been completed to understand the results of restructuring activities in the corporate world. Cascio (2002) has studied restructuring and downsizing in the corporate sector since the early 1990's. Citing surveys done by the American Management Society and the Society for Human Resource Management, Cascio states that after downsizing, companies witnessed profit increases about a third of the time and profit deceases about a third of the time. After downsizing, profits remained unchanged about a third of the time. One of the goals of many restructuring efforts was to improve operational performance. In one of the few studies on how corporate restructuring efforts affect performance, Atiase, Platt and Tse (2004) examined how restructuring affected earnings. Noting that "Companies' disclosures about restructuring charges frequently include forward-looking statements from management about expected improvements in
77
profitability from restructuring actions" (p. 496). Atiase et al. (2004) studied the return on equity, operating income, and cash flow in over 275 restructured firms and found firms that restructured improved earnings and operating income when compared to a control group. In summarizing their research, Atiase et al. state "Our results suggest that, in general, restructuring efforts are prompted by poor performance, and that, on average, restructuring charges are associated with performance improvements" (p. 518). Further, Atiase et al. state "However, the positive association between restructuring charges and earnings appears to be largely driven by firms reporting multiple restructuring events and by firms reporting losses in the restructuring year” (p. 518). Finally, "Thus, our results suggest that large restructuring efforts in the face of fundamental operational problems are most likely to increase future performance" (p. 518). In providing an overview of restructuring efforts in the corporate world, Hamel and Prahalad (2004) contend that the positive potential productivity benefits of restructuring may be temporary. Hamel and Prahalad state "…restructuring seldom results in fundamental business improvements. At best, it buys time. One study of 16 large U.S. companies with at least three years of restructuring experience found that while restructuring usually did raise a company's share price, such improvement was almost always temporary" (p. 4). Further, these authors state "Three years into restructuring, the share prices of the companies surveyed were, on average, lagging even further behind index growth rates than they had been when the restructuring effort began” (p. 4).
78
Results of restructuring in government. As noted earlier, the government has initiated a number of restructuring efforts. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 is one of the most recent reform efforts passed by Congress. Federal agencies, often under the direction of a legislative committee or the support of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or the General Accounting Office (GAO), restructure to reduce costs or improve services. In 1997 testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, John Koskinen, Deputy Director of the OMB reported that the government had downsized by 300,000 employees. Some government services were outsourced through an open competition process. In reviewing the results of allowing competition for government services, Koskinen (1997) states "Over the years, this has translated into billions of dollars of annual savings…" (p. 4). Agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy have participated in a workforce planning effort that focused on "...getting the right number of people with the right skills, experiences, and competencies in the right job at the right time" (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). Goldenkoff (1997) found that the downsizing targets outlined in the Workforce Reduction Act were being exceeded. Goldenkoff states "At the end of fiscal 1996, federal employment stood at 1.94 million, nearly 63,000 below target" (p. 2). Further he states "Since 1993, the workforce has been reduced by 11 percent…" (p. 2). Lastly, Goldenkoff identifies the Agencies which made the largest percentage reductions in staff:
79
Office of Personnel Management General Services Administration Defense Department NASA Agriculture Department -
38 percent 23 percent 16 percent 15 percent 13 percent
According to Walker (2003), the Government Accounting Office (GAO) was restructured, "…going from 35 teams to 13 teams, eliminating an extra organizational layer, and reducing the number of field offices from 16 - 11" (p. 17). The transformation of the GAO "...has helped the Congress and government leaders achieve $37.7 billion in financial benefits" (p. 19). Further, Walker reports significant improvement in client feedback and the results for several key performance indicators nearly doubling over a four-year time frame. Results of restructuring in higher education. Restructuring efforts have the potential to affect both processes and the people who perform them. While noting that restructuring has taken place on campuses across the country, Horn and Jerome state it is often “…viewed as a virtual panacea for all problems – real and imaginary – confronting colleges and universities” (p. 34). Further, Horn and Jerome (1996) state: “What has escaped much of the restructuring debates on campuses is an awareness of the origins or organizational restructuring and the impact certain types of restructuring have had on corporate America-and how this impact will affect higher education...” (p. 34). Haas (1997) contends that: Just as in industry, restructuring in higher education represents a mixed bag of efforts and results. For some, restructuring has been a buzzword that has merely replaced the worn-out buzzwords "reorganization" and "retrenchment." (p. 276)
80
Haas (1997) states “…it could be argued that institutions undergoing so-called restructuring in the absence of a concomitant plan that transforms the conceptualization of their products and/or markets may simply be rearranging the pieces (reorganizing, changing job assignments, or eliminating personnel) without an enduring imperative induced by genuine conceptual change” (p. 260). Further, Haas states: “It is the absence of such an imperative that in the past enabled institutions (after having tried restructuring) to lapse back into various inefficiencies, whose symptoms are higher unit cost, bureaucratic delays, and deteriorated customer service” (p. 260). Results of restructuring in student affairs. Restructuring in student affairs divisions has been studied by three researchers which have focused on budgets, structural changes, staffing, mergers and consolidations and the strategies employed in the restructuring effort. In a 1996 survey on restructuring in student affairs, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) studied changes in the structure of student affairs divisions. Engelbride and Goodale found that 79 percent of the SSAO's responding to the survey reported directly to the president or chancellor. Twenty percent indicated that this reporting structure had changed over the past five years. Sixty percent indicated that the areas under their supervision had changed in the past five years. The following charts outline some of the structural changes identified in the 1996 survey.
81
Table 2.9. Percentage of CSAO’s Reporting Positions Eliminated as a Result of Budget Changes or Institutional Restructuring All 42.9 57.1 Research 56.3 43.8 Doctoral Comprehensive 50 44.2 50 55.4 Liberal Arts 36.7 63.3 Two-Year 36.6 63.4
Yes No
From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) In studying restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) examined the restructuring strategies student affairs leaders utilized to respond to budget cuts. A significant number of student affairs divisions had given up or not filled open employment lines. Sixty percent of student affairs divisions responding to the survey restructured part of their workforce by moving employees to shorter contracts, usually from 12-month contracts to 10-month contracts. For each of the above strategies, the percentage of research institutions reporting that they had utilized the strategy was higher than the average for all institutions. Table 2.10. Restructuring Strategies to Accommodate Budget Decreases in Percent All 81.6 61.3 60 64.9 Research 94.4 73.7 72.2 13.3
Vacant Lines “Given Up’ or Not Filled Eliminate Services Employees Moved to Shorter Contracts Service Areas Privatized From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998)
Carlson (2003) examined the extent of restructuring in student affairs divisions as well as the addition, elimination, combination and transfer of functional areas. In addition, Carlson studied budget changes, personnel decisions, and the processes utilized in restructuring efforts.
82
While some correlate restructuring with budget decline, Carlson (2003) found that a majority of those responding to his survey reported that their budgets had increased over the 1996-1999 time frame. Sixty-five percent reported increases in their budget, 20 percent reported no change, and 15 percent reported that their budget had decreased. Of those that increased, 33 percent increased between $5,000 and $50,000, while 29 percent increased between $51,000 and $250,000. Of the 15 percent of the student affairs divisions that experienced budget decreases, 39 percent decreased between $5,000 and $50,000, while nearly ten percent decreased between $250,000 and $500,000. Carlson (2003) also captured information regarding how restructuring affected student affairs positions. In terms of personnel changes, 57 percent of the campuses responding to the survey reported that the number of student affairs positions increased, 23 percent reported no change, and 20 percent reported a decrease. Of those that reported personnel increases, about one-third added between three to five positions, while nearly 18 percent added between six and ten positions. Of the 20 percent that reported decreases in the number of student affairs positions, 37 percent lost between three and five positions, while 19 percent reported losing between six and 10 positions. Unintended Results Restructuring can also have a number of unintended outcomes associated with the process and outcomes of the restructuring effort. While unintended results can be both positive and negative, the literature on unintended outcomes focused on the less positive aspects of restructuring.
83
Unintended results in business. Citing surveys done by the American Management Society and the Society for Human Resources Management, Cascio (2002) reports that downsizing efforts increase profits about a third of the time and decrease profits about a third of the time. Using data collected on S&P companies over an 18-year period, Cascio (2002) found that stable employers (those with a 5 percent fluctuation in workforce, or less) outperformed most companies that had undergone restructuring. Cascio states "The only companies that seemed to outperform stable companies were firms that were actually growing and upsizing. Companies engaged in downsizing were next to the bottom in terms of profitability. The real message is that you can't shrink your way into prosperity" (p. 18). Cascio (1993) studied 16 firms that restructured and wrote off more than ten percent of their net worth. In those firms, stock prices increased when the restructuring effort was announced but declined afterward. Two years later, a majority of the stocks had lost between 17 percent to 48 percent. Downsizing was not particularly effective in making troubled companies more profitable. Cummings and Worley (1997) state "Research on the effects of downsizing has shown mixed results. Many studies have indicated that downsizing may not meet its intended goals." Citing the work of Bennett (1991), Cummings and Worley state "One survey of 1,005 companies that used downsizing to reduce costs reported that fewer than half of the firms actually met cost targets. Moreover, only 22 percent of the companies achieved expected productivity gains..." (p. 288). Additionally, Cummings and Worley (1997) cite Bennett (1991) who reported that "Fewer than 33 percent of the companies surveyed reported profits increased as much as expected, and only 21 percent achieved
84
satisfactory improvements in shareholder return on investment" (p. 288). In studying 1,005 firms that downsized between 1986 and 1991, Wyatt Associates "…found that only 46 percent actually reduced expenses, only 32 percent actually increased profits, only 22 percent actually increased productivity, and only 17 percent actually reduced bureaucracy, although each of these goals was intended" (Cameron, 1994, p. 190). Cameron (1994) notes that implementing a Workforce Reduction strategy is one approach that: ...may be necessary as a severe economic hardship is encountered, of course, but the short-term payoffs are usually negated by the long-term costs. The violation of the implicit contract between the organization and its employees leads to a loss of loyalty and commitment among the workforce and a deterioration in willingness to go the extra mile on behalf of the company. (p. 199) In summarizing his perspective on the organizational effects of downsizing, Cameron (1994) states: "...that the most commonly implemented form of downsizing -across-theboard, grenade-type approaches - is associated with organizational dysfunction" (p. 206). Cameron (1994) cites the work of Henkoff, (1990) who in a 1990 survey "…found that 74 percent of senior managers in downsized companies said that morale, trust, and productivity suffered after downsizing" (p. 190). Cameron again cites Henkoff who provided information indicating "A survey of the Society for Human Resource Management reported that more than half of the 1,468 firms that downsized indicated that productivity deteriorated from downsizing" (p. 190). In discussing government restructuring, Thomas (2000) states "Efforts to downsize the federal workforce, for example, occurred randomly rather than strategically, with no effort to make a distinction between essential and unnecessary employees. The
85
indiscriminate downsizing that followed actually exacerbated many of the core performance problems with each agency" (p. 7). Unintended results in higher education. In reviewing the impact of management innovations on institutions of higher education Birnbaum (2000) states: Although management fads in higher education have not had the positive outcomes promised by their proponents, it is also true that the loose coupling of academic organizations has prevented the dire consequences predicted by fad opponents. At the same time, it would be a mistake to believe that fads have no consequences at all for the organizations or systems that adopt them, neither in reality or virtually. Some of these consequences may be negative: people become cynical and resistant to new ideas, the judgment of leaders is questioned, and funds and energy are seen as being diverted from more important institutional activities. (p.1) Cameron, Kim, and Whetten (1987) studied the effects of organizational decline and turbulence on managers and workers in 334 institutions of higher education. A number of organizational attributes are associated with decline and turbulence including centralization, no long term planning, no innovation, scapegoating, resistance to change, turnover, low morale, no slack, fragmented pluralism, loss of credibility, non-prioritized cuts, and conflict. Cameron et al. (1987) called these attributes “The Dirty Dozen.” In providing a context for the prevalence of these characteristics, Cameron et al. note: "Turbulence exists when changes faced by an organization are nontrivial, rapid, and discontinuous" (p. 225). In addition, Cameron et al. state "When decline is present, organization-member responses are characterized by significantly more scapegoating of leaders, resistance to change, low morale, fragmented pluralism, withdrawal of leader credibility, conflict, and curtailment of innovation than conditions under growth” (p. 234). In discussing the impact of turbulence on managers, Cameron et al. state:
86
"…significantly more centralized decision making, absence of long-term planning, nonselective cuts in resources, top-administrator turnover, and loss of leader credibility occur when high turbulence is experienced" (p. 234). In studying restructuring in Minnesota, Titus (1998) determined that five of six of the principal consequences of that effort were primarily negative: Increased confusion and frustration, inadequate communication, lack of continuity in system-level leadership, increased campus activity and restrictive policies to carry out activity, and decreased interaction between presidents. In analyzing the human side of a major state-wide restructuring effort in Minnesota, MacTaggart (1996) found four basic types of responses to change. Winners, persons who had secured a new and higher position within the system, tended to feel positive about the change, while losers, some of them very sore losers, doubted that much good would come of it. The large majority of those affected might describe themselves, as one of them did in an interview, as "lunch bucket workers," individuals who bring a figurative lunch box to work each day and labor wherever they set it down. (p. 133) He describes a fourth type of response using the term "pathfinder" for those people who left the organization for a new career path. MacTaggart (1996) further notes that "The human response to restructuring included a grieving process that progressed overtime through the now familiar stages from denial to anger to some form of acceptance" (p. 134). According to MacTaggart several respondents affected by the restructuring effort in Minnesota reported a sense of conflict regarding whether they should be loyal to the previous administration or the incoming administration. In analyzing the impact of restructuring on those that might not be included in the new structure, MacTaggart notes:
87
The staff of the old system who did not receive a role in the new system or who felt diminished in the role given them took a much darker view of the new regime and its leaders. Skeptical about the chances of success for the system, these individuals pursued various forms of exit behavior. Some began to look for work elsewhere. Others distanced themselves psychologically. A few engaged in deliberate acts of sabotage directed at the merger itself but more often at the interim chancellor. The saboteurs tended to display anger, sometimes amounting to rage, at what they regarded as the unfairness of it all. (p. 141) MacTaggart found that people not engaged by the new system tended to have pessimistic attitudes, persistent anger, and displayed exit behaviors such as departure, psychic distance, and sabotage. Those who were engaged by the new system had positive attitudes, were optimistic, had a future orientation, had progressed through grief stages, and had shifts and conflicts regarding loyalty. In outlining lessons for leaders, MacTaggart (1996) states "It is widely estimated that 70 to 80 percent of attempts at reengineering in the corporate world fail not because of technical lapses but because leaders do not recognize the importance of human culture in the change process" (p. 151). In commenting on the human impacts of restructuring, he states: "Managing the human side of a major restructuring effort requires not only knowledge of the conventional aspects of personnel management, such as staffing procedures, contract negotiation, and outplacement strategies, but also a deep understanding of how humans behave in the midst of change that affects their lives and careers” (p. 135). Unintended results in student affairs. Information on the unintended results of restructuring student affairs divisions is limited. Carlson (2003) asked about unintended outcomes in his survey of 607 campuses. The Senior Student Affairs Officers responding to Carlson's survey were asked to
88
identify what did not go well when student affairs was being restructured. The most common response (34 percent) was a combination of fear, resistance to change, morale problems, and a lack of support. Inadequate communication (not enough dialog) was reported by 21 percent of the respondents, decreases in funding and salaries was reported by 11 percent. Issues associated with the quality of life, staff turnover and not enough staff remaining to address restructured responsibilities, as well as inadequate time to restructure properly, were also reported. While Carlson's survey specifically asked about what did not go well, participants who supported restructuring would be less likely to identify shortcomings of the restructuring process. Guskin (1996) offers the following assessment: As the restructuring process unfolds, many tough decisions will have to be made and some wrong turns will have to be redirected, some technology will not work as expected, some difficult people and situations will have to be overcome, and some adjustments in the timetable will be required. And people will grieve for the loss of the past – people, structures, and programs – as they enter the future, whether leaping or crawling. (p. 9) In conclusion, colleges and universities, like their corporate counterparts, seek to improve for a number of reasons. Restructuring is one management effort undertaken to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity. However, restructuring can also result in negative outcomes including resistance to change, low morale, a lack of trust in the leader, a disengaged workforce, and increased employee turnover (Cameron et al., 1987). Restructuring is also undertaken to respond to external and internal pressures. While restructuring seems to be a popular management effort, what constitutes restructuring is not well defined. Further, the results of restructuring are not well documented.
89
Conclusions from the Literature Restructuring efforts are initiated to respond to economic, political or ideological reasons by external and internal leaders. While restructuring is a popular management approach in the corporate sector, it is unclear if the results of restructuring have any longterm positive outcome on intended outcomes such as organizational productivity. There is a lack of long-term empirical data regarding the achievement of intended outcomes of restructuring. A number of researchers have identified a series of unintended outcomes related to restructuring, including decreased morale and trust. Research indicates that restructuring in student affairs is a popular management approach, especially at research institutions. Restructuring in student affairs often results in changes in budgets, the transfer or merger of functional areas, and changes in staffing levels. Restructuring can also have negative affects including a combination of fear, resistance to change, morale problems, and a lack of support. Additional research on restructuring and its outcomes will help practitioners better understand restructuring and help guide future efforts.
90
CHAPTER III Research Design and Methodology This chapter describes the research design and methodology used to understand restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions. The purpose of the study was to understand the rationale used to initiate restructuring, the goals of restructuring, the processes employed, and the results of restructuring. This chapter is organized into the following sections: 1) research questions; 2) research variables; 3) research design; 4) methods used in the study; 5) data analysis procedures; 6) methodological rigor; and 7) limitations of the study. Research Questions In order to investigate how restructuring affects student affairs divisions, this study asked the following questions: 1. What was the impetus to restructure? (a) Specifically, who initiated the restructuring effort and what factors led to the restructuring effort? What were the stated purposes of restructuring? (a) Specifically, what were the goals of the restructuring effort? What processes were employed? How did the institutions go about the process of restructuring? What were the results of restructuring? The first research question determined the reasons for starting a restructuring process within each student affairs division. The responses will also help develop insights that will shape further understanding in subsequent questions. Question two examines the rationale or reason why restructuring was undertaken.
2.
3.
4.
91
Questions three and four focus on the processes used and the outcomes of restructuring, respectively. This study seeks to develop conclusions that would be helpful to others seeking to restructure. By exploring restructuring in student affairs, it may be possible to establish recurrent themes or approaches as well as differences among the institutions studied. An analysis of impetus, goals, processes and outcomes of restructuring might assist other institutions determining their approach when faced with similar or analogous circumstances. Research Variables The research variables identified to answer the research questions come from literature related to restructuring. Given the nature of this study, it sought to identify new variables during the data collection portion of this research project. Impetus for Restructuring Research on restructuring points to external and internal factors as the impetus for restructuring. External impetuses include mandates from elected officials including the governor, state legislators, centralized higher education coordinating systems, or accrediting bodies (Chavez, 1998). Restructuring is also initiated internally by college boards, campus Presidents and Vice Presidents. In both scenarios, restructuring may be initiated in an effort to respond to fiscal constraints, to improve productivity, personnel issues, respond to critics, take advantage of technology, or improve effectiveness. The impetus to restructure large complex organizations can come from a variety of sources. Restructuring a subset of a larger organization, such as a division of student affairs, would most likely come from an internal source that was more familiar with the
92
sub-unit. This assumption seems to be confirmed by research on restructuring in student affairs. Internal actors, such as college presidents, play a crucial role in initiating restructuring efforts in student affairs (Carlson, 2003). Research on restructuring indicates that poor performance is a primary factor in decisions regarding this management approach. Efforts to improve productivity, especially through the use of technology, seem to be fairly common. Fiscal constraint is somewhat related to performance since poorly performing organizations are often those with less robust financial resources. In student affairs divisions, the relationship between fiscal constraint and restructuring efforts does not seem to be causal. Some student affairs divisions that restructured were not in fiscal decline and actually experienced budget increases and added personnel. Other divisions experienced reduced budgets and reductions in staff. The literature does not indicate that restructuring in student affairs is initiated to address personnel issues. The linkage between restructuring and personnel issues may be indirect. In situations where restructuring is focused on improving performance, ineffective personnel may be a cause for a lack of productivity. The variables in this section of the study establish the basis for the rationale to restructure. Obtaining a comprehensive understanding of why student affairs divisions restructure will provide valuable information in my effort to better understand why campuses use this management approach. The following taxonomy outlines some of the variables for this section of the study. - External impetus - effort started by an individual who is not an employee of the
93
institution or an effort started by a group of individuals who are not employees of the institution. - Internal impetus - effort started by an individual who is an employee of the institution or an effort started by a group of individuals who are employees of the institution. - Financial constraint - a reduction in resources which may be a result of decreased state support or internal funding decisions resulting in efforts to reduce costs and/or staff. - Political - efforts to enhance or maintain power such as fending off external intrusion. - Human resource - efforts to use restructuring to resolve personnel issues. -Take advantage of technology - the use of technology, in the broadest terms, to increase productivity or reduce personnel. - To respond to changing priorities to enhance effectiveness such as facilitating student learning. Goals of Restructuring Improved productivity, coordination, communication, responsiveness and financial situation are often goals of restructuring efforts. Restructuring also is used to realign people, processes and offices often in an effort to increase productivity, effectiveness or to respond to changing priorities. Restructuring can also be used as a means to remove or advance personnel or prevent intrusions from external sources. While several factors give rise to the impetus to restructure, goals help define the operational focus of the effort. Leaders or managers will often cite goals to support their efforts to improve the organization. The variables in this section generally fall into the area of improving efficiency or effectiveness, which seems to be more actively promoted. Efforts to make organizations more efficient and effective are important aspects of restructuring. Questions regarding these variables will be included in the interview guide.
94
Another grouping of the variables such as fending off intrusion or to give the illusion of working on an issue seem to be two unstated goals of restructuring. This may be because these goals are not generally articulated. It will be important to clarify if these variables were operating as a subtext within the restructuring effort. The following taxonomy outlines some of the variables for this section of the study. - Reduce costs - efforts to minimize expenditures in personnel service or other areas. - Improve coordination - efforts to enhance the ability to work together in a more synchronized manner. - Improve communication - efforts to enhance the ability to share information. - Improve responsiveness – efforts to reduce response times, stimulate reactions to suggestions. - Redistribute power – efforts to reallocate roles or responsibilities affecting the ability to perform or act effectively. - Realign processes or people - efforts to shift or reposition processes or individuals. - Reduce duplication - efforts to minimize the replication of similar work processes. - Fend off intrusion - efforts to resolve issues internally instead of having others do so. - Appear to resolve an issue - efforts to give the illusion that action is being taken to address an issue. - Modify mission and/or establish new priorities - the refocusing of the division including the identification of different goals and objectives. Processes Involved in Restructuring Restructuring efforts can be informal, open and inclusive where employees are invited to participate in the process and where developments and information is communicated on a regular basis. Restructuring could also be formal, closed and
95
exclusive efforts where a select few individuals are involved in the decision-making process and communication is limited. Either approach may be combined with another management process such as strategic planning, total quality management or similar practice. The research on restructuring indicates that the processes employed play an important role in the overall success of the effort. Processes that engage employees, encourage participation, with open lines of communication appear to be more productive than efforts that do not (Cascio, 2002). There is little evidence that formal processes, such as Total Quality Management are used in restructuring in higher education. Organizations may forgo a formal process to tailor the approach to meet the needs of the institution. This may be an indication of the wide range of processes and approaches used to restructure. The interview guide includes a number of questions related to the processes used to restructure. Questions regarding the approach used and the perceptions of those involved will help the researcher better understand the processes used to restructure. The following taxonomy outlines some of the variables for this section of the study. - Inclusive processes - a broad based process, participatory in nature where input is encouraged. - Exclusive processes - a process that limits the amount of participation to select individuals. - Formal, structured - a process that follows an established approach such as Total Quality Management (TQM). - Informal, unstructured - A process that does not follow an established approach.
96
Results of Restructuring The results of a restructuring effort can be divided into intended and unintended outcomes. From a managerial standpoint, the intended outcomes such as improved productivity, coordination, communication, responsiveness and fiscal situation represent positive outcomes. The realignment of resources to respond to changing priorities or philosophies is also considered a positive outcome. Unintended outcomes such as increased bureaucracy, decreased morale/alienation, reassignment of staff, increased training needs, increased costs, disruption of informal communication networks, decreased loyalty, decreased trust, and increased workloads are generally considered negative outcomes of restructuring efforts (Cameron, 1994; Carlson, 2003; Cascio, 2002). The variables in this section speak to the overall effectiveness of restructuring. The rationale, processes utilized, and the stated goals are important factors in initiating restructuring and working towards the objectives of the effort. Variables such as reduced costs, improved coordination, improved communication, and increased responsiveness are often more quantifiable and provide a basis to evaluate the success of restructuring. The variables outlined in this section may not be congruent with the variables outlined in the section on goals. Since unintended outcomes are not stated as goals, it is difficult to evaluate them against a stated expectation. Exploring the unintended outcomes of restructuring will provide insight into the overall effect of the effort and provide important information. Questions in the interview guide will help the researcher better understand the unintended outcomes of restructuring.
97
The following taxonomy outlines some of the variables for this section of the study. - Reduced costs - a reduction in expenditures for goods and services. - Improved coordination - enhanced ability to work together in a synchronized manner. - Improved communication - successful efforts to share information to increase awareness and understanding. - Improved responsiveness - enhanced reaction to suggestions, requests, changing needs. - Redistributed power - changes in roles, responsibilities or titles resulting in new reporting relationships. - Realigned processes or people - efforts resulting in a shift in processes or the working relationships of individuals. - Reduced staff - a reduction in the number of employees. - Decreased morale - a reduction in employee spirit or willingness to perform tasks. - Increased alienation - an increased sense of isolation or dissociation. - Improved responsiveness - the enhanced ability to be more aware of and react to changing needs or priorities. - Increased bureaucracy - enhanced organizational complexity often involving the addition of administrative layers or processes. - Increased training needs - additional preparation needed to learn new processes.
Linking Theory, Research Questions and Data Table (3.1) outlines the relationship between the theoretical assumptions, the research questions, the relevant variables associated with the research questions, and the data needed to answer those questions.
98
Table 3.1. Assumptions
Theoretical Assumptions, Research Questions, and Data Sources Research Questions What was the impetus to initiate restructuring? Potentially Relevant Variables Locus: Internal - effort started by Board, President, VP, etc. Externaleffort started by higher ed system, State legislature, Governor. Financial – cost reduction/staff reduction; Political - fend off external intrusion; Human Resources - resolve personnel issues; take advantage of technology, changing priorities. Reduce costs, improve coordination, communication, improve responsiveness, redistribute power, realign processes or people, reduce duplication, fend off intrusion, give the appearance of acting to resolve an issue, improve effectiveness, respond to changing needs. Open, inclusive; closed, exclusive; formal, structured; informal, unstructured processes. Data Sources
Student Affairs divisions use restructuring as a management technique to respond to changes in their internal and external environments.
Interviews with people in student affairs divisions that have recently restructured.
Restructuring is typically initiated to improve performance.
What were the stated and unstated purposes of restructuring?
Interviews with Senior Student Affairs Officers, departmental directors, and professionals involved in the restructuring effort. Interviews with Senior Student Affairs Officers, departmental directors, and professionals involved in the restructuring effort.
Corporate restructuring efforts are well documented. Little is known about the processes involved in restructuring Student Affairs divisions.
What processes were employed?
Restructuring can have both positive and negative effects.
What were the Reduced costs, improved results of coordination, improved restructuring? communication, improved responsiveness, redistributed power, realigned process or people, reduced staff, decreased morale/increased alienation, improved effectiveness, increased bureaucracy, increased training needs.
Interviews with Senior Student Affairs Officers, departmental directors, professionals involved in the restructuring effort.
99
Research Methodology and Rationale This section outlines the rationale for selecting the case study methodology and utilizing a multiple case approach. It also describes the unit of analysis and site selection. The Case Study This research employed qualitative methods to better understand the complex nature of restructuring in student affairs. The inductive approach of qualitative methods strengthens the researcher’s ability to understand the meaning, context, and processes associated with events, situations and actions (Maxwell, 1996). In outlining the
strengths of qualitative research, Maxwell identifies the following five particular research purposes for which qualitative studies are especially suited: 1) Understanding the meaning, for participants in the study, of the events, situations, and actions they are involved with and of the accounts that they give of their lives and experiences; 2) Understanding the particular context within which the participants act, and the influence that this context has on their actions; 3) Identifying unanticipated phenomena and influences, and generating new grounded theories about the latter; 4) Understanding the process by which events and actions take place; 5) Developing causal explanations. (pp.17-20) Miles and Huberman (1994) note that qualitative data “…are a source of wellgrounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes in identifiable local contexts. With qualitative data one can preserve chronological flow, see precisely which events led to which consequences, and derive fruitful explanations” (p. 1). Qualitative research efforts are divided into a number of different approaches (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This study utilized a case study approach since they are
100
conducted to develop a rich understanding of an event or series of events especially "… when a "how" or "why" question is being asked about a contemporary set events, over which the investigator has little or no control" (Yin, 2003, p. 9). The case study strategy provides researchers with an opportunity to "…..retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events - such as individual life cycles, organizational and managerial processes, neighborhood change, international relations, and the maturation of industries" (Yin, 2003, p. 2). Further, as stated in Yin, Schramm (1971) noted that a case study approach "…tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result" (p. 12). Yin further defines case study methodology as "...an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident" (p. 13). Multi-site case study. Merriam (2001) defines case study approaches based on their disciplinary orientation or by function. According to Merriam, case studies can be single site, multisite, comparative, descriptive, interpretive, or evaluative. Merriam states the multi-site case study approach "…involves collecting and analyzing data from several cases…" (p. 40). This approach to "…sampling adds confidence to findings" (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 29). By using multi-site sampling "We can strengthen the precision, the validity, and the stability of the findings" (p. 29). In order to make the research more robust a multiple case design was selected over a single case study (Yin, 2003). Yin (2003) divides case studies into two basic designs based upon the unit of analysis: holistic or embedded. In a holistic design, the focus of the case study is a
101
single unit. In an embedded design, the focus of the case study is multiple units in the same case (Yin, 2003). The holistic design focuses on the global nature of an organization and is, therefore, the most appropriate design for this research (Yin, 2003, p. 43). This study utilized a multi-site case holistic study design since the object of the research was to develop an understanding of restructuring and to compare the processes associated with restructuring. Two campuses were selected for the multiple case design in order to make the findings more compelling (Yin, 2003). By comparing the processes used and the outcomes of restructuring across institutions, the researcher would seek to develop a conceptual framework. Time constraints and resource limitations prevented adding to the number of cases. Unit of Analysis One of the challenging aspects of qualitative research is a definition of the case (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003). Two primary questions arise in trying to define a case: “what my case is” and “where my case leaves off” (Miles & Huberman, p. 25). A case may be an individual, an event or as noted by Miles & Huberman, “…as a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context” (p. 25). The case or unit of analysis is the focus of the study “…and a somewhat indeterminate boundary defines the edge of the case: what will not be studied” (Miles and Huberman, p. 25). For the purposes of this case study, the unit of analysis was the two student affairs divisions that engaged in a restructuring process.
102
Selecting Institutions The selection of institutions was a critical aspect in this study. In order to be included in the study institutions had to meet the following criteria: 1) Identified as public universities; 2) be classified as research I or research II according to the Carnegie classification system; 3) be located within 400 miles of the researcher; 4) must have restructured their student affairs divisions within the past six years and completed that effort more than a year ago; 5) must have undergone a restructuring effort where change can be described as more than just minor adjustments or tweaking (Eckel, Hill & Green, 1998); and 6) be willing to grant the researcher access (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The rationale to select public institutions is based on studies that found this type of institution restructuring at higher rates than other types (El-Khawas, 1994; Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Research universities were selected because research indicated that they are more likely to undergo changes in the areas that report to student affairs as well as changes in divisional budgets (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). The 400 miles radius was established since that distance could be reasonably driven in a one-day time frame. The five-year timeline established for the study increased the likelihood that those involved in the restructuring effort would still be employed at the institution and that the memory of those involved in the effort would not have diminished. Further, the one-year criterion allowed sufficient time for the outcomes of the effort to become evident. Eckel et al. (1998) categorized change based on its depth and pervasiveness. Change that is not deep or pervasive is categorized as an "adjustment." Other forms of change which are
103
deep or pervasive or both are categorized as isolated, far-reaching or transformational. Finally, the institutions selected for this study were identified because of the perception that they would be receptive to participation and provide access to documents and participants. For the purposes of this research, the selection of institutions was aided by the involvement of seven expert nominators. Expert nominators were selected based upon their expertise in higher education, knowledge of national trends in student affairs, and previous awareness of student affairs restructuring. The expert nominators were Dr. Greg Blimling, Vice President for Student Affairs, Rutgers University; Dr. Linda Clement, Vice President for Student Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park; Dr. Michael Gargano, Vice President for Student Affairs, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Dr. Karen Pennington, Vice President for Student Affairs, Montclair State University; Dr. John Saddlemire, Vice President for Student Affairs, University of Connecticut; and Dr. Vicki Triponey, Vice President for Student Affairs, Pennsylvania State University. The nominators were contacted via email and telephone to provide them with an outline of the study and to answer questions they had about the research. The expert nominators were asked to identify student affairs divisions that had undergone successful restructuring efforts as well as those where restructuring had not been as successful. The expert nomination process generated a pool of 14 institutions. Eight of the 14 nominated met the research criteria. Once a pool of potential sites was developed, the SSAO of each institution was contacted via email and provided with a statement of the purpose of the study. The SSAO was also provided with details regarding their selection and were invited to participate in the study.
104
Two institutions were selected from the pool based on the depth and breadth of restructuring. Another factor in the selection process involved the institutions’ willingness to participate in the study. Once the institutions were selected, the SSAO was contacted via email to inform them of their selection. A follow-up phone call or email to the SSAO provided additional information about the study, the role of the SSAO, and the confidential nature of the study. The SSAO at both institutions agreed to participate. Selecting Participants According to Merriam (2001), the two basic approaches to sampling are probability sampling and nonprobability sampling. In referring to the work of Honigmann (1982), Merriam notes that nonprobability sampling methods are appropriate "…to solve qualitative problems, such as discovering what occurs, the implications of what occurs, and the relationships linking occurrences" (Honigmann, 1982, p. 84 as cited in Merriam, 2001, p. 61). According to Merriam, purposeful sampling, a form of nonprobability sampling, is used when the researcher "…wants to discover, understand, and gain insight, and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (p. 61). Purposeful sampling can be further broken down into a number of different types (Merriam, 2001). This study utilized two types of purposeful sampling to maximize the probability of interviewing information-rich subjects. The "typical" type of sampling was used to obtain the perspectives of "…the average person, situation, or instance of the phenomenon of interest" (p. 62). Merriam (2001) states to augment the information provided by the subjects identified via the typical technique, the snowball or network technique was used to identify information-rich cases (p. 63).
105
The two senior student affairs officers were asked to participate in the study. In addition, each senior student affairs officer was asked to nominate ten departmental directors and ten professionals who were employed at the institution at the time of restructuring. The senior student affairs officers was asked to nominate individuals who helped design or carry out the restructuring effort as well as individuals who were not involved in the development or implementation of the restructuring effort but were affected by the changes. The departmental directors and the professionals in the student affairs division at each of the two campuses were sent an email that explained the research as well as an invitation to participate in the study. Emails were sent to those individuals not responding to the initial invitation. Of those agreeing to participate, departmental and professional staffs were selected to participate in the study. While an initial effort was made to randomly select participants, the number of individuals agreeing to participate, and were available to be interviewed, reduced the number of eligible candidates. The researcher scheduled and interviewed those individuals who were nominated, interested and available. In addition to those individuals selected based on their positions, the researcher utilized snowballing sampling to identify an additional four individuals from each campus to be interviewed. According to Atkinson and Flint (2001), snowball sampling “…consists of identifying respondents who are then used to refer researchers on to other respondents” (p.1). It is a technique used to identify persons who can contribute to the research findings who otherwise probably might not be identified (Atkinson and Flint, 2001). Of those identified through the snowball sampling technique, the four individuals who were nominated most frequently were interviewed. The total number of subjects
106
interviewed on each campus was 14. Table 3.2 diagrams the research methodology employed. Potential differences between those who have been there for a while versus those who have not will be examined.
107
Table 3.2 - Research Methodology Flow Chart - Overview Utilize a multiple case study design to obtain data regarding restructuring. Data will be generated by collecting documents and using semi-structured interviews. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed.
With the assistance of a panel of expert nominators, identify student affairs divisions at public research institutions that have restructured. The following factors were used to determine who to invite in the study pool: extent of restructuring, time frame, impact of restructuring effort, willingness to participate. Contact the SSAO’s of institutions that were most frequently nominated and within 400 of Albany, NY, to request their participation in the study.
Send cover letter confirming their participation in the study. Request they provide documents related to the restructuring effort (minutes, reports, etc.). Request they nominate ten dept. directors and ten professionals to participate in the study. Ask the VP to nominate people who were employed at the institution during restructuring, include those involved with implementing restructuring as well as those not involved in implementation. Invite members of that pool to participate in the study.
Analyze documents. Randomly select five dept. directors and five professionals to participate. Set-up an interview schedule. Interview and record interviews of VP, five departmental directors and five professionals, plus VP. Ask each respondent to recommend additional people to interview. Interview the top four recommended.
Transcribe interviews. Analyze data. Write up results.
108
Data Collection Merriam (2001) notes that three primary strategies are involved in the data collection process for case studies: interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents. According to Merriam, one or two strategies usually dominate the data collection process. In this case study, document collection and interviewing played the central role in the research. According to Yin (2003) open-ended interviews are most commonly used in case studies. Focused interviews allowed the researcher to utilize a series of questions while keeping the interview open-ended and conversational. This study utilized multiple sources of evidence to strengthen the research. Yin (2003) states: "…the most important advantage presented by using multiple sources of evidence is the development of converging lines of inquiry, a process of triangulation…" (p. 98). This study utilized document collection and a focused interview format with open-ended questions as the primary means of data collection. A letter was sent to SSAO requesting documents related to the restructuring effort. In addition, data was collected from each respondent via a focused interview. The primary purpose of the interviews was to obtain information about the impetus, processes used in restructuring, goals, and the outcomes the effort had on the division. Documents Documents were to serve an important role in helping the researcher understand the case. Stake (1995) states: "Quite often, documents serve as substitutes for records of activity that the researcher could not observe directly" (p. 68). Merriam (2001) identifies public records, personal documents and physical materials as the three major types of documents. According to Merriam (2001), "Documents of all types can help the
109
researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research question" (p. 133). In this study, the researcher sent a request to the campus SSAO to supply documents related to the restructuring effort. These documents could include copies of any formal announcements, memoranda, meeting minutes or a final report. The documents were to be reviewed prior to interviewing any campus-based personnel. In addition, documents regarding the restructuring effort were requested. Interviews According to Yin (2003) "One of the most important sources of case study information is the interview" (p. 89). Merriam (2001) states "Interviewing is necessary when we cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how people interpret the world around them. It is also necessary to interview when we are interested in past events that are impossible to replicate" (p. 72). According to Merriam (2001) there are three different types of interviews, based upon the level of structure. Structured interviews include predetermined questions asked in a predetermined order. Highly structured interviews are often used to collect sociodemographic data such as age, income, and employment history. Unstructured interviews are used to help the researcher explore issues related to the research question. The unstructured interview format "…allows the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic" (Merriam, 2001, p. 74). The third type of interview is the semi-structured interview which was used in this study.
110
Since the purpose of the study was to identify and explore the restructuring process by eliciting responses from the subjects, a semi-structured interview process was utilized. According to Merriam (2001) the semi-structured interview "…is guided by a list of questions or issues to be explored" (p. 74). Further, "This format allows the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging world view of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic." (p. 74). Interview Questions The variables identified in the literature review were used to develop the interview guide for this study. Background or general questions were used to initiate the interview. Subsequent questions focused on each of the research questions. Probing, follow-up questions were used to tease out more comprehensive answers or to explore specific areas. Participants were asked if they had related documents they would like to share. A list of the interview questions and the corresponding research questions can be found in Appendix B. Interview Process The interviews started by thanking the subject for agreeing to participate in the study. A brief overview of the study was provided including the confidential nature of the study. An informed consent form was also reviewed. Interviews took place over the course of a two to three day period and were held on campus. Interviews were conducted in a reserved room in a central location such as the student union. The interviews were tape recorded with the subject’s consent. The tape-recorded data was augmented by notes taken by the researcher during the interview.
111
In addition to those individuals nominated by the Vice President, the researcher utilized the snowball technique to obtain responses from a wider range of individuals. Each respondent was asked to identify other individuals the researcher should talk with regarding restructuring. The responses ranged from no suggestions to four. In nearly every situation, the individuals who were identified using the snowball technique were either already interviewed, were unavailable, or had declined to be interviewed. Two general suggestions were made: to interview “students” and to interview a “faculty member.” When asked for the name of an individual to interview, the respondents could not provide a specific name. Human Subjects The proposed research involved administrators on two different campuses. An application for human subjects approval was submitted. To ensure confidentiality, data collected during interviews were coded to prevent the identification of human subjects participating in the study. Further, the names of respondents as well as the names of the participating institutions were coded and were not utilized in the reporting of results. Data Analysis The process of analyzing data serves to help the researcher better understand and make sense out of the case (Merriam, 2001). Merriam states: "Data analysis is the process of making sense out of the data. And making sense of the data involves consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people said and what the researcher has seen and read - it is the process of making meaning" (p. 178). In educational research, data analysis has been categorized into four strategies: ethnographic analysis, narrative analysis, phenomenological analysis and the constant
112
comparative method (Merriam, 2001). In discussing the constant comparative method, Merriam states: "Because the basic strategy of the constant competitive method is compatible with the inductive, concept-building orientation of all qualitative research, the constant comparative method of data analysis has been adopted by many researchers…" (p. 159). This study utilized constant comparative analysis to establish conceptual links between the data captured in the documents as well as interviews. By constantly comparing data, tentative categories develop resulting in the formation of an emerging theory (Merriam, 2001). The documents provided by each institution were analyzed and coded utilizing the research variables. In addition, the data from the one-on-one interviews were transcribed and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. The data were then individually coded, based upon the research variables. These codes and corresponding date were then sorted and analyzed to identify relationships between the key factors and to identify patterns or themes (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Following the sorting process, individual responses were color coded and re-coded, if appropriate, to fit within a particular theme. To assist in establishing relationships between the data, the researcher used memoing to "…tie together different pieces of data into recognizable clusters…" (p. 72). According to Yin (2003) a cross-case analysis was used as a means of "…aggregating findings across a series of individual studies" (p. 134).
113
Methodological Rigor This study used a case approach to understand the process of restructuring. According to Merriam (2001), "Qualitative research is a form of inquiry that helps understand and explore the meaning of social phenomena…" (p. 5). One of the central components in qualitative research is the confidence in the study and in its results. Producing valid and reliable knowledge is a concern of qualitative research (Merriam, 2001). In order to establish construct validity and reliability, Yin (2003) offers three guiding principles. According to Yin, qualitative research can strengthen validity and reliability by using multiple sources of evidence, creating a case study database, and maintaining a chain of evidence. This study used documents, one-on-one interviews, and the researcher’s notes as multiple sources of evidence. Using multiple sources of evidence, the researcher can use triangulation to corroborate facts of phenomena (Merriam, 2001). A case study database was used to organize and document the data collected through document analysis, interviews, and notes taken by the researcher. All data, including interview notes and memos were components of the database (Yin, 2003). The chain of evidence allows readers "…to follow the derivation of any evidence, ranging from initial research questions to ultimate case study conclusions" (p. 105). To maintain a chain of evidence, the report contains references and citations from the database. Information regarding the dates and locations of interviews as well as the circumstances in which they occurred were captured. Lastly, the specific procedures and research questions were consistently applied in each case. According to Yin these steps allow an
114
external observer "…to move from one part of the case study process to another…" (p. 105). Limitations of the Study This study was limited to two public research universities and, therefore, conclusions drawn from this study may not pertain to other institutions. A panel of experts developed a pool of potential student affairs divisions that had restructured. The two institutions that were nominated the most frequently were selected to participate in the study. Although an effort has been made to select two broadly representative public research institutions, the two campuses selected for this study may not fairly represent all research universities. Further, a case study approach seeks a deep understanding of the restructuring effort, which limits generalizability of the experience and hence transferability to other institutions. Further, the sample population included 14 people from each campus. The potential exists for other individuals to have different views or experiences than those interviewed. The rationale given for restructuring at the two institutions studied may differ from the rationale given at other institutions. Since qualitative data is included in this study, the potential exists for researcher bias. Further, the researcher may capture only a limited point of view at one moment in time.
115
CHAPTER IV Research Findings
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Charles Dickens A good deal of time, people have been playing musical chairs. Student affairs professional at Northern Restructuring wasn't a surprise. It wasn't the wrong decision, it needed to happen. There was too much duplication… Student affairs professional at Southern
Implementing change within organizations can be a very complex undertaking. The purpose of this research was to investigate restructuring in the student affairs divisions at two different public research institutions. The study explored restructuring with a particular focus on the impetus, goals, processes and outcomes of the effort. The study involved in-depth campus interviews with individuals who were employed at the institution when restructuring took place. The Vice President for Student Affairs at each institution was asked to nominate individuals to participate in the study. Nominees were invited to participate and an interview schedule was established. In addition, the snowball technique was utilized, where the researcher asks participants to identify other individuals to interview. The study sought to answer the following research questions: what was the impetus for restructuring; what processes were employed; what were the goals of restructuring; what were the results of restructuring. This chapter provides a detailed examination of each institution using a within-case analysis. This analytic procedure provides a description of each case and the themes within each case. All references to
116
the Vice President refer to the Vice President for Student Affairs unless otherwise noted. A summary appears at the end of the chapter. Conclusions regarding the restructuring efforts at the two institutions appear in Chapter V. This study examined the restructuring efforts at two public research universities identified by a group of student affairs professionals who served as expert nominators. The Vice President at each institution agreed to participate in the study. To protect the identity of the institutions which participated in the study, they were given the following pseudonyms: Northern University (Northern) and Southern University (Southern). To provide context, a brief overview of each institution is provided, together with background information gathered from participants. Northern University Northern University is a large public research university with several hundred employees in the student affairs division. After the retirement of a long-serving Vice President, the President hired a new Vice President who expressed an interest in restructuring the division to make it more student-centered and enhance student engagement. To protect anonymity, more detailed information on the institution is not provided. To support this research study, the Vice President at Northern University nominated 26 individuals to participate. Utilizing this pool of nominees, along with those identified using the snowball technique, a total of 14 of these people were interviewed, including the Vice President. Interviews ranged from about 30 minutes to a little over an hour and took place in a meeting room adjacent to a busy public area.
117
At Northern, the average length of service of those interviewed was nearly 12 years. The length of service for those interviewed seemed to be somewhat bi-modal; their length of service was either relatively short (four years or less) or relatively long (19 years or more). The shortest record of service was one year, the longest over 29 years. Eight of the respondents were female, six were male. The titles for those interviewed ranged from staff assistant to the Vice President, with a majority of the titles at the director level and above. An effort was made to interview the Vice President first to allow the researcher to obtain his/her perspective Vice President prior to interviewing other participants. At Northern, as a result of scheduling conflicts, the Vice President was interviewed on the second day of the two day interview cycle. What Was the Impetus for Restructuring? There was considerable agreement that restructuring at Northern was started by the Vice President. However, a number of people noted that the President may have been looking for a leader that could initiate change within the division. Several people noted that there had been two significant restructuring efforts in a little more than three years. One long time employee noted that restructuring had taken place at Northern approximately every six years, with varying size and scope, especially when a new Vice President came on board. The restructuring process was described very differently among the individuals interviewed. Some described it as very well thought out, others thought it "whimsical." A number of people were supportive in the initial phases of restructuring, noting that it is difficult to argue against the broad philosophical approaches to be more student-centered
118
or efforts to more actively engage students. Some noted they thought they were already performing these functions. One senior level administrator stated: “The rank and file feel like they are doing a fairly good job but the Vice President comes in and says…you're doing a terrible job…we need to restructure to better meet the needs of students of the 21st century.” Participants noted that the Vice President at Northern consistently used the term "change agent" as a self-descriptor. One senior level administrator stated: [The Vice President] had made it known very early on that he/she was a change agent…and he/she still uses that term to describe his/her leadership direction - that he/she has been hired to effect change …not only on the campus but within student affairs. I think when you make that statement there's an implicit expectation that if you are going to be a change agent you are going to change things. One of the things you change is what we're doing, how we are doing it, and who's doing it. There was considerable agreement that making changes was an important component of the Vice President's leadership style. One senior level administrator stated “My sense from [the Vice President] is that he’s/she’s a change agent…” Participants noted that the division had undergone two restructuring efforts that varied in size and scope. The scope of the first restructuring effort, which took place in 2005, was more significant than the second, which focused on realigning resources and personnel. A number of participants noted that restructuring wasn't necessarily common, but that it was not completely unexpected when a new Vice President was hired. One participant stated: First off, I think that it made sense from the beginning. You know it’s been going on a while. The Vice President came in at the first of the year and kind of looked at how things were and I think he/she thought about how he/she wanted things to be. It all made sense that, as a new Vice President, that he/she would change things up.
119
A comprehensive overview of the processes used to restructure will be provided later in this chapter. Major issues. When asked about major issues facing the division, a number of respondents stated that the division needed a clearer sense of direction or that the division needed to become a more visible partner in the educational process. Others stated that after having a long-serving Vice President who directly supervised an extremely large number of subordinates, the division needed to change. One participant noted that having a Vice President serve over 12 years was a major issue, stating “One might argue….about [the number of] years of any administrator suggests that it is time for some revival of interest in other ways of managing the division.” Further, it was noted that communication was a challenge. At least one participant noted that student activitism may have caused the President to initiate change in the division. One participant speculated about a discussion the President might have had, commenting "… there was probably some discussion about how I’d like to see things different from the President so there was probably some discussion from people around the community who interviewed (the Vice President) about how they’d like to see things work…". There was, however, little agreement on any of the issues voiced by the respondents. When asked if the restructuring effort had been completed, there was near unanimity that restructuring was not over. One senior level administrator who had input on the restructuring effort stated “No. Absolutely not.” Another noted “I think it’s evolving.”
120
Change in leadership. The impetus for restructuring came with the selection and hiring of a new Vice President who had experience with restructuring. A number of participants noted that the President, upon the retirement of a long serving Vice President, may have taken the opportunity to address concerns he/she had about the division. One participant stated: I guess it could be said that the President mandated that there be some kind of restructuring but no one has ever heard that from him/her. So it’s hard to gauge where that’s coming from. My sense of him/her is that restructuring things is kind of what (this Vice President) does…you know that when (this Vice President) talks about all the professional experiences it seems to be within the parameters of coming in and stirring things up. Another participant noted that the President inquired about candidates' experience with change during the Vice Presidential selection process. One participant stated "…there have been allusions to the President’s role in this…(the President) may have had some issues or concerns about student affairs that may have been passed on to the Vice President." Another stated: "The President had put forward an agenda that we wanted to become more student-centered…". When interviewed, the Vice President confirmed that the President had articulated some concerns and that he/she was working to address those concerns as well as move the division forward. Reduce workload. A number of participants noted that the Vice President wanted to reduce the number of people reporting directly to him/her and to take "…a little bit of the every day-to-day management of some units off of (the Vice President's) plate…"
121
Student-centered. A few participants surmised that the Vice President wanted to shape the division to better meet his/her philosophy. Overall, there seemed to be general agreement that an effort to be more student-centered was one of the driving forces for restructuring. However, this view was not universally shared. At least four participants said they thought the division was functioning at a fairly high level and that when discussions of restructuring started they were surprised. Other participants noted that they were studentcentered but that it is difficult to argue against being “more” student-centered. A senior level administrator who participated in restructuring stated: I think it was because [the Vice President] felt that we were not as engaged with our students as we should be and I would agree with that actually. I think our relationship with students was good but it was not one that I was as comfortable with from a student affairs professional role. When I think of advising students and partnering with students, I think of having some very active role and involvement in their decision making and helping to guide them and to train them and all that sort of stuff. That was not the history of [Northern]. Another senior employee who was fairly close to the restructuring effort stated: The rationale as I understood it...I always felt the rationale was we were trying to create a more student-centered, engaging environment than… we currently have. A senior level administrator, who was affected by the restructuring effort, offered the following as the rationale to restructure: That we weren't necessarily meeting some of the goals and objectives for a student-centered university and that we weren't actively engaged with our students and our student organizations. I think for me they were the driving parameters or paradigms of what he/she was throwing out…to say this is why …we need to reorganize - we need to be more student-centered…
122
A long serving senior administrator noted that becoming student-centered is a popular idea, stating: I think in general…this is a Vice President that has built a mission around student engagement…it's a fairly popular notion on a lot of campuses… There have been other iterations of something along those lines. A number of participants discussed the previous structure of the division as an impediment to being more student-centered. Noting the fairly flat organizational structure of the past, several participants believed that the purpose of restructuring was to align the co-curricular functions underneath one supervisor. A senior administrator noted: I think it was to more purposely organize the division so that people who were primarily involved with co-curricular programming were reporting to the same person and had the same overarching mission to get those groups together to meet more regularly – you know the same with student engagement – to get those units involved with student engagement to meet more regularly and focus on the work. One relatively new senior administrator outlined the impetus for restructuring in the following way "I would say from where I sit, that the Division was probably a little bit behind the times as far as philosophy and thinking and vision..." Another administrator who was also relatively new to Northern reported that the rationale to restructure was "…relevancy, make it more contemporary, more appropriate, more student-centered." Noting that the Vice President had the support of institutional leaders, one senior administrator who had a role in the restructuring effort stated the division restructured "…because it better met the new group goals and vision and mission that (the Vice President) and others had developed for student affairs."
123
The rationale to restructure was not accepted by all. A number of participants noted that they agreed with the goal of being student-centered, yet believed that they were already student-centered. One long-time employee stated: I think it was initially, to be smarter how we were doing things and what made more sense to be student-centered and I think…I can pretty much say… that a lot of folks ended up feeling like…everything that was done prior to restructuring didn't count for anything. We weren’t doing anything before restructuring…we weren't student-centered before? When asked about the impetus for restructuring one participant stated "To be honest, I think some of it was basically our Vice President just wanting to make the division his/hers." While there was considerable agreement that the rationale to restructure focused on becoming more student-centered, the delivery of better programs and services as well as the co-curriculum were also focal points. One senior level employee stated: I think some of (the Vice President's) plans with the new organizational structure are reflections of his/her notion about how to better deliver programs and services so that we are more aligned to the thinking of the senior administration about what does it mean to be student-centered and how do we enhance the undergraduate out-of-class experience. Financial. Fiscal constraint has been a factor in restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions (Carlson, 2003). In an effort to determine whether fiscal constraint played a role in the restructuring effort at Northern, respondents were asked to describe the financial situation prior to restructuring. Over half of the respondents indicated that finances did not play a role in restructuring. Some respondents noted that money was tight but that the division seemed to be able to function fairly well within its financial circumstances. Some respondents noted that the division hired additional people and
124
perceived that the division was spending more money as a result of the restructuring effort. One participant noted: …(the Vice President) worked hard to advocate to get some funds to support some of his/her initiatives that he/she wanted to see happen and my perception is the president was supportive of that – one that his/her being the new kid on the block and liking his/her ideas, his/her style. …I think some new monies have cropped up. Another senior level administrator who was relatively new to the division stated: I don’t believe so, and in fact I would say the resources committed to staffing and to support the new organizational structure are greater than what was in place prior to the reorganization. So I think money has been invested. This individual further pointed out: This has not been driven primarily by tough financial circumstances that need to be in some ways incorporated into thinking about what services we offer and what staff deliver those services. Quite the contrary, I think we’re spending more to do work differently. Similar comments were made by other senior level administrators: I honestly haven’t noticed – like I said I think our past Vice President did a very good job of advocating for us as a division of Student Affairs… My sense is that the restructure was not driven by financial concerns. One participant commented that there are always financial situations in a public institution but that the senior leadership at Northern "… have given (the Vice President) a lot of latitude to make some of the changes that he/she felt were necessary and as he/she started to design the plan and develop (inaudible) to restructure the division that he/she has been able to acquire some necessary resources."
125
Bottlenecks. One of the follow-up probes focused on possible "bottlenecks" that existed in the organization prior to restructuring. Most of the people who have been at the institution for some time did not perceive bottlenecks under the previous structure. Those who were new to the organization, however, believed that bottlenecks did exist. A senior level administrator who had been at Northern for some time stated "What's interesting is that here, anyway, with maybe an exception or two, and even though it's not necessarily the case, people wouldn't have seen there being lot's of bottlenecks.” In fact, one person who had been employed by Northern prior to restructuring noted that the restructuring created bottlenecks as people are no longer able to meet with the Vice President. This same person pointed out that if there were bottlenecks, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to address them instead of restructuring the division? This senior level administrator noted: “…instead of addressing [the] problem and saying this just isn't working…it's kind of crazy…when you kind of figure a whole new way of being because there's a bottleneck somewhere." Another senior level administrator took a more philosophical approach to the question, stating: I'm going to answer that no - because I don't think we ever had a conversation about where the bottlenecks might be. If you don't have that conversation - how do you know where they are and what you need to make them better. I don't think it was a matter of bottlenecks, I think it was a matter of what's most comfortable for the Vice President how he/she views his/her role, the information he/she needs…and what he/she needs to achieve (them). Personnel. Participants were asked if personnel issues were a factor in the restructuring effort. A majority of those interviewed agreed that personnel issues were a factor in the
126
restructuring effort. Two participants believed that personnel issues weren’t a factor. One of the results was the perception that people were looking to leave Northern. There seemed to be differences between long serving employees and those relatively new to the university. At least three participants, mostly those who had worked at Northern for some time, stated outright support for the personnel in the division. Several participants who were not long serving employees stated that personnel issues were one of the reasons for the restructuring. One participant who had been at the institution a relatively short time stated: I think in some ways the recasting of this organization as an example, is to move it away from some staff who were perceived to be under-performing or ill suited, but also to emphasize this is a high level priority where more resources need to be invested so that student leadership development, service learning and some of the traditions at [Northern] are more supported by the division of student affairs. This perception was advanced by the participant who further stated: Part of it was driven by concerns about individual staff members who were perceived by senior administration to be under-performing or ill suited to do some of the work that was assigned within their portfolio of responsibilities. So part of this was just based upon the players within the organization. Trust and loyalty. Three participants believed that personnel issues were a factor in restructuring, particularly the Vice President’s ability to trust people. One senior level administrator stated: Yeah, I think there were personnel issues in the restructuring, and I’m not sure why to be honest. The two new Vice Presidents that were hired last year both came from outside the institution and I don’t think there would be anybody who works at [Northern] who said that there weren’t some very viable internal candidates in this processes. So I clearly think that [the Vice President] wanted to bring in his/her own team who he/she felt
127
he/she could trust and who had been with him/her from the beginning… The perception that the Vice President may have selected external candidates for loyalty and protection was voiced by another senior level administrator who stated: I think he/she would have gained some value if he/she had picked someone internally. He/she still would have had a person who was loyal - who would have protected him/her - watched his/her back…but I think he/she views it is important to get outside people because those of us who have been here – may not have been on his/her team…that’s unfortunate…because I think [the Vice President] missed out on some talent around the table that certainly could have helped [the Vice President] through some of the issues [the Vice President is] dealing with today. Another senior level administrator acknowledged that personnel issues were a contributing factor. Competence, however, did not seem to be a major factor. Rather, the Vice President chose to select his/her own people from outside the organization. When asked if personnel issues were a factor, this senior level administrator stated: Absolutely. That there were personnel problems and they were the cause of restructuring. I think there was some of that…there are good people here… people who are well respected in our field...in their respective fields…who are what I would say…are key line officers in the organization but my supposition is that [the Vice President] wanted to make sure he/she surrounded himself/herself with individuals whom…he/she chose people that would be for lack of a better term...beholden to him/her. Further, this participant stated it's "…not uncommon when you are in a key leadership role to make sure you are surrounding yourself with people who are your lieutenants who are going to do your will, your bidding and watch your back.” One senior level administrator provided an example where the Vice President lost the trust of other administrators. A long serving senior administrator: …was moved from student affairs to a faculty position in the college student affairs program. It was real clear when that happened…it was a surprise for everyone! The way [the Vice President] framed it was using a line he/she often uses – [Name] is providing mentoring to students in the College Student personnel program. He/she is an international scholar/practitioner
128
and because of that he’s/she’s going to share his/her wisdom…He’ll/she’ll retain his/her Associate Vice President position in the student affairs…But what people knew was that none of that was true. External hires. One outcome of the restructuring effort was the posting of two high level job opportunities within the division. Northern seems to have a history of hiring qualified individuals from within the organization. A number of internal candidates applied for these positions but no internal candidates were hired. Instead, two external individuals were hired. Some viewed this as a figurative slap in the face of the internal applicants who were perceived to be highly qualified. One long serving administrator stated "I think there are enough people in our organization who would have been excellent individuals to help [the Vice President] in that cause, without having to go outside." One senior official, who was concerned about the affects of restructuring on personnel, acknowledged that there may have been concerns with restructuring. This individual stated "I think that in a couple of places where there were difficulties…would have been personnel issues. But again there are ways to say - this isn't working and we need to do something differently. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything changes." Supervisory relationships. When asked if personnel issues were a concern, one participant stated -"Most certainly!" When asked how, the participant asked: "Again -this is all confidential? …there's a piece of it I think that [the Vice President] just didn't also want to deal with some people. Didn't want to be in that relationship…didn't want to be in that supervisory relationship with certain people." Another senior level employee who was relatively new
129
to the division stated: "Oh heck yes and continue to be!" What was interesting was that this participant, when pressed, was not willing to provide any additional details. One senior level administrator, however, didn't think that personnel issues were a driving force to restructure. When asked if personnel issues were a factor in initiating restructuring this administrator stated: That's a little difficult to say. I hesitate to suggest that a driving force behind the organization had to do with removing certain people from power…and disengaging individuals from the central administrative group. I do know that there is at least one…there are probably several individuals who are not particularly happy with the way things evolved. Most found ways to adapt, adjust or profit from the change. But you know - that's kind of anticipated and expected with a new administration ….you either live with it…find a way to work around it…or you leave. Another senior level administrator believed that restructuring was creating some personnel issues. This participant noted that personnel issues weren't a factor in initiating restructuring and that people weren't terminated as a result of restructuring; rather, people were looking to leave Northern because of not being valued. This participant stated: …In my mind…I think we are losing some really good people because of the restructuring…not because necessarily because they are being pushed out, not hired back…but because they have decided to take early retirement or they've decided to try to find jobs elsewhere because they just don't feel valued. Pressure to restructure might not be completely legitimate. To better understand the dynamics in the restructuring effort, participants were asked if the pressures to restructure were completely legitimate. This question generated considerable discussion as well as a range of responses. While there was some agreement on the overarching goal of becoming a student-centered division, participants believed that they were already student-centered. Assessment was considered a strength by a number of participants within the division, yet there was no reference to research
130
data that supported the claim that the division was student-centered or that there was a need to be more student-centered. Without any firm research evidence, many questioned the pressure to restructure. One of the individuals who benefited from restructuring stated: "No. I don’t think so. I think that if you talk to some people in the division they aren’t happy with how things are going right now, and they don’t like the process….that’s kind of been used to undermine some of the restructuring..." One senior level participant stated "I do not believe that [the Vice President] ever actually verbalized that we weren't doing well. Intentionally." Further, this participant stated: ….I think sometimes people will feel… new people coming in will make these statements. And sometimes others who've been here for a while feel What? We haven't served students before? What? What are you kidding me? So yes - some of that happened. I don't think he/she intentionally said "You've never served students…" with the exception of a couple of areas that were identified as problem areas. One senior level participant stated: …Unless and until a leader fully explains Why - it’s very hard for the rank and file to understand what’s going on. And if you keep that information close to your vest - for whatever reason - it creates an atmosphere in the organization not necessarily of mistrust - but lack of understanding. Leaving staff members to ask, Who is really guiding us? Who is really controlling this? How will we know when we get there? Taking a more philosophical approach, one senior level administrator stated I think that those of us that feel secure in our positions…we're not worried that this is going to be a wholesale removal of people or a shifting in ways that were unacceptable. But in a couple of instances…I think it was high time individuals were moved to other parts of the university. And that was good. And I credit him/her for doing that. It might have been unsettling to people but there's never been sense that this is all about out with the old and in with the new.
131
Summary of the impetus for restructuring. The previous Vice President at Northern had served for over 12 years, overseeing a large number of direct reports in a relatively flat organizational structure. The current Vice President sought to focus the division on becoming more student-centered and enhance student engagement by realigning personnel, creating two new centers, and adding two high level administrators, both of whom were external hires. These additions helped reduce the workload of the Vice President and created a more hierarchical organizational structure. Participants noted that the primary impetus for restructuring was the Vice President, with the support of the President, who sought to move the division in a new direction. There were strong differences of opinion regarding the existence of bottlenecks, whether personnel issues were a factor, as well as the hiring of external candidates. Generally, long standing employees at Northern did not see the need to restructure and overall, were not supportive. The three or four employees who were recently hired or those who were involved in the restructuring process were more likely to support the effort. One of the central issues involving the impetus to restructure was the absence of data to guide the restructuring process and the lack of quantifiable goals. The Vice President wanted the division to become more student-centered yet it was unclear if data pointed this area out as a weakness. It was also unclear if quantifiable goals were established or were shared with the division. The Vice President's interest in moving the division in a particular direction without data or quantifiable goals created a sense of
132
inadequacy and mistrust within the division resulting in a majority of the participants questioning the rationale used to restructure. What Were the Goals of Restructuring? Restructuring often involves establishing goals and guiding people towards reaching those goals. Participants were asked about the goals of restructuring, whether the goals were written, if the staff understood the goals, whether restructuring was an effort to work around employees, and if it was an effort to give a higher priority to student learning. Responses from participants were mixed. Did the written goals guide restructuring? In an effort to better understand the role of written goals played in the restructuring process, follow-up probes were utilized regarding written goals and the staffs’ understanding of those goals. Written goals serve to communicate the overall direction of the division as well as remind managers and staff of divisional priorities. The goals of the restructuring were outlined by the participants. Nearly three-quarters of the participants were mid-level managers or senior level administrators who were aware of the goals of restructuring. The role of written goals. When asked if the goals are written anywhere participants offered mixed responses. One perspective was summed up by a senior level administrator who stated "I know they’re in our strategic plan. I’m trying to think about our division’s overarching goals and I think they’re implied in our division’s overarching goals in terms of what we’re trying to do."
133
Another senior level administrator stated "…I think with the first restructuring plan there was something written down on that. So there was something like a restructuring plan. Yeah. The first time around there was a sort of a draft of this is what we’re trying to do and this is what we want to do. I believe there were goals on it." When asked about written goals, another senior level administrator stated: Not that I’ve seen. I know we have a strategic plan for the division – that talks about what our most important mission, vision, goals are…and all of us in our administrative units have aligned our units with our strategic plans with those mission, vision, goals. Further, the participant stated: " ….are they written? The goals for restructuring? No, but I think it’s implied that we restructured to achieve a strategic plan." One respondent noted that a handful of people wrote the strategic plan for the division. The staff’s understanding of the goals. Follow-up questions were asked to see if the staff understood the goals of restructuring. Generally, participants believed that the staff did not understand the goals of restructuring. One senior level administrator stated: "No, I think the directors probably do, but the staff at large no. I actually think for the most part they are largely unaffected by the reorganization." Another senior level administrator stated: "I think the upper level administration in general understood the goals….I’m not sure that initially a lot of the mid-managers or line staff so to speak that weren’t involved in the discussion necessarily understood." A third senior level administrator stated: "No…I don't think the process lent itself to that." Two participants who benefited from the restructuring effort stated that the staff didn't understand the goals of restructuring, especially in the early stages. One administrator stated: "I would say early on no. But I would say generally a vast majority
134
understand the goals of the restructuring at this point. Only because those of us in (senior leadership roles) have been reiterating it, and have been living it and trying to make it an integral part of our work." One administrator who had been involved in the restructuring effort summed up the potential range of responses by stating “We’re a pretty large staff and I’d say some did and some didn’t and probably everything in between.” One administrator believed that the stated goals may be different than the perceived goals. When asked if the staff understood the goals of restructuring, the administrator responded: "….people have an understanding across the division… and that is to get rid of people who have been here a long time and have old ideas." What were the respondents’ perceptions of the goals? The perceptions of goals serve as an indicator of how well the articulated goals correspond to the participants beliefs about the needs of the organization. In an effort to obtain a better understanding of how participants perceived the goals of restructuring, follow-up probes were asked in the areas of efficiency, reducing costs and workload, refocusing the mission of the division, improving communication and coordination. The pursuit of efficiencies and reducing costs. Efficiency can be a goal of restructuring. Participants noted that efficiency was a goal but not necessarily a primary one. One senior level administrator stated: "…I gave the reasons why I think we restructured….more effective use of time and staff energy, free him/her up to do the big picture stuff, which a Vice President should be doing." When asked about goals, another senior level administrator stated: "I continue to believe to make the division more efficient, to make it more student-centered."
135
Participants were asked if one of the goals of restructuring was to reduce costs. There was relative agreement that reducing costs was not a factor in restructuring. Some participants weren't aware of the divisional budget; others who were stated that the budget wasn't a factor. As one senior level administrator clearly stated: "No." Others corroborated this perception. Reducing costs was not used as a rationale nor was reduced costs reported to have occurred. The reduction of the Vice President's workload. A number of participants stated one of the goals of restructuring was to reduce the workload in certain positions. One participant noted: "My impression is…is that the workload is unbelievable and the ability of that person or anybody in that position to manage the multiple demands that come that person’s way, even if you’re the most talented and energetic type person, really it’s overwhelming." The refocus of the division's mission. There was general consensus that restructuring was a means to move the division toward a new mission focused on student engagement. There was some agreement that a new structure was needed to accomplish the goals of restructuring. One senior administrator stated "My sense is the goals were to establish a structure that would be in support of the new mission of Student Affairs, to serve students through helping resources, engaging activities, and develop their out of class experience." This statement was supported by a long serving senior administrator who stated: I think there was a sense that we needed to move Student Affairs in a new direction; that there were new goals to attain and some issues that the Vice President wanted to address and so I think the Vice President felt it important to make some changes in the organizational structure to better suit where we were going to take the division.
136
One senior administrator who was more focused on the student experience stated: The scope and goals were to enable us to provide for students all the things that would help them to thrive and be valuable citizens. A sub goal of that was to make this huge university be a place where students felt that they received individual attention from those who worked in student affairs. When asked about goals, another senior level administrator stated: "I mean the first one is clearly stated it’s to enhance the out-of-class experience; the others are to develop effective student leaders and citizens and I’m trying to think of the third one…." Restructuring can be used to give a higher priority to emerging concerns. There was general consensus that restructuring was used to give a higher priority to student engagement. One senior administrator stated: I do think one of the core goals was to be more responsive to and more progressive in thinking about how we deliver services to students across the division, and in particular, to become more purposeful in our co-curricular experience and to work harder to engage students and truly become a very student friendly organization. This view was echoed by another senior level administrator who stated "… it’s all about student engagement, student learning, responsiveness and I think there was just this overall notion that we were probably too laid back in student affairs staff." A third senior level administrator stated "Yes, I think there is greater emphasis making sure we were more in tune with the educational learning process and to be a partner in that process." One senior level administrator was more skeptical saying “I think the goal was…was to sort of give the appearance that we were picking out a priority. I don’t know that any of our actual programs have really changed; I think it’s just the spin we put on them that has changed a little bit.”
137
The improvement of coordination and communication. Restructuring can be used to improve coordination and communication in the division. Participants were asked if this was a goal of the restructuring effort. Generally, improving communication was perceived to be a goal of restructuring. When asked if improving coordination and communication was a goal, one senior level administrator stated: Well, I think there was an effort to improve communication and I think some of that has to do with who reports to whom.... Improve communication, I think there was an effort to, as I said, to get the structure to better support the new goals for student affairs… One senior level administrator who had a long service record at the institution stated "Yeah, I think that would be…my sense is that would always be viewed as one of the values of restructuring - I'm not sure that we had poor communication to begin with." Another senior level administrator believed that the new structure inhibited communication which was better under the previous structure. This senior level administrator stated: [The Vice President] certainly talks a lot about the silos that existed when he/she came….I didn't perceive any silos…. I kind of feel like we are in silos now. Because things are much more regimented than they were before. I think there has always kind of been…certainly in the time that I've been here…a really broad collaboration among units… [The] flat structure before helped collaboration. Communication is a critical component of organizational change. In an effort to understand if the Vice President communicated throughout the restructuring effort, participants were asked if they thought the communication process was open. As with the responses to other questions, the responses to this question were mixed. Several
138
respondents noted that the process seemed open but that people feared giving feedback, inhibiting the communication process. When asked if the communication process was open, one administrator stated: "My understanding is, and this is secondhand, but my understanding is there was a lot of conversation and there was an invitation to provide feedback and suggestions during the retreat." Another senior level administrator stated: I think it was open, I don’t think it was transparent whereby everybody could see what was going on and what was taking place. But, I also have to be honest, we’re a large division and I don’t know how – I guess there were probably ways to do it a little bit differently to get more people to understand and buy in initially, but once again I’m not sure people would have paid attention to those items. I think the efforts were there, I think the intention was good, I’m just not sure that it played out the way that it could have. A number of participants articulated concerns regarding providing feedback on restructuring. One participant stated: "It’s somewhat open. I don’t think you would want to disagree publicly. I think if you have some feedback you would want to give [it] privately…but I don’t think you would want to criticize the reorganization publicly." Another participant, offering a more philosophical approach, stated: "I think there was the perception that it was open…I think the reality was that it was a very closed, tight knit process." Further, this senior administrator stated: I think change is good provided change is managed and change can be successful if it is managed. In order to manage it, you have to have a strategy and a plan. Not every change can occur overnight and you have to be OK with that and say here's where I want to be… I think you work towards that and you tell staff where you are along the way….keep them involved in that loop and be ready to adjust and adapt because as you walk down that road of change you can't possibly think of everything that comes up so you have to be flexible and adaptable and say Yes - My eye is still on where we need to be and that's where we need to be...but we need to fine tune this a little bit.. You can't go from A to X in a day.
139
The improvement of organizational responsiveness. In an effort to further describe the goals of the restructuring process, participants were asked if a goal might have been to improve the responsiveness of the division. The participants, who focused on responsiveness to students, provided mixed responses to this inquiry. A number of participants noted that the division prided itself on being student friendly and that people prided themselves on being responsive. Three senior level administrators agreed that one of the goals was to improve responsiveness using the word "definitely" and the statement - "Yes, I think that was certainly was one of the goals…" Another senior level administrator stated: "Yes, I think it probably was. I don’t know whether the responsiveness really needed to be improved or whether this really has improved it, but I think that probably was one of the goals." Other participants were not so convinced. One senior level administrator who had benefited from the restructuring effort stated: I’m not sure. I think that we were a pretty kind of student-friendly, studentcentered institution even though we weren’t all that actively engaged with the students at that time, but I think - one of the things that has always impressed me about [Northern] is that even though we’re so large, students have always been the number one priority and its been very apparent in student affairs is committed to that. So I don’t think that one could say we were unresponsive. One senior level administrator who has been critical of the restructuring effort noted: "That actually is something that [the Vice President] talked lots about. And again, I think always to the puzzlement of those doing the work because I think that responding to students is something that people really have always prided themselves in doing…" Another senior level administrator took a more philosophical approach regarding responsiveness stating:
140
Well, I don’t think structure has anything to do with responsiveness. I think responsiveness has something to do with how you train your individuals. Because I expect people at [work location] .….to be responsive. When [an employee] is contacted by a student and there’s a problem, I expect him/her to be responsive to that. And so, I don’t think that’s dependent upon structure…I think that’s dependent upon how well you train your staff and what the expectations are for being responsive. The need to work around people. Restructuring can be used to work around individuals who are difficult to work with or do not fully support the current management approach. Participants were asked if an implicit or explicit goal was to work around employees who were thought to be impeding the progress of the division Participants were evenly divided on this issue. One participant stated: I think one of the other goals, frankly and bluntly, is I think (the Vice President) still has some concerns with performance of some staff at the senior level and doesn’t have a comfortable relationship with at least one of the Assistant Vice President's and so I think one of the variables in play is working around and with that circumstance. One senior level administrator stated: I think that was one of the factors in this reorganization, is that there’s some things shifted to and from people based upon (the Vice President's) priorities at his/her level of confidence and comfort with some of the people in the organization. Another senior level administrator stated: No, I don’t think so - I don’t think there were large groups of individuals who were impeding the work of the Division. My sense is the Division was operating fairly well. There were a couple of individuals frankly who were not managing things well - there were three [people] who...and they aren't here anymore… One participant who served in a number of roles within the division stated: “Yeah, take power away…. I think…we all run into folks who we perceive as threats to
141
us….you know if you can work around it…then yeah. I would hope not …but…(shrug)…" Others stated: "[Impede] the progress of the division? I believe so yes.” This same participant added “I think the unstated goal which may have been: ‘Where do I put things so that I do a "work around" somebody?’ That was one of the drivers with this too, and I think most people are suspect of the reorganization because they think that’s what’s happening." One senior level participant stated: “I would say no. Work with them but not work around them. I think there are those that still aren’t on the bus, but at some point they will either choose to get off the bus or get on another bus.” One senior level administrator who played a role in the restructuring effort stated: There are some of us who are conspiracy theorists and everything is a conspiracy but I can’t tell you that I can think of a time when we said "Oh we got to do X and Y because Susie’s over here. " I didn’t sense that. I did sense that we, I did believe that there were people who were in positions, given how we were restructuring positions and reprioritizing our goals that maybe weren’t the best fits, and that then we tried to figure out whether there was a different set of responsibilities they should take on or did they need some additional training or did we need to do some other kind of coaching mentoring, but I don’t ever recall sitting in a meeting and saying, you know, Ed he’s a dilemma – we got to do something with him. A senior administrator who was relatively new to Northern provided an overview of the perceptions of other participants. In summing up the thoughts of others, this administrator stated: So one of the impressions that some of the staff hold is that [the Vice President’s] plan over time is to move along old [Northern] staff who predated [the Vice President] here and bring in his/her own people. So the reorganization is part of that notion…[the Vice President] is perhaps working around – creating new positions or moving things around so that established staff who were here before him/her will lose part of their portfolio or become discouraged and fall out of favor and move along and then [the Vice President] can bring in his/her own team. And with
142
the reorganization there has been the creation of some new positions, many of which have been filled by people from outside of [Northern]. The need to centralize, decentralize or restructure authority. In an effort to better understand restructuring, participants were asked if the effort was an attempt to centralize, decentralize or restructure authority within the division. Participants did not believe restructuring fell into any one category. One senior level administrator stated “I think it might have been to centralize authority more. I think that's what the end result was…”. Additional support for a centralized approach was found in the comments of another senior level administrator who stated “Yes, I think that goes back to the notion that the Assistant or Associate Vice Presidents should actually have staff reporting directly to them as opposed to sort of through them to the Vice President.” Other senior administrators believed that restructuring was an attempt to decentralize authority within the division. Citing the organizational structure under the previous Vice President, one participant stated: “…I think probably a stated goal would have been to decentralize authority...when I look through the organization chart now…I see kind of levels, before what I saw was a flat organization…a stated goal that feels like the opposite of what had happened.” Another administrator stated “I think the stated goal was to decentralize…[These new groupings] are going to be a powerful force in carrying out these three objectives and I'm going to empower these people to do that and I'm going to hire the right people to do that or promote the right people to do that and this group is going to do it.” Others noted a shift in authority but were unsure how it had changed. One senior administrator stated: “Yeah, authority has definitely shifted and I’m just
143
trying to figure out which way it shifted.” Summary of goals of restructuring. The primary goal of restructuring was to refocus the division on a new mission that included being more student-centered and enhancing student engagement. A secondary goal was to align people to place more emphasis on student engagement and student learning. This generated considerable discussion about personnel and whether restructuring was an effort to work around people. Working around people and shifting responsibilities to those the Vice President could trust was an overarching goal, though not explicitly stated. Those who believed restructuring was an effort to work around employees also believed that the Vice President had concerns about the performance of certain staff and his/her confidence and comfort with certain staff. Subsidiary goals included efforts to reduce the workload on the Vice President by adding staff at the senior administrative level. Restructuring at Northern was not an effort to reduce costs, nor improve communication. Respondents were generally unaware of any effort to use data to guide the restructuring effort. Goals such as improving student satisfaction in any particular area, decreasing wait times for certain services or focusing efforts to obtain external credentials such as accreditation were not existent. The participants involved in this study articulated a new mission for the institution with the goal of improving communication and responsiveness however, most respondents believed they were already doing well and without data, the validity of these goals was unclear. A number of participants believed that restructuring was an effort to encourage existing staff to leave so the Vice President could bring in people from
144
outside the division. Participants did not believe that the goal of restructuring was to reduce costs or centralize or decentralize authority within the division. What Processes Were Used to Restructure? To better understand the processes used to restructure, participants were asked a series of questions involving communications, inclusiveness, processes, strategies, and procedures. Participants were also asked about the use of formal management concepts, whether consultants were used and how employees responded to restructuring. The restructuring process started out with the hiring of a new Vice President, continued with a divisional retreat and meetings with staff. A majority of participants believed that, after the divisional meeting, restructuring was initiated and coordinated by a smaller group of people. While feedback was requested, some participants noted that suggestions weren't valued. For some, change was taking place very quickly and there was some apprehension regarding what was going to take place next. Sequence of events. The restructuring process was described very differently by those interviewed. Three participants described it in positive terms, others thought it "whimsical". A number of people were supportive in the initial phases of restructuring noting that it is difficult to argue against broad philosophical approaches to be more student-centered or efforts to more actively engage students. Some noted that they thought they were already performing these functions but were open to new ways of doing things. Participants noted that the Vice President at Northern has consistently used "change agent" as a self descriptor and that the division had undergone two restructuring efforts. These two restructuring efforts varied in size and scope. The first involved realigning
145
offices, the hiring of two high level administrators, changed reporting structures for a number of employees, and the creation of two new institutes. The second involved minor changes in the reporting structure after the two new senior level administrators were hired. Only four of the people interviewed played a major role in the restructuring effort. A number of people reported that they had minor roles, noting they had participated in a senior officer workshop where they gave input on how the division should be aligned. Some participants backtracked, noting that though they had provided input, their suggestions weren’t valued. When asked if they had a role in restructuring, one senior administrator stated: Well, I had a little bit of role…as far as what we were doing with students... as far as staff piece…no. You were basically contacted one day to say what do you think about this? Then it really didn't matter what you thought about it because it was happening anyway! Many participants noted that, outside the fairly open senior officer workshop where restructuring was discussed, there were few other opportunities to provide input. Participants believed that a small group people directly reporting to the Vice President, including the Assistant Vice Presidents, fashioned the restructuring effort. One participant stated “It was reacting to plans that were formulated….or written by a smaller group.” One participant who has served in a number of capacities at the institution stated: “There was much more dialogue in smaller closed-door sessions versus what the division is used to.” Further, one participant noted that the approach used created uncertainties and suggested an approach that may have been more widely supported:
146
We're all going to get around the table and we're all going to talk this [over] and flesh it out. And maybe from there, together, we can find some places that make sense - that didn't happen. And so, I think when things were proposed from this smaller group…sometimes mistrust develops - (people ask) where did this come from? Participants stated that restructuring began with a retreat sponsored by the Vice President. A senior level administrator provided an overview: There was a leadership forum that occurred, a day long retreat that included folks from student affairs, student leaders, faculty members, and administrators and that would have happened in October/November, two years ago. Out of that comes written mission, vision, goals, and then out of that comes a strategic planning committee, that I was a part of, and that came up with the strategic plan for the next few years. A search of the division's website did turn up a document called a strategic plan that was mainly generated by discussions at two retreats. A drafting committee comprised of four staff members and two students are listed as members. Other than a limited number of references to this document, the strategic plan did not seem to be a document that people used or worked with on a regular basis. Another senior level administrator stated that the Vice President: Did some meeting with line staff just to kind of meet everybody…to really ask for feedback from those pretty immediately and talked about being hired to be a change agent, which kind of surprised everyone he/she talked with because that hadn’t been the perception that anyone working in students affairs had had… A number of participants took issue with the Vice President’s goal of becoming student-centered, resulting in decreased interest in restructuring. It was clear that the process used to restructure was perceived to be problematic. Only one participant, who was involved with the effort, found the process to be positive, even admitting that there were things that could have been improved. A senior level administrator who has been involved with the restructuring effort stated:
147
Well, I think that there were parts of it that went extremely well in terms of gathering people’s input and ideas and trying to have the structure match the function. I think there were some areas we could have done better in terms of, I mean it was an inclusive process in many ways but I think we could have communicated some things a little sooner, a little more directly and maybe gotten some input from, even further down the ranks than we went, to try and give people a better sense of why we were trying to do what we were trying to do. But, overall I would say it went well. Another senior level administrator offered to grade the restructuring process and stated: "I would grade it as ‘poor’ from my own perspective." This participant also stated: "In my opinion, the worst thing you can do is drive a change on a group of individuals and not have them be a part of it." Further this participant stated: To have things happen or have things come out in a document or in an organizational chart no one has ever had a chance to see it - It just appears… here's what it is…People say: ‘How did this get here?’…You have to inform [people] how we're going to do that and why I've done this. ... I don’t think that was done…as a result - you may have had the best plan in the world…and it makes the most sense and it's the best org structure that gets you where you need to go but if you don't carefully plan that process…and work with staff to implement it. You just don't snap your fingers and there it is…It's not going to win - even if it's the best plan in the world and it's the right thing to do. This perception was supported by another long serving administrator who stated: It's pretty much denounced [sic] and people fall in line with it. There is an occasional token effort to bring people on board in advance of an announcement but typically the case is that it is brought up and sort of put on the table and kind a described in rapid fire fashion...it's more like a hit and run rather than here's an opportunity to talk about, criticize, digest what the structure will be. A number of participants were critical of the process. One administrator stated: … But again…it was in the end…how it was done. I’m not sure people were against restructuring. Once it got under way…people couldn’t understand… some people didn’t understand what was going on…all of a sudden...people thought we were doing this and then it ended up …something different.
148
Another senior level administrator offered the following: …the stated process was that everyone could have a voice in how the restructuring occurred. But again, I think a lot of what happened took place behind closed doors...very few people very often said, “Here's what we're going to do now.” Lots of feedback asked for and then… “Here's what our committees and feedback said...but here's what I decided to do.” And that “Here's what I decided to do” is the operative piece in that. And so that it was like “trust me in this…” One long serving administrator offered the following: A lot too fast…I think it's been, in my mind, the most disruptive. In the [many] years I've been here, I was in [another area]for many years…and there was a stretch…just about every year the staffing changed…but it wasn't such a drastic change and it wasn't that you didn't know what was going on. Here, right now, I think people feel like they are in sand...because they don't know what's happening next. Inclusive. Participants were asked if they believed that the restructuring process was inclusive. As in other areas, the responses were mixed. One administrator stated the process was inclusive. Others believed that aside from one leadership retreat, the process gave the impression that it was inclusive but it was not. One senior level administrator who directly benefited from restructuring stated: I’ll use one of [the Vice President's] terms that he/she is kind of famous for…that is was an “inclusive” process. That it was one that attempted to engage all stakeholders in the division. I’m not sure that was necessarily accomplished but that was the goal...We started out with really grass roots, basic education, vision, obtaining feedback, buy in and working from there. This perception was balanced by the view of another senior level administrator who stated "I’m not sure I would have done it the same way. I don’t think it was very inclusive." A third senior level administrator stated "I think it was……impression management would be a term I'd use. That it was alleged to be inclusive but I don't think
149
it was." Another senior level administrator stated "Not very inclusive. We had a retreat in the summer of 2004 where groups – it was at the director level—directors were asked to meet in groups at the retreat and talk about how they would reorganize the division if it were up to them." Participants did not identify additional steps of the process after the retreat. Formal management practices. Participants were asked if formal management practices, such at TQM, were used in the restructuring process. While terms like ‘synergy’ and ‘shaping’ were used, participants generally agreed that the restructuring did not attempt to follow a formal management practice. One participant stated the consensus "I think there were a variety of things that were taken into account, but I don’t think we followed any of those fads or trends." Use of consultants. Participants were asked if consultants were used in the restructuring process. Approximately half of those participating had no knowledge of the use of consultants. However, three participants stated that consultants were used in specific functional areas. Two participants believed that consultants were used to support the Vice President's efforts. One senior level administrator stated: …Yes there were consultants that would plan workshops to garner support for the direction we were going in and, once again, it seemed more like a ...plea and that the meetings to garner support were more about cheerleading ….what has already occurred rather than working towards fully engaging the individuals in the process.
150
Employee response. To gain a better understanding of how restructuring affected employees, participants were asked how employees responded. There was general agreement that initially, employees were supportive of restructuring. However over time, support for restructuring decreased. A common theme involved the perception that any work done prior to restructuring was not valued. One senior level administrator who played a role in restructuring stated: …I think it’s one thing to talk about, you know conceptually, where student affairs needed to be and why we needed to be there. I think people pretty much could buy into those things. I think when it came down to getting into the details of it and some of the final decisions, I think that was harder for some people than for others and I think then that caused some people to question why, although they might not have been questioning it earlier, but because it was having a direct impact on their professional experience, I think they began to question it a little bit more. Another senior administrator stated: Well…in the beginning I think there was a group, me being one of them, that felt like we were headed in a really good direction - we needed the change and people were behind [it]. There was another group that was 'wait and see…we're going just see what happens. As the restructuring effort progressed, one senior level administrator stated: While there was some agreement on to be smarter how we were doing things and what made more sense to be student-centered…I can pretty much say… that a lot of folks ended up feeling like…everything that was done prior to restructuring didn't count for anything. We weren’t doing anything before restructuring?…we weren't student-centered before? Further, this participant stated: I think a lot a of people (who were supportive originally) were now taking a step back - students included…saying ‘I'm not so sure about this.’ Again, I go back to the fact that there were good things happening here - I don't think all the good things started in the last two to three years. When people feel like they're not included and the work that they have done - many for 20-30 years - is sort of pushed aside - whether intentionally or not…and
151
you are not brought into the conversation at some level…I think that's really detrimental. Facilitate/impede. Participants were asked about what facilitated or impeded restructuring. Participants provided responses to both. Factors that facilitated restructuring included workshops or retreats. One senior level administrator noted that the division sponsors a: …development day and we have three or four of them a year, where [employees] and some of the people who are on the committee for developing the plan, strategic plan, got up and talked about it and passed it out to us and asked for feedback and input. A number of people noted that the Vice President played a critical role in facilitating restructuring. One senior level administrator stated "Well, what I think
facilitated its implementation was the sheer force of [the Vice President's] personality. His/her perseverance and determination to make it happen…and we have been restructured…which is very different than saying we have restructured." One senior level administrator believed the process was very directed, stating: "I'm not sure implementation was facilitated…I'm really not sure. Because what it was- was people were put in place. People were hired in their positions - and have to create change and told, ‘Go do it.’" Several participants identified factors that impeded restructuring. A lack of involvement, teambuilding, trust, and communication were major factors identified by participants. One senior level administrator who was fairly new to the division stated: I think the thing that has impeded the division in this context, but also generally, is, that there are just some problems with the organizational climate and there’s low level of trust, intense work demands on people throughout the organization and not enough focus on building the organization in the team.
152
One long serving administrator stated: Lack of communication. For me that was probably the single… impediment in the process. That things were sometimes being handed out on paper, in writing and email at the 12th hour without any reason to discuss it in advance or have input into that process. It was just: Here it is!…The first time they are seeing this? Yes. Another senior level administrator stated: I think that I would say when we communicated early on we communicated fully and followed up appropriately. I think the restructuring discussions implementation went fine. I think where we got screwed up or it didn’t go as well is when we didn’t get out there early on with the appropriate people, when we didn’t follow-up and I think there were some rumors that got out there they really weren’t rumors, they were actual things that we had agreed to or disagreed, but somebody said something to somebody… One senior level administrator perceived that restructuring had created change which had been fairly constant. This senior level administrator objected to the approach used stating "I feel like people were saying – ‘here we go again’...you know...you want us to be part of this…you're telling me how to do it...I'm not a graduate student anymore…So people fight that…they'll do it because they want to keep their jobs." Summary of the processes employed. The processes employed to restructure the division did not utilize any formal management practice. There was very little knowledge or awareness about the strategic planning process or a strategic plan. The Vice President initiated a series of meetings with various offices and personnel shortly after his/her arrival. At a divisional leadership retreat, participants were asked for input on ways to reorganize the division. Following this retreat, the general impression of the participants was that a small group of individuals worked on and coordinated the restructuring effort, which was announced
153
by the Vice President. This approach did not engender support for the restructuring effort, or the Vice President, since it was very different from the inclusive approach used by the previous Vice President. In responding to questions about process, the participants outlined two overarching themes restructuring was taking place as a result of the sheer will of the Vice President's personality; and there was a lack of inclusiveness of a broader group in planning and implementing the change. One administrator described the process as a "hit and run rather than here's an opportunity to talk about, criticize, digest what the structure will be." This lack of communication had a negative affect on the organizational climate. The inability to provide input contrasted with the approach used by the previous Vice President and resulted in a general lack of support by a number of those interviewed. The respondents seemed to support the initial effort to restructure but the effort lost support as the process continued. When asked about the process, the participants offered mixed reviews and there was an impression that restructuring at Northern was the Vice President's plan, not the division's plan. Overall, the comments were slightly skewed toward negative. As noted by one participant: "You just don't snap your fingers and there it is…It's not going to win…Even if it is the best plan in the world…." What Were the Results of Restructuring? To gauge the overall success of the restructuring effort, participants were asked about the effectiveness in achieving the stated goals, performance, staffing, employee turnover, employee morale, changes in business, evidence of restructuring, assessment of restructuring results, unintended outcomes.
154
One senior level administrator noted that the restructuring effort was actually returning the division to a structure that had previously existed. The senior level administrator stated: “…when it’s all done it doesn’t look any different than it did two Vice President’s ago.” The same senior level administrator shared that they had accidentally run into a former senior administrator who had retired a number of years ago. The retired senior administrator purportedly made the following comment about the restructuring effort: “I heard that this is happening and this is happening and this is happening. Further, this person stated “When I was here – that’s what we tried so hard to get rid of because it doesn’t work.” Effectiveness in achieving stated goals. To gauge the overall success of restructuring, participants were asked about effectiveness in achieving goals. Nearly three-quarters of those interviewed believed that it was too soon to determine the effectiveness of restructuring. At least two believed that restructuring was not working. One senior level administrator stated "Well, I think the jury is still out on this…in some of the areas…like the [functional area] effort - we've done a very good job to move in a direction we wanted to achieve." Further, this participant stated: I think it's still too new soon for me to tell by creating these two new cognitive areas, one for purposeful programming, one for engagement, whether or not we've yet achieved those. Outside the things in [functional area], I'm not sure I can point to anything…" Another senior level administrator stated: "I would say it’s a work in progress or a work in process; I would say that it’s not complete so I would say there is still more work to be done…"
155
Several participants believed that restructuring did not improve performance. One senior level administrator shared that his functional cluster hadn't even met yet. Further this administrator stated: No - I don't think it's working. Well, again, if it is...I'm not sure we would have heard of it. I think…the clusters aren't really [working]…what was stated as the process…[We were told] the clusters are going to go, they are going to do their thing, they are going to develop the vision. They are going to come back and the three clusters are all going to connect...with each other to enhance each others' cluster. [we were told]…all of that communication is going to heightened …..it hasn't. So I'm not sure...I know my cluster [hasn't met]. I not sure about the others. Another senior level administrator stated "No not at all. I think we are in a transition time right now. It may be that we come out of it, being able to do things that are more effective, perhaps a better way. But I’m not optimistic about that. I think we’ve spent lots of time moving pieces around on a chessboard…" One senior administrator offered what might be considered an unintended outcome. When asked about the effectiveness of restructuring this participant stated: Somewhat. I think one of the goals was to bring people out of their silos and I think a lot of the directors have better relationships now than they did [before] because they were like banding together …against the new regime, which I don’t think is exactly how its was intended. But in terms of working together, no, I don’t think they are actually working together any better or collaborating. Improve performance. Restructuring often involves efforts to improve performance. Participants were asked if restructuring improved performance. As with other areas of inquiry, the responses were mixed. There was some agreement that the division had improved in engaging students, however, many believed that it was too early to tell if performance had improved. One senior level administrator stated: "Yes, we’re definitely engaging
156
students a lot more; we’re able to reach more students and just provide better service to them as a whole division." Another senior level administrator stated: "Well, it depends upon what you’re measuring. I think in terms of our responsiveness, our engagement with students, I think we’ve improved tremendously." Others thought that performance had not improved or had declined. One senior level administrator stated: “No, I think our performance was between adequate and good and I think it’s about the same." One senior level administrator thought that performance had decreased, stating: "I think it's gotten worse…… I'll tell you what I think is the worst part…we're not talking…we're really not talking about issues." Affect staffing. To better understand how restructuring affected staffing, participants were asked questions in this area. There was general agreement that the number of professionals increased. One senior level administrator stated: "I think we’ve added many professionals. We’ve had at least one that was moved around a little bit and then we added probably eight to ten professionals I would think." Another senior level administrator stated: "Yes, some people are in different jobs, we have some different kinds of positions, clustered differently in terms of who reports with whom, to whom. So yeah, it did impact the staffing, plus there are a few more people" One participant helped paint a very comprehensive overview of the structural changes made at Northern. These changes and the numerical designations for various positions can be found in Appendix A. When the current Vice President arrived at Northern in 2003, there were three Assistant Vice Presidents. Assistant Vice President
157
#1 supervised two areas, Assistant Vice President #2 supervised seven areas, and Assistant Vice President #3 supervised four areas. The Vice President met with various offices in 2003 and 2004 and held a divisional retreat in 2004. In 2004, Assistant Vice President #2 moved to an academic post and a director from within the division was promoted to the position of interim Assistant Vice President. In 2004-05, the Vice-President initiated a search for an Associate Vice President and an Assistant Vice President. Assistant Vice President #3 is relocated to an office away from the Vice President and is promoted to Associate Vice President (#1). A new Associate Vice President (#2) is hired from outside the division and given responsibility for five functional areas, including a new institute focused on student engagement. Four areas were transferred to Associate Vice President #1 and two were transferred away. A new Assistant Vice President (#4) was hired from outside the organization and given responsibility for three areas, one of which was new. In 2006, Associate Vice President (#2) picked up two additional areas of responsibility and oversees the cluster focused on community building and student engagement. Associate Vice President #1 oversees the cluster focusing on purposeful education and the co-curriculum. During this time, Associate Vice President #1 also picks up one additional functional area and loses two areas to Assistant Vice President #4. One senior level administrator pointed out that restructuring affected staffing in more ways than employee headcount. This participant stated "It certainly affected staffing patterns and may have affected morale and performance. I mean I think from
158
one week to the next, we don’t know who’s in charge, even when you draw the reporting lines." Lose job/reassigned. To gain a better understanding how restructuring affected the division, participants were asked if anyone had lost their job or had been reassigned. There was general agreement that people were reassigned but that no one lost their job. One senior level administrator stated "Yes, throughout the whole course of the restructuring there were some folks who received other opportunities within Northern to remain here doing different type of things. No one actually lost their job but there were other opportunities created…" This view was supported by another senior level administrator who stated "I don’t know if anyone lost their job, but people were reassigned, given different duties, yep." Employee turnover. Participants were asked if restructuring affected employee turnover. There was general agreement that restructuring had not affected employee turnover. A number of people noted that they knew of people, at the director level and higher, who were searching for employment. There was some agreement that a majority of people were unaffected by restructuring. One senior level administrator stated "I don’t think it has actually. I think the majority of our employees are actually unaffected by this. I think it’s really just the top layer that’s affected." Another stated "I think it will; I don’t know that it has totally yet, but I think that there’s more to come." Three participants noted that one outcome of restructuring was that people were searching for jobs that normally wouldn’t be looking. One senior level administrator
159
stated: "I will say that I know that there are lots of people searching for jobs that would not be leaving if things were different." Another stated: "Yes I do…folks who have been here less than ten years…they are looking at other opportunities….Which is different than it had been here at [Northern]…it's not uncommon to find staff who intend to be here two-three-four years - making it a career. I don't think that's as prevalent now." Affect employee morale. When asked if restructuring affected employee morale, participants agreed that morale, especially at the director level and above, was negatively affected. One senior level administrator stated: "It certainly affected staffing patterns and may have affected morale and performance. More morale than performance because I think people are committed to meet the needs of students in spite of the difficulties that are taking place in front of them..." Also: "I watched them staring at that [divisional overview] and [they were] underlining things – with the job descriptions on the back. I watched them circling blocks …and I watched them be really puzzled." Another stated: "Yes…it is one of the variables and its part of the dynamic of the organization, so it’s contributed to morale certainly and most recently I don’t think in a positive way." Another senior level administrator stated: I mentioned earlier that I do think morale is a concern here. I think one of the ways that the reorganization has made a hit on morale is I’ve heard comments and been part of conversations where part of what is discussed or suggested is that the reorganization reinforces this notion that the plan is to have out with the old and in with the new. So one of the impressions that some of the staff hold is that [the Vice President’s] plan over time is to move along old [Northern] staff who predated him/her here and bring in his/her own people. The perception that morale was negatively affected was supported by another senior level administrator who stated: “I do think that some aspects of the reorganization
160
have negatively affected the morale…of the division." Another stated: “It’s probably the lowest in student affairs that I’ve seen it." While a majority of participants acknowledged that morale was negatively affected, less than a quarter of those interviewed stated that morale had been affected early on but that things were improving. When asked if restructuring had affected morale, one senior level administrator stated "Yes, maybe not so positive at first, but I think everyone’s very excited now." Another senior level administrator stated "I think some people were very excited as I said, I think there were some people who were scared, I think there were people who were frustrated both in terms of what was going on but also the process, how they were being communicated with, etc." Changes in business. Participants were asked if restructuring changed the way the division goes about its business. The responses from participants were mixed. One senior level administrator stated "Yeah, I think so. I think all of us have had to raise our performance, I think we’ve all had to find ways to reach out to students in a much more intentional way.” Further, this participant stated “Yeah, I think we’re much more out there, we’re much more present; we’re much more focused on students and their experiences here." This perception was supported by another senior level administrator who stated: “Yes, particularly when it comes to financial considerations. But also I think primarily in the way that we deliver services to our students….. I would say on the sort of delivery side but also on the internal financial side as well. It’s increased the budget in some areas but decreased the budget in others."
161
A senior level administrator believed that the division did not change the way it goes about its business, stating Not really and to use more of a broader context to the question it’s not as though the restructuring has meant a part of the student affairs division moving to another area or something coming in. It’s a recasting of what was already here, so pieces have been moved around the board so I think that we will still being doing business in much of the same way. Another senior level administrator offered a different view, stating: Well, there’s a different money process in terms of student activities monies and how those monies are being used and not used. There’s a different way in terms of give backs and how salary savings and those kinds of things are used. So I think it’s changed that function. I guess that’s it. We talked about other changes along the way, who reports to whom, so the communication process has changed, I think there’s a desire to have people meet around topics of mutual interest in some different kinds ways than in the past, and I think that’s a good thing – like this healthy campus notion thing – its not just the [functional area] services thing, it’s a wider, broader group of people meeting and talking about those issues, yeah, so there were changes as a result of it. Evidence of the effects of restructuring. Restructuring may lead to changes in structure or function. Participants were asked about evidence that shows the effects of restructuring. Participants identified a number of structural changes including the creation of new offices. What was somewhat disconcerting was a lack of reference to any data identified as evidence. One senior administrator noted that new reporting structures were evidence of restructuring, stating "Yes. As I said moving from a more lateral organizational structure to a more vertical [one]…” Changes in structure were also outlined by another senior level administrator who stated: Again, not in the current circumstances; now, two of the offices that [the Vice President] has created and found resources to fund - the [functional
162
group] within [functional area] and [functional] area, and the center for [functional area] which have received ramped up resources in the last year. A third senior level administrator noted that an important student group has been recast, noting "The new student [group]; although it’s not in place yet, they’re working on it right now, the constitution’s in progress...We’re going to implement this new student [functional area]." Other senior level administrators pointed out that the activity level on the campus had increased. One stated "A lot more programs out there…a lot more efforts to get with students…More student leadership activity...” Another stated "More students involved in safe activities; yeah, definitely more student involvement, reduced numbers of citations or alcohol incidents." In summing up a positive outcome of restructuring, a fourth senor level administrator stated “…I don't think there's [any] question that there have been some things that have changed and I think changed for the better.” Not everyone, however, believed that the evidence of restructuring was positive. When asked about evidence of restructuring one senior level administrator stated “Well, I think a demoralized student affairs group…confusion. I hope there will some positive evidence in the next little while. But I’m not so sure I believe that it will." Assessment of the restructuring results. Participants were asked if there was an effort to analyze the results of restructuring. Generally, participants thought restructuring was being analyzed yet no one could confirm that to be the case. One senior level administrator stated "I would say yes, because with our research and assessment unit, you are looking at student satisfaction surveys, you’re looking at all of the assessment that we do so I think that is
163
definitely going to reflect upon how we’re doing and what we’re doing." Another stated "I’m sure that there are some measures that we’re using, we have a pretty long history of assessment efforts within student affairs at [Northern]…” However, over half of those who responded did not think any analysis was taking place. One stated "I’ve been here for [a time frame] and I’ve not been part of a conversation where we have discussed in any detail what the plan was intended to do and how well we’ve matched up against those intended outcomes. I’m not aware of any assessment on that." Another stated “...in terms of evaluation or assessment…not that I'm recalling anyway." Unintended outcomes. Participants were asked if they could identify any unintended outcomes from restructuring. There was general agreement that one of the unintended outcomes was lower morale. One participant stated a “negative impact on morale is an unintended outcome." Another referencing less communication and dialogue added “Less productivity...less collective thinking, less critical thinking, less growth as professionals." Another stated "Well, I think one of the unintended efforts was this sort of divisive dynamic at the director level." One senior level administrator agreed that morale had been negatively affected stating “…one of the unintended outcomes I think is some very good staff becoming demoralized and discouraged and wondering about their place at the university.” This participant also stated:
One of the other unintended outcomes is I think some of the staff no longer trust [the Vice President], they feel like that he/she doesn’t deal straight with them, that he/she invites their feedback on what [Northern] should look like but that’s a process only on the surface and then he/she makes the decisions that he/she was planning to all along.
164
Overall, restructuring at Northern was perceived very differently by those interviewed. There seemed to be two divided camps at Northern; one supportive of restructuring, the other not. Generally, those supporting restructuring are either newer employees or were involved in the restructuring effort. Generally, those not supportive of restructuring had been at the institution longer. Participants who were not supportive of restructuring expressed a sense of being closed out of the process, of not being valued, and a sense of not knowing what was coming next. They were critical of restructuring and found fault with the process. An informal communication network seemed to have developed to share the latest information and keep each other up to date about the activities of the Vice President and the two external hires. Participants pointed to decreased morale and a lack of trust. As evidence of the working environment, one participant noted that the student leaders on campus had set-up a website that was critical of the Vice President. Those who were supportive of restructuring believe the Vice President is moving the division toward being more engaging and more student-centered. Participants in this group thought that restructuring was re-aligning priorities for the division and addressing issues related to under-performing personnel. Summary of the results of restructuring. The results of restructuring can be summed up by the hiring of an Associate Vice President, an Assistant Vice President, the creation of two new centers and multiple changes in reporting lines. Overall, there was general agreement that it was too soon to tell if restructuring achieved the goals of becoming more student-centered or enhanced student engagement.
165
An unintended outcome was a strengthening of informal communication against what was described by one person as the "new regime." A "we" versus "them" mentality was evident and there was general agreement that employee morale was negatively affected. Generally, those interviewed did not trust the Vice President and some participants seemed to focus on their jobs, resigned to fact that their input was neither requested nor welcome. While structures and reporting lines were changed there was no data to indicate if the effort achieved the stated goals. As noted earlier, participants noted that it is too early to tell if restructuring was successful. Southern University Southern University is a large public research university with approximately 900 employees in the student affairs division. After the retirement of a long serving Vice President, the president hired a new vice president who expressed an interest in moving the division forward by enhancing services to students while increasing efficiency and effectiveness. To protect anonymity, more detailed information on the institution is not provided. To support this research study, the Vice President at Southern nominated 26 individuals to participate. Of those nominated, 11 were interviewed. The snowball technique identified four additional individuals who were also interviewed. Interviews ranged from about 40 minutes to a little over an hour and took place in a meeting room adjacent to a busy public area in the student union. At Southern, the average length of service of those interviewed was nearly ten years. The length of service for those interviewed was also somewhat bi-modal; the length of service for respondents was either relatively short (three years or less) or
166
relatively long (13 years or more). The shortest record of service was one year; the longest over 20 years. Seven of the respondents were female, seven were male. The titles for those interviewed ranged from manager to Vice President with a majority in titles that were director level and above. An effort was made to interview the Vice President first to allow the researcher to obtain the perspective of the Vice President prior to interviewing other participants. At Southern, the Vice President was interviewed prior to other interviews The restructuring process was described in fairly uniform terms by those interviewed. Driven to some degree by the division’s strategic planning effort, a number of people were supportive in the initial phases of restructuring noting that it was difficult to argue against efforts to provide better student services. Others agreed that there was some overlap in the services provided and that restructuring was a way to eliminate duplication. One person provided a number of questions to help outline the discussion regarding restructuring, stating "A lot of it is what provides the best service for students at the institution. Are we set up in a way to take advantage of our staff, to take advantage of the resources in order to provide the services for the students based on what it is that they currently need?" What Was the Impetus for Restructuring? There was considerable agreement that restructuring at Southern was started by the Vice President. The Vice President came to Southern in another capacity and was elevated to the current position. A number of people noted that the previous Vice President had started a restructuring effort that slowed down or stopped when he/she
167
abruptly left. The current Vice President who has served at Southern for about six years, three as Vice President, sought to enhance student services and reduce duplication. To gain a better understanding of the rationale used to initiate restructuring, participants were asked a series of questions including: who initiated restructuring, were financial issues a factor, was it an attempt to remove bottlenecks, were personnel issues a factor, and were the concerns within the division that the pressures to restructure might not be completely legitimate? There was general agreement that, especially after a long serving Vice President, change was needed. The rationale offered by several participants ranged from the need for change, the need to reduce duplication, the need to improve student services, the need for accountability, efficiency, and growth. One participant noted "A lot of it had to do with just the fact that [a previous Vice President] had been here for so long and had always done business in such a way and that the institution was changing. It was time to take a fresh view." Another participant noted "We need to do it different, we need to do it better, we need to be more accountable for the way we’re spending the money…our stewardship of the money and the resources." According to one participant, the institution had grown into a large public research university in a short period of time. This participant noted: I believe a lot of it is from the quick growth of the university. With the university operating for a long time on the idea of-not the idea-but on the fact that it was a small school, so there were certain factors-you know you had your own formal connections within the university-it was easy enough to make the contacts. Once the student body grew exponentially in a very short amount of time those kinds of pieces I think started to crumble because the numbers were too large.
168
Restructuring at Southern had involved the consolidation of several separate offices into one larger office. One senior level participant involved in this consolidation noted "It’s more efficient to combine those, use the same number of staff to do the core services and give you more staff to do the expansion..." Another senior level administrator stated “…I think it was just getting to that point where some things that were going on that it was kind of a necessary move to clarify everyone’s role and different departments, just reorganize the way that was set up.” One senior level administrator noted that the Vice President was trying to create a new vision stating “[The Vice President] has, through the strategic planning committee, tried to create a new vision for the division." One senior level administrator believed that restructuring was an effort that allowed the division to "demonstrate our worth in an era of shrinking resources." What was a bit unusual is that nearly everyone interviewed viewed restructuring as "positive." Major issues. When asked about major issues facing the division, respondents stated that the inefficient use of resources, duplication, outdated services, a lack of a budget office, and resistance to change were concerns. Inefficient use of resources/duplication. There was considerable agreement that the division needed to utilize resources more efficiently. Three participants noted that duplication of services was an issue at Southern. One participant stated that the goals of restructuring were "…to reorganize the division to achieve greater efficiencies, to better meet the students needs, to create enhanced services as well as …I don’t want to say cut – but address the duplication of
169
services…" This perception was supported by another participant who stated "I think resources being, resources that were historically placed in an operation that were not being effectively utilized. I think that was the major problem." Another stated a major challenge was "…to reorganize the division to achieve greater efficiencies." participant stated: In some cases, inefficiencies of offices or duplication of office efforts where you had two or three offices doing similar things; in other cases, well, that’s probably the main and then realigning the departments or the divisions resources so we’re kind of restructuring so we’re offering services in a more efficient and productive way to our constituents. Outdated services. At least three participants pointed to the counseling center as an area of concern. This focused on the lack of comprehensive services provided by this office. One participant stated: "That’s an area that came out of an era - it's like a [functional area] museum - there are some really good people but they just don't look like a college counseling center. We are a college counseling center without any skilled [role] specialists?" Resistance to change. Several respondents noted that the division had a long serving Vice President who had retired approximately five years prior. There was some acknowledgement that the division had become less responsive to change and more accustomed to going about its business in practiced and familiar ways. One respondent who had recently taken a position at Southern believed the organization was not used to change. This person stated: Another
170
I also think that the news that [Southern] has been entrenched in the way of doing things for a long time and I think that what the current Vice President who came in and took a fresh look at things and really started to make some systemic changes, so I think that the major issue was that history had taken over or the way of doing things was there and set and looking at current trends and ways of reorganizing that hadn’t happened in a long time-not in an effective way. Adequate financial resources. As noted earlier, fiscal constraint has been a factor in restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions (Carlson, 2003). In an effort to determine whether fiscal constraint played a role in the restructuring effort at Southern, respondents were asked to describe the financial situation prior to restructuring. Participants stated that finances were an issue but not a major factor. One senior level administrator stated finances were an issue “To some degree within the division itself not as an overwhelming thing." Another stated “…a lot of money gets wasted or a lot of potential revenue doesn't get captured because you don't have the infrastructure in place and I think that’s what drives a lot of restructuring, is just the waste.” Lack of a budget office. One senior administrator stated finances had improved after restructuring because the Vice President assigned that responsibility to a specific person. This person stated: …[The Vice President] created an office for budgeting with an individual that was responsible for that. Before…we always had a financial budgeting piece, but it just was more a global, …not specific to the department but more of a division perspective. Remove bottlenecks. One of the follow-up probes focused on possible "bottlenecks" within the organization. Only two participants referenced bottlenecks at Southern. One senior level
171
administrator stated “There were certainly some people who seemed to be walking bottlenecks and many of those people have departed…” Another stated: Sure. I think in the past this is a very different institution than when I came to work here. Back in the day there were very few collaborations with academic affairs. Collaboration just was talked about but didn’t really occur. It is just a totally different atmosphere. Personnel issues. A majority of those interviewed agreed that personnel issues were a factor in the restructuring effort. Vacant positions played a role in addressing personnel issues. One participant stated "There were people [here] who were…resistant to change. Higher education is an area where it is most resistant…There were many people who were very territorial about the work that they do in student affairs." This sentiment was supported by two senior level administrators who stated "Absolutely. Its probably, I know it’s the number one factor. It takes up a lot of our time." The second administrator simply stated: "Oh yes, in my opinion." One senior administrator noted that vacant positions played a role in restructuring stating: Originally, when [the Vice President] came there were three [positions] and the two other positions were vacant. So he/she was trying to determine what to do with those other positions. Whether to get two more [positions] or move into specialization. Down the road there were changes in personnel in [one functional area]; that person left. That position was associate dean; that position was changed to director. Another senior level administrator stated: To some extent yes. There was a person who was leading the [functional area] group in the largest department and he/she was not doing a real good job and didn’t get along with folks…….they arranged for an early retirement for him/her – kind of a buy out…That’s been the roughest personnel issue to deal with as part of this.
172
Pressures to restructure not legitimate. To better understand the dynamics in the restructuring effort, participants were asked if the pressures to restructure were completely legitimate. This question generated considerable discussion. Generally those interviewed believed that the pressure to restructure was legitimate. A couple of participants suggested that others in the division who were more affected might have felt differently. One senior level administrator stated "Not that I’ve been aware of. My impression all along is that people have felt the changes that are going to happen are a necessary component of the restructuring." Another stated "No, it was extreme credibility." A third participant stated "Personally, I don’t feel that way; but I am sure there are folks…This is not a place that embraces change." Presenting a different view, one senior level administrator stated "My response is that a good deal of time people are playing musical chairs. I don’t know what was or was not legitimate." Another stated: Some of the people who were affected by the restructuring, absolutely. I think that the majority of people in the division did think that the changes were long overdue, but I think there are some individuals, and again, particularly those whose departments were out of touch; they felt that it was not necessary – didn’t need to happen. Summary of the impetus to restructure. The impetus for restructuring at Southern was an effort to reduce duplication and enhance student services. The effective use of resources, in an increasingly competitive environment, was seen as an issue. A number of offices within the division provided the same or similar services. Restructuring allowed the division to centralize this one service and provide greater assistance to employees and students. In addition, restructuring was focused on improving services in general and addressing the student service needs in a
173
particular office. Generally, personnel issues were not believed to be a factor in initiating restructuring. Since restructuring more directly affected this newly centralized functional area, personnel issues resulted. Overall, participants believed that the rationale to restructure was legitimate and that efforts to initiate change were long overdue. What Were the Goals of Restructuring? Restructuring often involves establishing goals and guiding people towards reaching those goals. Participants were asked about the goals of restructuring, whether the staff understood the goals, whether restructuring was an effort to work around employees, and if it was an effort to give a higher priority to an emerging concern like student learning. Overall, there was some general agreement that improving student services was a primary goal. Participants stated that several offices provided similar services and restructuring was viewed as a way to clarify roles and functions. Another view focused on the effective utilization of resources in providing services to the current student population. One senior level participant stated: I think the goals were to create better services for students; our ultimate goal to be responsive students; to be responsive to the university; to understand our role in supporting the academic mission of the institution. To be a more responsive division. To provide what services students need more. And what services our university administration and faculty need. But students certainly first. A second senior level administrator stated: I think that one of the main goals…was - there was just a lot of areas on campus that seemed to be providing the same services for students and it was - everyone’s role just felt very unclear, I mean I’m honestly just focusing on this one particular office at the moment, but it just kind of, all of a sudden it was like why is that office there and what are they doing and how is that different from what this other office is doing, so I think it was to clarify everyone’s roles as well as eliminate that duplication of services, so that students had one place to go rather than scattered all over.
174
Another senior level administrator stated: …I’m going to go again with the better utilization of resources, becoming more in touch with the times or contemporary in terms of addressing the needs of students as they present today, not as they presented 15 or 20 years ago, and to get more bang for a buck, I mean to just really to do better with what we have. One senior level administrator stated "Ultimately, I think it is to better serve the students, to be a state-of-the-art, forefront in the field, university, a flagship university and to be an example that others would want to follow in our footsteps." Written goals. The goals of the restructuring were outlined by the participants. Most of the participants were mid-level managers or senior level administrators who were very aware of the goals of restructuring. When asked about written goals, many participants noted that the goals were printed out and had a copy on their desk or had a standup display that listed the goals. One senior level administrator stated “There are foam boards that we all have in our offices with our motto, one division, multiple services, students first.” When asked about the location of written goals another senior level administrator stated “On my desk, on most department heads desks, I distributed them to my staff.” Staff understood. Senior level managers, especially those involved in a restructuring effort may be aware of the goals of restructuring. Other administrators may be aware of the goals through discussions with other managers. Consequently, participants were asked if the staff understood the goals of restructuring. Generally, participants believed that the staff understood the goals of restructuring, even if they did not like the outcome.
175
One senior level administrator noted that staff in areas that were affected by restructuring were probably more aware of restructuring than areas that were unaffected. Another senior level administrator stated "I think overall the majority of the staff understood it, but there was definitely a lot of staff members that were upset by it and made that very clear and were very vocal about it …but I think overall people definitely felt that [restructuring] was the way to go." When asked if the staff understood the goals of restructuring, one participant noted: "It’s hard to say. The Division’s doing a lot better job in communicating things like this now - I would probably say no and I’m not quite sure why.” This participant wasn’t sure if the staff understood the goals of restructuring stating: In some cases it’s not for lack of the division trying to get word out there, but sometimes with all the noise out there – I can qualify that statement by saying that I think all the staff in the departments that were affected …were a little bit more in tune with what was happening or why, but the division as a whole I’m not quite sure. Improve communication/coordination. Restructuring can be used to improve communication and coordination in the division. Participants were asked if this was a goal of the restructuring effort. Generally, improving communication was perceived to be a goal of restructuring. One senior level administrator stated "Absolutely and still is." One senior level administrator stated communication was a focal point in restructuring. Noting that communication was one of the five critical elements that came out of the planning process, this participant stated: "Yes…[the Vice President] made the point to put our motto all over everything and again we have our critical elements…at least five areas that we are always focusing on assessment, collaboration, technology, diversity and communication."
176
One senior level administrator identified one functional area as central to efforts to improve communication. When asked about efforts to improve communication and coordination, this participant pointed to the information technology area stating "Yeah, that would be the case, because I think they see information technology as a tool for improving communication in the division, between departments and the whole idea of sharing services reeks of coordination." Improve responsiveness. In an effort to further describe the goals of the restructuring process, participants were asked if a goal might have been to improve the responsiveness of the division. There was general agreement that improving responsiveness was a goal of restructuring. One senior level administrator stated "I think…our ultimate goal to be responsive to students; to be responsive to the university…To be a more responsive division." Another participant supported this view stating "Yes, definitely, I think that’s a good way to put it." Centralize, decentralize, restructure authority. In an effort to better understand restructuring, participants were asked if the effort was an attempt to centralize, decentralize or restructure authority within the division. Participants offered mixed responses to this question. In one functional area, there was a clear effort to centralize. There was also an effort to decentralize in the division by placing more responsibility and accountability at the departmental level. One participant stated "In some instances it was both – that’s a hard question to answer. In that process there was some decentralization as being empowered or services being put closer to the
177
customer base, whereas, such as [functional area] it was to centralize." Another senior level administrator stated: The way [the Vice President] has described it I would say it is working that way. To keep the authority within the departments. And Central office is really available as [the Vice President] describes as the pit crew. The place where you can go to get what you need in order to get the job done. There have been lots of things that have become so much easier. Work around employees. Restructuring has been used to work around individuals who are difficult to work with or do not fully support the current management approach. Participants were asked if an implicit or explicit goal was to work around employees who were thought to be impeding the progress of the division. The responses to this question were fairly consistent. Most of the respondents believed that restructuring was not an effort to work around employees. One senior level administrator stated "No. I think the motives were and have been very good. There may have been people along the way who were unhappy; but I don’t think it was necessarily a malicious attempt." Another senior level administrator stated: You know, I’d have to say no because I think that the goal of the restructuring was to stop that working around the process. I think that has and I mean certainly that still has to go on in some pockets, but the goal was to decide where are those pockets that we’ve been trying to work around, let’s blast them out of there, let’s make the channels of communication, the channels of operation, let’s try to get as close to ideal as we can, so I’d say that the goal was to try to eliminate that kind of operating. One senior level administrator stated: I don’t know if I’d say work around them. I think it was more of a goal [of] getting people on board, that if they were impeding it, to try to get them to see the viewpoint, the task, the direction that we were all headed in and
178
wanting them to join with us. I think underlying that is always the case of if somebody just cannot align themselves with that vision then maybe they should question whether or not they should be here. But I think the goal was to try and bring everybody on board... One senior level administrator succinctly stated "I mean those things usually stick out like a sore thumb - no." Reduce costs. Participants were asked if one of the goals of restructuring was to reduce costs. There was relative agreement that reducing costs was not a factor in restructuring. A number of participants stated that costs have gone up as a result of restructuring. One senior level administrator commented on one functional area stating "No, cost has gone up because now they really have the big picture view of what it costs, of what we need…" to be effective. Higher priority to emerging concerns. Restructuring can be used to give a higher priority to emerging concerns. Generally, participants agreed that one of the goals of restructuring was to provide better services to students. Service seemed to be an overarching focus. As one participant stated "…one of the primary goals…in student affairs is to make things manageable or environmentally conducive to students’ learning ability. Whether you are talking about food, cleanliness or whatever. The primary goal is always to make the learning environment workable for students." Another participant stated “I can definitely say yes one of the goals was to meet, better meet, unequivocally saying better meet student needs. I don’t believe, at least from my perspective that what the needs were defined as, they were more in general terms.”
179
One senior level participant believed that one of the emerging concerns was to incorporate assessment efforts in fulfilling the University’s mission. This participant stated "Definitely, yes. Assessment, to work harder…incorporating assessment into what we do so that we’re connecting with University mission and so definitely student learning would be a part of that." Only one participant thought that restructuring was not used to give higher priority to emerging concerns, stating "Not that I’m aware of, not explicitly." Summary of the goals of restructuring. The overall goals of restructuring were to improve student services and more effectively utilize resources. Improving communication and responsiveness were goals that might best be described and secondary. These goals were regularly communicated and the staff generally understood the goals of restructuring. Restructuring was not viewed as an effort to work around employees but to get more employees to "get on board." Reducing costs was not a goal of restructuring; in fact, costs went up as a result of restructuring. When asked about emerging concerns such as student learning, the participants at Southern seemed to focus on improving service and meeting the needs of students. The divisional goals even refer to service. Participants did not use the term "student learning" nor the similar term "student development." At Southern, the higher priority was student service. What Processes Were Used to Restructure? To better understand the processes used to restructure, participants were asked a series of questions involving communication, inclusiveness, processes, strategies, and
180
procedures. Participants were also asked about formal management concepts, whether consultants were used and how employees responded to restructuring. A number of people referenced the restructuring process initiated by the previous Vice President, which focused on a common agenda. These references, while distant, were neutral at best. The current restructuring process, implemented by the current Vice President, was described in fairly positive terms. One senior level administrator stated: I think the process has been very good particularly - currently this year… and because we have a division-wide management group that meets every two weeks and we just came off of a retreat, a lot of communication is shared at these meetings and issues aren’t necessarily discussed but they are laid out - this is what we’re doing today and then we may discuss that or then maybe a plan that is - we’re given a plan and there’s always opportunities to ask questions about what may be going on… Another senior level administrator stated: Yes, there was a structure, timelines were given and ample room for discussion and adjustment to various movements within personnel being moved or to major programs moving around-opportunities for that, and a lot of the stuff that happens too because the timing in the division’s been lengthy, you can foresee it and so when it comes there’s no surprises there. The Vice President was viewed as a good listener with good ideas and also seen as an effective leader who puts ideas into motion instead of talking about things and putting them on a shelf. One aspect of the process that was well received by employees was the deliberative process used by the Vice President. In providing an overview, one senior level administrator stated:
…there was a lot of information gathering, either with one on ones, there was information gathering via administrators - they’d meet on an advisory board so there was an advisory board that consisted in a way of community, faculty, students, etc. I think that combined with our own Division of Student Affairs department heads - all of that was the basic provider of the feedback that created the entity of the plan of what the restructuring would look like.
181
A more comprehensive overview of the planning process was found in documents related to the strategic planning process. The current Vice President at Southern named a 17 member Student Affairs Strategic Planning Task Force in November 2004. The charge to this Task Force included three key items: to develop a new mission/vision for the division which will guide the division/department’s goals and standards for guidance and the evaluation process; to engage departments and constituents in the discussion and process; and to focus on the process as well as each step in the process. The co-chairs of the taskforce noted that “Trust amongst committee members is as important as content.” The Task Force has been extremely active, scheduling retreats and meetings that total over 20 times a year over the past two years. The Task Force brought in facilitators that helped members deal on how to work in a changing environment, how to work collaboratively, how to identify core beliefs and core values, and how to manage change. The co-chairs of the Task Force focused on interpersonal skills and motivation, managing cultures, getting buy-in, timing, and measuring success. In addition, the Task Force focused on keeping staff informed, selling ideas along the way, and working to create enthusiasm, and excitement to minimize cynicism. The Task Force outlined a multi-stage process that included information gathering, identifying key issues, values and priorities, developing committee charges, plan rollout and action items. Listserv’s and newsletters were created and information was solicited from division staff. Receptions were held to thank people for their service on the taskforce. While the Vice President initiated the Strategic Planning process and occasionally made presentations to the Task Force, the group had considerable latitude to address issues they saw fit. The Task Force identified key areas for improvement and shared
182
their findings with the Vice President. The Vice President determined the appropriate course of action. Open communication. Communication is a critical component of organizational change. Participants were asked if they thought the communication process was open. As with responses to other questions, the responses to this question were fairly positive. The Vice President is known for having an open door policy and participants felt comfortable approaching the Vice President if they had a question, concern, or comment. Some participants noted that while they thought the process was fairly open, some decisions regarding restructuring had already been made. One senior level participant stated: I think it was inclusive to an extent in a sense that everyone was able to voice their opinion but honestly I think it was a done deal and no one was really going to have a say in that either way. But definitely the department heads were able to voice their opinions to the restructuring and their thoughts on it but I don’t necessarily think that would have had an impact on it either way. Another senior level participant stated: I would say that it was somewhere in the middle, if I’m going on a continuum of completely closed to completely open I’d probably give a “six” saying that its on a scale of going toward open -- that’s really hard because I guess I’m just struggling with the fact that there’s a grand plan but you just can’t tell everybody everything that you need to do to get there and so I’d say that it was somewhat inclusive, because definitely feedback was sought from different places in the division. One senior level administrator thought "The division’s doing a lot better job in communicating things like this now…" Although staff may not understand the goals of restructuring, this participant stated: In some cases it’s not for lack of the division trying to get word out there, but sometimes with all the noise out there – I can qualify that statement by
183
saying that I think all the staff in the departments that were affected were I think were a little bit more in tune with what was happening or why, but the division as a whole I’m not quite sure. One participant stated that perceptions about openness depended on how restructuring affected people. This participant stated: “Well, the winners did, but not everybody came out ahead.” Inclusive process. Participants were asked if they believed that the restructuring process was inclusive. As in other areas, the responses were fairly positive. Participants stated that they were included in the discussions and that they were able to offer feedback. One senior level administrator stated: …for example, departments that were going to be the most affected, their directors were asked and called in – this is what we need to do to be more responsive to the campus community, this is what we need to do to perhaps to kind of ramp up the services that we are doing and some folks got on board and were able to see those changes coming and they needed to be a part of it, so I guess I would have to say that attempts were made to be very, very inclusive and then if that didn’t work it was “okay we’re going ahead—the ship’s going out without you.” One participant believed the process was inclusive at times but not all the time. This senior level administrator stated “… At times it’s very open and I can walk right into [the Vice President’s] office and have discussions and concerns and other times that decisions are made and then disseminated to me where I didn’t necessarily feel I had any input." Formal management practices. Participants were asked if formal management practices, such TQM, were used in the restructuring process. Although one participant referenced earlier efforts that
184
involved formal management practices, participants generally agreed that formal management practices were not used. One participant stated "You mean the flavor of the week? Actually, no. No, I didn’t see that." A second senior level participant stated "No, the only language in that degree would be the strategic plan, the committee that put together the strategic plan and then trying to apply that plan to all the different denominations of student affairs." One participant thought that the basis of a formal management practice was being used but didn’t think the actual process was being used. This participant stated “I think TQM, without actually using TQM, is always what we’re striving for and I think kind of with the latest change…” Consultants used. Participants were asked if consultants were used in the restructuring process. Generally, the responses to this question were mixed. A number of participants were not sure or stated that consultants were not used, others pointed to specific areas where consultants were used. One senior level participant stated "You know I’m not sure. They could have been – to my knowledge no, but again I’m not a department head so it could have just been that my boss was asked to be a part of that team and meet with the consultants, but I’m honestly not sure on that one." One senior level participant stated "At certain points yes...they had a presidential task force that was put together with key people across the campus, but they did have consultants come in for [functional area], they had consultants come in for [a second functional area]." Another senior level participant noted that consultants were brought in
185
to examine another functional area. This participant noted that the recommendations from the consultants report helped guide the restructuring process stating: …well actually two maybe three [situations] we did call in an outside consultant group…they did give us clear recommendations…some of those recommendations really did guide us, like we have the report that looked at [functional area] within the division and as a result of that we now have a Student Affairs [functional area] department in the division …we had a consultant group that came in and looked at the way [functional area] services are delivered and as a result one department’s gone and another one’s expanding... Employee response. To gain a better understanding of how restructuring affected employees, participants were asked how employees responded. The participants offered responses that ranged from "very positive" and "favorable" to "downright resistance and rebellion." One senior level administrator stated "Depends on the section that you were restructuring. For [functional area] people were very excited, because there was going to be more money and commitment put towards that area that had not had that kind of attention in a while." Another senior level administrator stated "I think it depended on the particular effort that we talked about." One senior level administrator stated: "I think there were varying degrees of response. I think from wholehearted support to outright, downright resistance and rebellion, so I think we had the whole gamut." According to several administrators, resistance seemed to be centered in one functional area. One senior level administrator stated "For divisions such as [functional area]… there were a lot of people crying foul. One functional area seemed to be the most resistant." One participant noted that he had unwittingly benefited from the restructuring of one area. This participant stated "…there were people feeling that I was part of all of
186
this…this conspiracy theory of getting rid of them because of wanting the [resource], whereas I did not know I was getting the [resource] until later." The employee response may be best summed up by a participant who stated: I think for a lot of people it did make sense, but there was definitely that handful of very vocal people that were incredibly unhappy and did not agree with it and saw it as an effort to downsize and kind of take control of something by the upper administration; but those are a handful of people, I don’t think that was overall the general consensus. Facilitated/impeded. Participants were asked about what facilitated or impeded restructuring. Restructuring was facilitated by a number of factors ranging from personal interest and support from the Provost to communication and positive, trusting relationships. Restructuring was impeded a by union environment and a lack of funding. One senior level administrator stated: In restructuring, some of what facilitated was our motivation, that my particular office; we wanted a change and some clarity of what was expected of us and that the campus community to be more conscious about the role we were playing and how we were assisting others doing their jobs. Another senior level administrator stated: I think what facilitated it was the fact that we had a Provost who supported the Vice President in terms of the changes that he/she was making, so I think the lead out was the bottom line in terms of “If I’ve got to make hard decisions, does someone have my back…when things are going to get rough” as they inevitably did. Another senior level administrator said that communication facilitated restructuring stating "Facilitated – communication—very transparent." Another senior level administrator pointed out that relationship building played a role in facilitating restructuring stating:
187
I would say…the fact that we did do so much one on one with employees and got so much feedback for us or against us. It was good because people felt they had a say in the outcome, but it was bad because it took a longer time. This view was supported by another participant who stated "The other factor is trust and building those relationships of trust amongst all the personnel…." Restructuring was impeded by a number of factors including unionized employees. One participant stated: I think what inhibited change to the degree that we really could have made better and bigger changes – the union structure here on campus – its very limiting because you’ve got people that you cannot get rid of. You have processes and procedures that are in place that stifle excellence and that just make it really hard to introduce new thinking and to get people on board sometimes. So the unions, while they’re great for the staff in many ways and protect people, I think that they really can be stifling in terms of trying to reinvent an organization. This view was supported by another senior level administrator who stated "We’re a union environment here, so that was always the thing – looking over our shoulders to make sure we didn’t step wrong because they would have come in and slapped us down real quick.” One participant thought that a lack of funding impeded restructuring, stating: "As I said before money always plays a role in things. When they tried to replace people, there wasn’t money to do that stuff." Summary of the processes used to restructure. Restructuring at Southern did not utilize a formal management practice. The process was inclusive with established structures, timelines, and ample time for feedback. The Vice President established a strategic planning committee and a divisional management team that played a central role in the restructuring process.
188
Nearly every participant was supportive of the process used to restructure. Participants in the study believed the process was very inclusive and believed they had an opportunity to provide input and feedback and that adjustments were made that reflected their comments. Several participants noted that one office was more directly affected by restructuring and that a handful of people in that office resisted and rebelled against restructuring. A number of factors facilitated restructuring, most notably open communication and positive, trusting relationships with the Vice President. In addition, an established structure with timelines resulted in "no surprises." The unionized working environment at Southern was viewed as a factor that impeded the restructuring. What Were the Results of Restructuring? To gauge the overall success of the restructuring effort, participants were asked about the effectiveness in achieving the stated goals. Preliminary results included positive perceptions regarding responsiveness, new services, increased services, some reassignments, and the phasing out of a functional area. Generally, however, participants believed that it was too soon to determine the effectiveness of restructuring. One senior level administrator stated: Well, in a way that’s kind of hard to answer because you know we’re still in the process so it’s not over. I think some results - perceptions on campus of us being more responsive would be one. I think that some staff leaving would be another outcome, it’s kind of a small one but it’s a very real one. I think another result might be a perception that this administration isn’t settling for the status quo, that change is going to be the norm around here as we try to respond to our environment. Another senior level administrator stated: I think greater accessibility, what I mean by that or how I would define that is that before when you had one person to go to for some information and
189
they were the only person with the information and you had limited access to them because of their availability or the fact that they were just stretched too thin…you now had that position defined a little greater or more delegated so you now had…greater availability, greater accessibility… This view was supported by another senior level administrator who stated “I think the division is more streamlined. I think we have eliminated or merged areas that weren't very efficient or necessary and have enhanced some areas that needed to be.” One senior level administrator referred to the creation of a new office stating “Well they have a centralized [functional area] department that is established, we have a budget and we have an organizational structure with lots of internal procedures that we developed on how we deal with things." Improve performance. Restructuring often involves efforts to improve performance. Participants were asked if restructuring improved performance. Generally, participants believed that the roles and responsibilities had been clarified and that people were able to be proactive versus reactive. One senior level administrator stated: I think when you create a structure or an entity that is as transparent, that is very successful – although in the ability to communicate what’s going on within the department, what’s going on in the future – it’s in a very proactive mode versus a reactive mode, it is very well respected within the organization, I mean the whole university is looked up to not only within the university but also outside the university as a model for student affairs… This view was supported by another senior level administrator who believed that the division was now better able to deal with crises. In contrasting current and previous performance this senior administrator thought performance had improved, stating: I think there’s a lot happening because of the nature of the beast when it comes to student affairs and you’re trying to deal with in a lot of ways different crisis; you move from one to the next so you tend to forget the
190
ones that we have overcome – I should say I tend to forget those I’ve overcome - because you don’t really have the time to stand and ponder the last year or so and where you were versus where you are now because you’re always looking at the next fire to deal with or predict a fire. One senior level administrator stated that the performance in one functional area had improved and that people had more trust in the services being provided. This participant stated “I think there’s a more equitable sharing of [functional area] support among the whole division... Numerous critical [services] are much more stable now and …there’s more faith in them by the folks that use them. So those core things that‘s making things work right have occurred.” Further, this participant stated “We’re bringing in new [things] all the time, bringing in new services so I think bit by bit we’ve had advances made, some departments more than others, but I could probably cite five or six good concrete examples of how we’re doing better in serving students." Affect staffing. To better understand how restructuring affected staffing, participants were asked questions about how restructuring affected this area. There was general agreement that the number of professionals increased, primarily in one functional area. One senior level administrator stated: "It has because there have been additional titles, there’s been changing of staffing, there’s been retirements, there’s been jockeying of monies to fund different priorities – so yeah, without a doubt. I think it’s also the question of where’s the next staffing needed – priority of staffing." One functional area expanded, adding a number of functional areas under an umbrella office. Another area added a number of new employees and one participant noted that “If you have this service expectation and you want things done like this, this
191
fast, then the staff that we have are not enough. So, it’s increased staff and I’ll grab any employee I can get my hands on." Lose job/reassigned. To gain a better understanding how restructuring affected the division, participants were asked if anyone had lost their job or had been reassigned. There was general agreement that people were reassigned. Participants agreed that some people had been reassigned but there was a lack of agreement if anyone had been fired. One senior level administrator stated "No, no one lost their job. There were a couple retirements, there were several reassignments, but there were some grudging retirements, people whose universe changed around them so they opted to retire." Another senior level administrator supported this view stating "No, in just the kind of voluntary early retirement of the one guy, who was not happy to begin with…” Another senior level participant stated that some people were reassigned and that one person was asked to leave. This person stated “People have lost their jobs and people have been reassigned. One person left; in the process of restructuring people have left. One person was asked to leave." This view was contradicted by another senior level participant who stated "Yes, I think they did, well not in the employment sense but in position sense.” When asked if this person was reassigned the participant responded “Yeah, I think so." Employee turnover. Participants were asked if restructuring affected employee turnover. There was general agreement that restructuring had not affected employee turnover. A number of people noted that there seemed to be some turnover with newer employees. One senior
192
level participant stated “No, it doesn’t seem to have – we’ve had a couple of retirements but that’s about it." Another stated "Not that I'm aware of." One senior level participant noted "There is a core group of us that have been around a lot. Then there are younger people who come in and go. I don’t know if it has anything to do with restructuring…, young people; they are trying to move up professionally." Another stated “I’d say we’re maybe still in a bit of a flux and maybe we’re just beginning to enter an era of stability; there have been four or five people in my job in the last eight or nine years.” Affect employee morale. When asked if restructuring affected employee morale, participants agreed that morale had improved as a result of restructuring. This improvement was relative to the morale level prior to restructuring. However, restructuring had a negative impact on morale in one of the functional areas that underwent restructuring. One participant noted that morale was a concern with different leadership. This person stated: "Our office morale was real bad when we had our last dean of students. There were some things that were unpredictable about this person. Across the board this person was having a negative impact in all of student affairs.” Others gave a positive assessment of morale stating “It had a very positive impact.” Another senior level participant stated: I think for the most part it was positive, because they saw…pockets of inactivity and lethargic-just existence were kind of being swept away. So I think it helped employee morale. I think the other thing it did is that it put people on notice-you need to sit up and pay attention and start to be a part of your environment.
193
In describing the effects of restructuring on the morale in functional areas, one senior level administrator stated “To a degree I think initially, especially with [functional area] there was a definitely an affect on morale and there were two different camps set up with people that understood why [it] happening and other people that just felt they were being dissed.” In commenting on another area, a senior level participant stated “I think in the [functional area] staff it’s been very good; we have people who really care about what they’re doing and I have a lot of different areas of expertise in my office and a lot of links are being made between those areas of expertise, so I think its really improved staff morale.” In providing an overview of how restructuring affected morale, one senior level administrator stated: I don’t know if it affected the rest of the division-I don’t think it was really that big of a deal. I think there was some discontent that things had changed, but I think people are starting to see…that we really are trying to do a good job and we’re starting to make headway toward achieving our goals, so it like “oh yeah, this was a good idea.” Changes in business procedures. Participants were asked if restructuring changed the way the division goes about its business. The responses from participants were fairly positive. When asked how restructuring had affected the way the division goes about its business, one person provided a stream of examples, stating: Yes, specifically, restructured the meeting structure that we have within the division for the department heads, restructured the way that we communicate to the full-time employees – the front-line individuals, increased the areas for, or opportunities for recognition, have focused on expenditures at a divisional level versus an independent, as we were before, a departmental level, utilized a greater degree of resources that are generated within the division for the benefit of other departments within the division, more specifically, revenue
194
that I generate may be shifted over to a department that is a non-revenue generator with a certain need they might have. Another senior level administrator stated “Yes. I think there was an emphasis on communication, although we didn’t do it very well at first. We need to get better at it. There is an attempt to share leadership, let people do their jobs. [The Vice President’s] not really a micro-manager….I think [the previous Vice President] was…” One senior level participant noted that effectiveness had been enhanced at the managerial level stating: I would say so - I think one of the ongoing pieces that is constantly being brought to the table is better utilization of management, student affairs management team is one of the pieces that came up at the retreat we just had and again with communication, effectiveness of communication, getting the word out, how much information does everybody really know, do we all need to know exactly what kind of foods dining services is serving for students versus do we need to know if there is some kind of a crisis that occurred through [functional area] that is going to affect all the students or a change in billing that will affect all of them that might ricochet into other offices. One senior level administrator agreed that significant changes had been made to one particular area. This participant stated: Business meaning like money in purchasing or [functional area]? Yeah, lots of changes. We instituted a central [approach] with an email or phone number to call if you need help; did an extensive analysis on purchasing and established pretty far reaching rules as to who buys what and so forth. Funding this…by doing budget transfers from like four or five of the departments who have independent sources of funds - non-tuition sources of funds. So, yeah a lot has changed. Evidence of affects. Participants were asked about evidence that shows the effects of restructuring. Participants were not able to identify quantifiable evidence of how restructuring had affected the division. Data is often presented as evidence; none was referenced by any of
195
the participants. One senior level participant stated “I’m not sure how to answer that. I’ve seen from year to year things become more streamlined; less reinventing the wheel. I guess that would be evidence now that the way things are set up now seem to be working.” Others stated “I'm not aware” or “Not yet, no hard evidence.” One senior level administrator shared some “soft” evidence – increased communication about critical issues in one area. This person stated: Well, I know with my own department some of the evidence is just the people talking on campus and what topics they’re talking about. When it comes to [functional area], nobody really spoke about it much prior to the office being in place. Now you have students talking about issues…there’s committees on policy development so there’s a lot more buzz…a lot more buzz… about the [functional area] issues which to me says there has been success because there is noise being made so therefore changes will be made. Analyze restructuring. Participants were asked if there was an effort to analyze the results of restructuring. Generally, participants thought restructuring was being analyzed yet no one could confirm any significant activity in this area. A number of participants noted that assessment was not a strength of the division. One senior level participant noted: Most of that at this point is anecdotal. So much is new; assessment is an issue we have struggled with. Even student satisfaction. How do students articulate how they have been treated when they come into our office looking for information; did they get what they were looking for; were they treated well? Another senior level participant stated "I don’t think we’ve done that yet, I think we’re again still doing a lot, still in the midst of everything.” This perception was supported by two additional participants who stated "Specifically? I’m not aware of any” and “Not yet, we’re still in progress.”
196
Unintended outcomes. Restructuring can have intended and unintended outcomes. Participants were asked if they could identify any unintended outcomes. There was general agreement that one of the unintended outcomes was the addition of different services. One senior level administrator stated "We’ve added some things, focusing on academic things. I don’t think they were initially a part of restructuring but…[wanting] to be part of the academic environment…created some things." Another stated “I can say anecdotally that there has been; we’ve taken on services that we’ve never done before. If I look back in retrospect five years ago, I couldn’t project that that was a way that we were going to go.” One senior level administrator thought that restructuring was going to improve the image of the institution and increase the number of applications for open employee positions, stating: I think the clarity of vision has attracted better people than we might have gotten in the past. Student affairs at [Southern] is not-like when I went to [another institution]-that was a great place, they had a great student affairs. They advertised for a position and they got great people applying. [Southern] advertises and you’re not getting the greatest pool because nobody would come from across the country to work at [Southern] but at [another institution] you’d get people from come across the country or international – it’s a Mecca. We are not a Mecca but I think we’re getting better people now so we tell ourselves we’re getting better. Another senior level administrator stated “There’s always unintended outcomes… Personnel shifts, probably the most obvious [unintended] outcome. I wouldn't say that we realized any monetary savings because we’ve grown as a division.” Summary of the results of restructuring. The participants in the study believed that it was too early to comment on the results of restructuring. However, restructuring at Southern resulted in the clarification of
197
the roles and responsibilities of various offices and personnel. This action was perceived to enhance student services as well as increase the faith in those services by those who used them. As with the study of Northern, there was no data to support this claim. Staffing at Southern was relatively stable with some shifting of responsibilities and the addition of some employees in certain areas. With the exception of one office, overall morale was perceived to have improved as a result of restructuring. The addition of a budget office and the resulting changes in purchasing and transfer protocols were perceived to be the only change in how the division goes about its business. Unintended outcomes involved the addition of different services.
198
CHAPTER V Discussion and Recommendations This study investigated restructuring in the student affairs divisions at two public research universities. The study sought to better understand restructuring using the responses to the following research questions: 1) What was the impetus to restructure? 2) What were the goals of restructuring? 3) What processes were employed? 4) What were the results of restructuring? This chapter, which concludes the study, includes a summary of the main findings, interpretation of the findings, conclusions drawn from this research, suggestions for future research, and limitations of the study The Impetus for Restructuring The impetus to restructure can be internal or external. The following section focuses on the location of the impetus. The Location of the Impetus The major findings of this research reveal that the location for the impetuses to restructure were internal and that newly hired Vice Presidents initiated restructuring. Previous research on restructuring in student affairs also indicated that the source of the impetus to restructure is often internal (Carlson, 2003). Carlson found that: Contrary to the impression of some student affairs professionals, the determination of the need for change, whether restructuring, budget, or personnel, came not from an outside consultant…but rather, by an almost two to one margin, from a suggestion within the institution. (p. 9)
199
Carlson found that efforts to restructure the student affairs division were initiated by the President 35 percent of the time. The Vice President was responsible for initiating restructuring 17 percent of the time. In this study the Vice President, with the support of the President, initiated restructuring at Northern. The Vice President, with the support of the Provost, initiated restructuring at Southern. The results of this study, that the source for the impetus was internal, are consistent with research conducted by Carlson. The location of the impetus, however, could have come from another internal source such as the President or the Board of Trustees. If the President or Board had directed the Vice President to restructure, the role played by the Vice President would have been perceived differently. In the case of restructuring at Northern, the perception of the Vice President’s role may have been more positive. The Motivations for the Impetus The motivation for the impetus to restructure involved efforts to become more student-centered and enhance student engagement, to improve efficiency and remove bottlenecks, to improve communication within the organization, and to put a personal stamp on the organization. A number of potential motivations were not apparent including fiscal constraint, external political pressures, utilization of new technologies, to meet accreditation requirements, or the implementation of a current management fad. Become more student-centered. The rationales used to restructure involved efforts to become more studentcentered and enhance student engagement (Northern) and to improve student services (Southern). This study found that in both institutions, restructuring was initiated to refocus the division to become more student-centered and be more engaging, or create
200
educationally purposeful activities for students (Northern) or to reduce duplication and improve services (Southern). The rationales used to restructure at Northern were consistent with the research and work of Novak (1996) who found that restructuring can be an effort to reorder institutional priorities with a focus on consumers, in this case, students. The rationale of improving services at Southern was consistent with the work of Davies (1996) who stated that restructuring was an effort to reach a new level of excellence. Lastly, the results were also consistent with the work of Novak who stated restructuring involved a reordering of administrative priorities. While both institutions focused on students, there were subtle differences between the two approaches. At Northern, the focus was on becoming student-centered, an educational approach to student affairs outlined by Blimling (2001). At Southern, the focus was on student services, which falls into the student affairs management approach (Blimling, 2001). In discussing this observation with a respondent from Southern, it became apparent that while there were some educational considerations in Southern’s restructuring plan, the effort focused on student services and not student learning. The Vice President at Southern may have wanted to focus improving student services, a more tangible outcome with a larger influence on student satisfaction. Such an effort may have been more widely accepted and understood by the respondents. Improve efficiency and remove bottlenecks. In the corporate world, businesses seek to improve efficiency to fulfill, in part, expectations that profitability will increase. While profitability is not necessarily a goal of higher education, Birnbaum (2000) contends that institutions of higher education are always under pressure to become more efficient and effective. Horn and Jerome (1996)
201
stated that restructuring efforts usually include announced plans to increase efficiency. In this study increasing efficiency was an impetus at Southern, which sought to reduce the duplication of services. This focus on efficiency coincides with Southern’s philosophical approach to student affairs which has an emphasis on a student services orientation (Blimling, 2001). Efficiency was not a focus of restructuring at Northern, which had a more educational orientation. Restructuring may be an attempt to reduce bottlenecks which might exist in the organization. At both institutions, bottlenecks were perceived to be people, not processes. At Southern, only a few people believed that bottlenecks existed. In one situation, the person thought to be a bottleneck, was no longer at the institution. In discussing bottlenecks at Northern there was a distinct difference of opinion between those who had been at the institution for some time, and those new to the institution. Those new to the institution believed that bottlenecks existed; those who had been at the institution longer believed none existed. Since those relatively new to the organization would have had little time to formulate an opinion on bottlenecks, this perception may have resulted from conversations with other new employees in the division. It was clear that the Vice President at Northern wanted to make a number of changes in a short period of time. Efforts to move quickly may have been slowed down by questions asked or issues raised by a longstanding employee. This longstanding employee, who was viewed by one new employee as “under-performing” was actually more highly respected and valued by those who had been at the institution for some time. The longstanding employee may have been perceived as a bottleneck by proponents of restructuring in the sense that he/she
202
impeded progress on restructuring. This person may have been perceived as impeding the new employee’s ability to be seen as a leader and change agent within the division. Improve communication within the organization. Improved communication, especially the ability to share information, is often a goal of restructuring. At Northern, there was a perception that efforts to change reporting structures was an attempt to improve communication but others did not believe that communication was poor to start with. According to respondents, the Vice President stated that silos existed in the division which impeded communication. One respondent stated the move to a more hierarchical structure impeded communication, especially direct communication with the Vice President. What was clear from the respondents at Northern was that long serving employees didn’t see silos and didn’t see communication as an issue. Long serving employees were communicating with each other but might have been limiting their conversations with newer staff, giving the impression that communication was poor. It may also have been that the long serving employees weren’t talking about the new goals being promoted by the Vice President. At Southern, improving communication was a major factor in the restructuring effort, making the top five critical elements of the planning process cited in the literature. To address communication efforts, the planning committee sponsored educational sessions related to this topic. To address additional communication needs, technology was used to share information. The efforts to improve communication at Southern were not unique or extraordinary. Yet respondents reported general satisfaction with improved communication. Perhaps communication at Southern was relatively poor to begin with
203
and any improvements were seen as positive. Conversely, communication may have been adequate to begin with at Northern and any efforts to improve it were not seen as valid improvements. Put personal stamp on organization. In studying restructuring and redesign in the corporate world, Nadler and Tushman (1997) state that some managers initiate restructuring efforts because "…it offers managers - particularly those just starting out in a new position - a clear opportunity to put their personal stamp on an operation" (p. 11). In reviewing each institution, both had a relatively long serving Vice President who had retired. At Southern, the previous Vice President served for five years before the current Vice President was hired. At Northern, the current Vice President replaced the long serving Vice President. At both institutions, the Vice President initiated restructuring shortly after assuming the position. The restructuring efforts at both institutions appear to agree with the work of Nadler and Tushman (1997) regarding an opportunity for the new manager to shape the division in to a structure that more accurately reflects his/her personal view of student affairs. At Northern the perception that restructuring was an effort for the Vice President to put his/her stamp on the operation was much stronger than that perception at Southern. The Vice President at Northern was seen as a “change agent” and the main proponent of and the force behind restructuring. One respondent noted the Vice President’s sheer will and personality facilitated or forced restructuring. In fact, one respondent stated that restructuring was the Vice President’s plan, not the division’s plan. This is contrasted by the perception at Southern, where the Vice President’s finger prints could be seen only
204
faintly on the restructuring effort. The Vice President at Southern clearly played a role in starting the process and giving it direction. However, the restructuring effort evolved into more of a divisional effort and became the division’s plan. It seemed that at Northern, discussions regarding restructuring centered on the Vice President. At Southern, discussions about restructuring focused on the goals and processes. Potential Motivations That Were Not Apparent The literature defines a number of motivations for restructuring including fiscal constraint, external political pressure, utilization of new technologies, accreditation requirements, and implementing a new management fad. Fiscal constraint. Gaylord and Rogers (1988) examined the role fiscal constraint played in initiating restructuring higher education. Chavez (1998) examined the role fiscal constraint played in initiating restructuring in student affairs divisions. While fiscal constraint has been identified as a motivation to restructure in the literature, it was not a factor in the restructuring efforts at either institution. Funding levels at both institutions were similar to previous levels. There were staffing realignments and a limited number of retirements at both institutions but no linkage was evident between fiscal constraint and restructuring. A number of respondents noted the addition of staff and thought the budgets for student affairs had actually increased. If fiscal constraint were identified as a motivation, the rationale to restructure at Northern would have been different. The Vice President could have been viewed as carrying out the directives from the President to reduce expenditures. One motivation could have been to save resources by eliminating offices that are not central to the
205
mission, thereby freeing up some resources. A second motivation of either becoming student-centered or enhancing student engagement could have been part of the restructuring effort. Any resources “saved” by eliminating offices could be used to support enhancements in either student-centeredness or student engagement activities. Such a move to eliminate offices may not have been necessary if the Vice President was able to obtain additional resources from the President, which seemed to be the case. External political pressures. The literature identifies political pressure as an impetus to restructure. Marcus (1997) examined the role elected officials played in restructuring efforts. Political pressure from elected officials, however, was not viewed as an impetus to restructure at either institution. Therefore the results of this study are not consistent with the findings of Marcus. Utilization of new technologies. Marks (1994) identified new technologies as one of the major reasons for restructuring in the corporate world. Hammer and Champy (1993) note that many processes are designed to operate in a paper world and that new technology allows leaders to examine and reengineer processes. However, technology was not a factor in the restructuring efforts at Northern or Southern and, therefore, did not conform with the observations of Marks or Hammer and Champy. One area where technology has been used to advance the student affairs agenda is in the area of providing students with services. It was interesting to note that technology was not mentioned as means of improving services at Southern. Perhaps the division’s focus included technology but it was not the driving force behind restructuring.
206
Accreditation requirements. Chavez (1998) noted that restructuring could be used by institutions to respond to new opportunities. Accrediting bodies are now requiring the assessment of student outcomes and student learning. In this study, the restructuring efforts focused on student engagement (Northern) and student services (Southern). Neither effort specifically focused on student learning or meeting the standards for accreditation. It was unclear if the participants were aware of the accreditation standard or if the Vice Presidents introduced this external impetus as a stimulus for improvement. Clearly, the Vice President, who had been at Northern for at least three years, would have had a copy of the most recent review by the accrediting body or prepare for an upcoming review. If the Vice President were aware of the contents of a recent review letter, and if the contents of that review letter supported the Vice President’s goals, the Vice President could have used the review letter to support the restructuring effort. This approach may have been more useful in Northern, where the Vice President used a hierarchical approach to restructuring. The issue of the accrediting standards related to student learning did not surface at Southern and the goals of restructuring were not closely related to the standards associated with student learning. If the Vice President at Southern was required to implement student learning outcomes into the division, the focus and workload of the planning committee would most likely have increased. Implement a current management fad. Birnbaum (2000) noted that higher education adopts management techniques from other sectors. In this study, an effort to adopt or implement a management fad or
207
technique was not a motivation to restructure at either institution. In fact, when this researcher asked about management innovations or fads, the term had to be explained to nearly every respondent. According to Birnbaum, management fads are often introduced to new areas by “intersector carriers.” It is possible that no one at the institutional level served in the role of a carrier. It is also possible that the Vice Presidents or others in both institutions were concerned about how the employees would respond to using a fad to restructure. It may also be possible that there has been a slow-down in the development of the next fad and that the institutions may not have wanted to use an “outdated” fad. The Goals of Restructuring Restructuring often involves the establishment of goals and supporting employees as they strive to reach those goals. The following section focuses on the role of goals and a vision when restructuring, and the stated goals of restructuring. The Role of Goals and Having a Vision When Restructuring Cascio (2002) makes a number of recommendations for those considering restructuring. He also identifies a number of mistakes to avoid when restructuring. Failing to be clear about short-term and long-term goals is a common mistake. Participants at both institutions, a majority of who were directors and above, were able to articulate the major goals of their respective restructuring effort. However, clear, measurable goals were not articulated. Instead, broad, conceptual goals were articulated but their accomplishment was difficult to measure. Kotter (1996) notes that developing a vision and a strategy to implement that vision are critical components of the change process. According to Kotter vision plays a
208
critical role in initiating change by aligning and directing actions and inspiring activity throughout the workforce. In addition, the vision must be desirable, feasible, and focused. At Southern, the Vice President communicated his/her vision to the division and there was general agreement with that vision. Respondents at Southern seemed to be receptive to and supportive of the vision communicated by the Vice President. At Northern, the first part of the vision, to be student-centered, was consistently communicated by the Vice President. While consistent, the vision was not well received by most respondents. The vision to become student-centered, or more student-centered, may not have been viewed as desirable or respondents believed that they already were student-centered and, perhaps, weren’t inspired to become more student-centered. The second part of the vision, to enhance student engagement, may not have been as focused as it could have been. It is interesting to note that nearly all of the respondents at Northern used the term student engagement in responding to questions during the interview. While not specifically asked to define student engagement, few respondents were able to express more than a cursory understanding of the term. Therefore, it may have been difficult to align or inspire activity if the respondents didn’t fully understand the term student engagement or its implications. The Stated Goals of the Restructuring Written goals serve to communicate the overall direction of the division as well as remind managers and staff of divisional priorities. This section focuses on the following goals: create a structure that promotes a student-centered vision, decrease duplication, improve communications, and reduce costs.
209
Create a structure that promotes a student centered vision. In the previous organizational structure at Northern, the Vice President directly supervised over 14 different functional areas or offices. The Associate or Assistant Vice Presidents did not have direct supervisory responsibility but served primarily in an advisory capacity. The new Vice President changed the flat organizational structure to a more hierarchical one. Under this new structure, similar functional areas were organized under an Associate or Assistant Vice President. The intent of this new structure was to enhance the division’s ability to deliver enhanced programs and services. According to some respondents, the new organizational structure better met the new mission and vision of the Vice President. Not all respondents agreed with the Vice President’s effort to make the division more student-centered or to enhance student engagement. Since a number of respondents believed the division was student-centered, the “new” goals of the Vice President may not have been supported. Several respondents believed that since the Vice President focused on becoming student-centered, that he/she didn’t value efforts completed before his/her arrival. It is unclear if the Vice President actually said that the division was not doing well. However, respondents with some longevity believed the Vice President didn’t value their work. As a result, the respondents questioned the leadership of the Vice President and his/her efforts to change the division. The above is a clear example of the differences between change and transition described by Bridges (1991). The Vice President initiated change in the organization. However, the respondents did not effectively transition to the new organizational structure. In hindsight, the Vice President may have taken additional opportunities to
210
compliment the employees on their accomplishments, asked them to do more, and created a reward structure. The Vice President could have used base-line data to identify the current level of activity and then identify new, higher goals for the division. Decrease duplication. Decreasing duplication can be one component of increasing efficiency. Often, it is an attempt to reduce the workforce (Cameron, 1994). This was not a goal at Northern but was a goal at Southern. At Southern, decreasing duplication did not focus on reducing the workforce. In fact, one functional area was removed from each office and centralized. While this decreased duplication, the overall result was an increase in the number of employees working in this area. At Southern, several respondents noted duplication in office responsibilities existed prior to restructuring. Respondents noted there were two or three offices performing similar functions. Others agreed that there was some overlap in the services provided and that restructuring was a way to eliminate duplication. The Vice President sought to clarify roles and responsibilities of employees as well as offices. In addition, the Vice President moved to eliminate a function found in most offices in the division and to centralize that function into one office. Improve communication. Improving communication is often a goal of restructuring. In this study, improving communication was a goal in both restructuring efforts. At Southern, improving communication within departments and across the division was identified as one of the division’s top five critical elements. To achieve this goal, respondents noted that technology would play an integral part. List serves would be used to exchange
211
information, newsletters would be created and shared via list serves, and websites would be enhanced to post information. While improving communication at Southern seemed to be a relatively important goal, it did not seem to be as much of a priority at Northern although respondents acknowledged that improving communication was an underlying goal of realigning offices. The goal of improving communication seemed to be primarily one way. One respondent noted that the Vice President asked for feedback but that you wouldn’t want to provide that feedback in public. Others noted that when they did provide feedback, it wasn’t valued or incorporated into the final product or decision. Respondents noted that when the Vice President communicated, it was often in the form of an announcement. There may have been a different set of expectations regarding improving communication. Respondents may have been accustomed to more two way communication and were interested in more opportunities to dialogue with the Vice President. The Vice President may have sought to increase the number of opportunities to present his/her decisions to the division. Reduce costs. Carlson (2003) examined the role fiscal constraint played in restructuring. Carlson found that a majority of those responding to his survey reported that their budgets had increased over the 1996-1999 time frame. Engelbride and Goodale (1998) also found that in 79 percent of the institutions in their study, budgets remained the same or increased. In this study, the participants noted that cost reduction was not a factor in deciding to restructure nor was it an outcome. In fact, the student affairs budgets at both institutions increased as a result of restructuring. These findings generally agree with
212
those of Carlson, Engelbride and Goodale who found that student affairs budgets increased as a result of restructuring. State appropriations to higher education had stabilized in recent years and enrollment at these two institutions did not seem to be an issue. Given that student fees pay to support various services and programs, it is unlikely that reducing costs would be a goal. Processes Used to Restructure Kotter (1996) outlines a number of critical factors related to implementing a change process such as restructuring. His model will be used in this section to help form conclusions about the processes the institutions employed. The following stages from Kotter’s model will be used in this section: 1) creating a sense of urgency, 2) creating the guiding coalition, 3) communicating the change vision, 4) empowering broad-based action, 5) generating short-term wins, 6) consolidating gains and producing more change, and 7) anchor new approaches in the culture. In addition, this section will address employing formal management practices and assess the success of the program. Creating a Sense of Urgency In discussing transformational change efforts and why they aren’t successful, Kotter (1996) notes that change efforts often fail because leaders do not provide a sense of urgency to motivate employees. At Northern, the Vice President may have had a sense of urgency but this sense was not shared by the majority of participants in this study. It was unclear if the Vice President at Northern identified a crises or major opportunity to make the case that restructuring was necessary. While some respondents initially supported restructuring, support waned over time. At Southern, the Vice President outlined some basic parameters regarding restructuring, yet it was unclear if a sense of
213
urgency was created. While no crisis seemed evident, the respondents at Southern were more willing to initiate and accept change. If establishing a sense of urgency is critical in initiating major change, as noted by Kotter, both Vice President’s might have done so by asking the President to serve as the impetus for restructuring. Since some regional accrediting bodies complete varying levels of review on a five-year cycle, creating a sense of urgency also could have been accomplished in order to prepare for the next review or respond to recommendations from the last review. Creating a Guiding Coalition Kotter (1996) notes that, for changes to be successful, it is essential to pull together people to serve on a guiding coalition. Identifying people with enough power to lead the change is a critical factor. In addition, the coalition must have the right composition, the right level of trust, and a shared objective in order to work as a team. Trust is a critical factor for teamwork and must be built before proceeding. Kotter notes that the executive who acts in isolation and makes decisions on his/her own is not likely to succeed. At Northern the only semblance of a coalition was the Vice President and the three Assistant or Associate Vice Presidents that reported directly to the Vice President. Clearly this four person group did not have the broad composition needed to serve as a guiding coalition. Given that three of the four people in the group had been at the institution less than three years, it had not built the appropriate level of trust. Lastly, there was some question whether the Vice President trusted the one long serving administrator in this group and whether this person trusted the Vice President. The Vice
214
President at Northern would have been better served if a larger coalition was formed that involved other individuals. However, the outcomes from such a group might have differed from the Vice Presidents expectations. At Southern, the planning committee served as the guiding coalition. Its make-up included a range of individuals from across the division. Most were directors, but not all. The planning committee sponsored workshops and other experiences that helped develop a sense of trust and fostered teamwork. It formed smaller working groups focused on planning events or researching topics. The planning group also developed list-serves to share information and it met on a regular basis, over 16 times a year. Communicate the Change Process Communication is an important component in Kotter’s change model. Insufficient communication of the vision is often a stumbling block to major change (Kotter, 1996). Understanding that people will not accept change unless the potential benefits are attractive and that people really need to believe that the vision is a real possibility, Kotter notes that frequent, credible communication is needed to capture the hearts and minds of employees. Cascio (2002) identified communication as a critical factor in restructuring, encouraging those interested in restructuring to "…communicate regularly and in a variety of ways to keep everyone abreast of new developments and information, regularly and in a variety of ways to keep everyone abreast of new developments and information" (p.89). At Southern, the planning committee posted agendas and minutes, created the aforementioned list-serves, and sponsored division-wide activities to share information. The Vice President had an open door policy, was visible on campus, and focused on
215
listening to employees. Each of these behaviors enhanced two-way communication. At Northern, communication seemed to be more limited and when it did occur, it was primarily one-way. Respondents noted that offering feedback in public would not be well received. In addition, when feedback was provided it was perceived as not being valued and not taken into account. A number of respondents reported hearing information second-hand, indicating that communication was limited. These perceptions greatly limited the communication process at Northern. Empowering Broad-Based Action A number of researchers note that involving employees in the restructuring effort and utilizing a collaborative approach facilitates change instead of resistance (Carlson, 2003; Cascio, 2002; Kotter, 1996). Carlson concluded that successful efforts appeared to depend on the use of the collegial management style. Kotter notes that structure, skills, systems and supervision can be obstacles to broad-based action. While the Vice President at Northern started the restructuring process in a participatory manner, after the initial retreat the process was directed by a much smaller group of people led by the Vice President. A majority of the participants at Northern believed the process was not inclusive and that opportunities to provide input were limited. Decisions regarding restructuring were announced and the staff was expected to follow. A majority of the participants seemed cautious and skeptical of the Vice President in particular and restructuring in general. The process at Northern generally supported the observations of Nadler and Tushman (1997) who stated: All too often, managers develop a new design behind closed doors, either alone or with the assistance of one or two trusted consultants or trusted advisors, and then present their executive teams and the organization with
216
a complete, finalized package. The predictable responses are skepticism, resentment, and resistance. (p. 188) The process used to restructure at Northern contrasted with the approach used at Southern, which was considered inclusive by nearly every participant. The Vice President at Southern utilized an inclusive and deliberative process that provided opportunities for people to provide feedback. Participants believed that, to a degree, they were in charge of the process. The approach used at Southern generally supported the findings of Horn and Jerome (1996) who stated "While in some cases the decision to restructure was a command decision from above, the successful process involved workers at all levels taking an active role in changing their work environment into something much like the traditional academic model" (p. 36). Carlson (2003) also stated successful restructuring in student affairs divisions appeared to depend more on a "collegial" management rather than a strong hierarchical management style. Open, honest communication is central to successful restructuring. At Southern, open communication played an important role in getting employees to understand, accept, and support restructuring. It was clear that the participants at Southern were much more supportive of restructuring and were more engaged in the process. As noted on one of the Southern web pages, change is exciting when done by us. The overall view of restructuring at Northern was that it was something the Vice President wanted to do. There wasn’t the same level of support for the Vice President and the work he/she was doing. The staff wasn't as supportive of the goals of restructuring and seemed to be taking a wait and see
217
approach. Participants gave the impression that this too shall pass. As one person stated, “…we’ll do it because we want to keep our jobs.” At Northern, the sheer will and personality of the Vice President marginally facilitated restructuring but left unclear whether the changes would persist in the face of so much skepticism. The Vice President was viewed as the main supporter and champion of restructuring. Several participants noted that when the Vice President asked for input on a restructuring idea, their feedback was not taken into consideration. At Southern the restructuring effort was facilitated by open communication, an inclusive process, and positive and trusting relationships. The findings that open communication, an inclusive process, and positive and trusting relationships facilitated restructuring generally agree with the findings of Carlson (2003) and Cascio (2003). These attributes were not evident at Northern and were not articulated by participants. The approach used at Northern seemed to agree with the observations of Nadler and Tushman (1997); when a small group of people plan and announce a restructuring plan, the responses are resistance, resentment, and skepticism. The top-down approach to restructuring at Northern does not seem likely to achieve its goals. A majority of employees were skeptical about restructuring and, to a degree, paying attention to it only when it affected them directly or affected a close colleague. An informal network exists at Northern and individuals share information or speculate about the Vice President’s next move. In broad terms the restructuring effort at Southern seemed to work. The open and inclusive process engendered the support of employees who agreed with the goals of restructuring and actively sought to implement the recommendations. As noted earlier,
218
the lack of data about restructuring at both institutions was a factor in any effort to determine the overall success of restructuring. Generating Short-term Wins Kotter (1996) notes that leaders should plan for visible improvements or shortterm wins. According to Kotter, visible improvements help employees justify the costs associated with the change process and reduce cynicism and resistance. Short-term wins also provides data to support the change process and continued change. Kotter encourages leaders to recognize and reward those playing an important role in the change process. Such efforts increase morale and motivation and may build momentum within the change process. The respondents from neither institution utilized the terminology of short-term wins. Short-term wins were limited at Northern, where changes in the structure and reporting lines served as evidence of accomplishment. Unfortunately, some of the changes were not well received and would not necessarily correspond with the description of a short-term win. These changes were visible but were not seen as improvements. At Southern, however, the activities of the planning committee may fit into Kotter’s change model. The formation of a planning committee and the activities of the committee, which included bringing in speakers, organizing divisional retreats, and setting up communication networks served as some short-term wins. These wins helped build the guiding coalition, engaged employees in the process, and enhanced a sense of community. Such activities increased understanding and receptiveness, potentially
219
reducing fear of the unknown. In addition, the clarification of job responsibilities and streamlining of the budgeting process served as evidence of positive accomplishment. Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change Noting that change often takes a long time, Kotter (1996) explains many forces can stall the change process. Losing momentum can result in a regression toward previous structures and behaviors. Kotter suggests that a component of consolidating gains and producing more change rests with changing systems, structures, and policies that don’t fit the new vision. It is also important to hire, promote, and develop those who can successfully implement the “change vision.” Using Kotter’s stage to evaluate the restructuring effort at Northern, it is clear that reporting structures were changed. In addition, the Vice President hired several individuals from outside the institution to serve as senior leaders. What was also clear was that any momentum generated in the early stages of restructuring had waned. As noted by Kotter, resistance seems to have reasserted itself. A majority of those interviewed seemed to passively listen to the directives of the Vice President and the recently hired senior leaders. Gains that might have served to build momentum and support more change were thwarted by individuals who were not involved in the restructuring process and quietly resisted the changes. The restructuring effort at Northern appeared to have stalled and any progress is a result of the Vice President’s directives, not the full acceptance by those who will have to implement the changes. At Southern, it was clear that the planning committee had achieved some success in producing small-wins and that there was some momentum behind the changes. The centralization of a functional area, addition of the budget function, new policies regarding
220
purchasing, clarification of roles and responsibilities, and the merging of functions helped build momentum. The development of staff, mainly via the efforts of the planning committee, helped enable people to accept the “change vision” as predicted by Kotter. Anchor New Approaches in the Culture Kotter (1996) notes that organizational culture is an important aspect of the change process since it influences human behavior. Further, Kotter contends that culture is difficult to address directly since it is somewhat invisible. For those reasons, Kotter contends that change must be anchored in the culture, either by grafting new practices on to the existing culture or instituting new practices to replace the existing culture. A second component of this stage of Kotter’s change model involves focusing on customer or productivity oriented behavior. One critical aspect of this stage involves the results of the change effort. If the new approach is superior to the old methods, the new approach will be incorporated into the culture. At Northern, the Vice President initiated restructuring by focusing on the student or consumer. Efforts to enhance student-centeredness and student engagement clearly focus on the consumer. The formation of two new institutes, and the resulting formation of clusters around those topics, could be characterized as more than grafting new practices into the existing culture. Such action would be more closely aligned with instituting new practices to replace the existing culture. In terms of incorporating the new approaches into the culture of the organization, there appeared to be issues associated with the outcomes or results. It was unclear if the new approaches were superior to the old methods. Therefore the new approaches or change may not be anchored in the culture at Northern.
221
At Southern, the restructuring effort also focused on a consumer or student orientation. The centralization of a functional area, the devolution and merging of a functional area, and the clarification of responsibilities more closely aligns with the grafting of new practices into the existing culture. Respondents noted that a number of the changes initiated as a result of restructuring already resulted in improvements. Because of the successful nature of these changes, the new approaches are more likely to be anchored in the culture at Southern. Employ Formal Management Practices Carlson (2003) examined the role formal management practices played in restructured student affairs divisions. Carlson found that 25 percent used re-engineering, 17 percent used TQM, and 15 percent used “other methods.” The results of this study indicate that neither institution used a formal management technique. Both utilized an individualized approach. Therefore, the process used to restructure would most likely fall into Carlson’s category identified as “other methods.” The restructuring process at Northern did not use any formal management practice. The respondents indicated that hardly any process was utilized at all. The planning process used at Southern was a bit more formalized but didn’t use a management fad. This may result from the fact that the Vice Presidents had a limited awareness of management fads or experience in using them to restructure. Assess the Success of the Program A comprehensive assessment program could provide important information regarding the need to restructure, the specific areas in need of improvement, as well as evaluate the success of the effort. Carlson (2003) found that restructuring in student
222
affairs was not being measured in a systematic manner. Further, only six percent of those responding to his survey collected, analyzed and shared findings. The participants in this study did not describe any efforts to assess restructuring, corroborating the work of Carlson. Without the presence of data, employees were unable to substantiate the rationale used to justify restructuring. Generally, this disenfranchised a majority of the respondents, especially at Northern where leadership credibility was an issue. It is unclear why two large research universities seemed to have undertaken a large change process without developing a formal assessment program. One employee from Southern openly acknowledged that assessment wasn’t a strength of the division. Still, the institutional research office at the university, upon request, could have provided some assistance in either developing an assessment plan or providing data that the respondents could have reviewed to guide the process. Perhaps even more disconcerting was the lack of assessment at Northern, where assessment is perceived to be a strength. Respondents at Northern were unaware of any assessment efforts directed at collecting baseline data or analyzing the results of restructuring. In trying to surmise why assessment efforts of restructuring may be limited or nonexistent, it must be acknowledged that assessment efforts can be time consuming and expensive. Undertaking a comprehensive assessment effort could be viewed as slowing down the restructuring process. Further, assessment could provide data that supports areas the Vice President wants to change or identify areas in need of change that the Vice President was not interested in changing.
223
Since the goals at both institutions were broad and conceptual and neither institution established more finite measurable goals, it may have been difficult to assess the results. Since restructuring represents a mixed bag of results (Hass, 1997), the Vice Presidents may not have wanted to have data that could potentially undermine the restructuring effort. Results of the Restructuring The results of a restructuring effort can be divided into intended and unintended outcomes. The following section focuses on the nature of structural changes, the affect on functions, clarification of roles and responsibilities, management of human resources, streamlining the budget process, and formal assessment of results. Nature of the Structural Changes The major results of the restructuring at Northern included an overall move from a flat or lateral organizational structure to a more hierarchical one. The addition of two high level administrators created an administrative layer between the directors and the Vice President. In addition to this new layer, significant changes were made in reporting lines, the grouping of offices around a common theme, and staff was added. Over a two year period the portfolios of the three senior administrators shifted considerably. It was not uncommon for one administrator to supervise an area, have the Vice President transfer that area to another administrator, only to have that area return the following year. These changes created considerable anxiety for those interviewed. At Northern, an effort was made to have people with meet around a common theme. These clusters generally focused on the goals of the restructuring process. A number of people noted that they were a member of a cluster. Several noted that their
224
clusters had never met. If true, it seems unlikely that the Vice President wouldn’t have known about the lack of progress in these key areas. If so, this makes one question the reasoning behind forming the clusters. Was it important to show that action had been taken, even though the group only existed on paper and did not actually meet? At Southern, one functional area that was dispersed throughout the division was consolidated into one central office. In addition, reporting lines were clarified in several situations. The structural changes at Southern were not as extensive as those at Northern. Affect on Functions Restructuring can result in the addition or elimination of administrative layers, the consolidation or merging of functions, and the centralization of student services. Addition or elimination of administrative layers. Chavez (1998) analyzed the types of strategies student affairs leaders utilized in restructuring. In her study Chavez identified a series of outcomes from restructuring, including elimination of administrative layers. According to Carlson (2003), 42.9 percent of the respondents to his 1999 survey reported that they had eliminated positions as a result of restructuring. The percentage of research universities eliminating positions was higher, 56.3 percent. In this study, administrative layers were added at Northern. Individuals who had previously reported to the Vice President, now reported to an Assistant or Associate Vice President. In addition, reporting lines were changed and clusters were formed. At Northern, the addition of professionals in the Vice President’s office created a new administrative layer in contrast to the findings of Chavez who concluded that restructuring resulted in the elimination of administrative layers.
225
Consolidation or merging of functions. Research on restructuring by Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that mergers and consolidations occurred in 46 percent of divisional restructuring efforts across all institutional types with higher rates at research institutions. Carlson (2003) studied the consolidation or merging of offices in student affairs. Financial aid and counseling were most often merged with other areas or transferred. Student activities and student unions were merged with other areas. At Northern, areas were merged together around a cluster, adding an administrative layer. At Southern, one functional area that had been spread out throughout the division was centralized into one office. The results of this research on both institutions also generally are consistent with the findings of Chavez (1998) who found that consolidation or merging was one outcome of restructuring. This occurred at both Northern and Southern. Carlson (2003) found that restructuring resulted in the elimination of the student activities at some institutions and that the responsibility for student unions was transferred to another area such as business affairs. At Northern, student activities and student unions were transferred internally to different supervising areas, first from one Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, to an Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, and most recently to the Assistant Vice President for Campus Services. Centralization of student services. Chavez (1996) identified the centralization of student services as one strategy used by Vice Presidents to restructure. This strategy can be employed as a response to fiscal restraint since staffing patterns in the centralized office can be reduced from previous levels. Chavez notes that one of the popular outcomes of centralization involves
226
the combination of payment and service functions into a “one stop shop.” Of the two institutions, a different form of centralization occurred at Southern. At Southern, one functional area was embedded in a number of offices within the division. Restructuring removed this functional area and formed one centralized office that performed this function for the entire division. Unlike the findings of Chavez, this study found that the number of employees in the centralized office actually increased. Clarification of roles and responsibilities. Restructuring can alter the work needed to be accomplished as well as the working relationships that exist in organizations. Clarifying roles and responsibilities was not a focus at Northern. At Southern, the need to clarify roles and responsibilities was important and may have been an outcome of institutional growth. Once a “small” institution where everyone knew everybody, Southern has grown into a regional university. According to respondents, the practices and informal networks that operated prior to growth began to breakdown as the size and complexity of the institution increased. The experience at Southern appears consistent with Ikenberry’s (1970) assessment regarding growth and duplication in higher education. Ikenberry stated “The familiar models worked reasonably well in an earlier day, in less complex institutions in which most faculty knew each other personally…” Respondents at Southern noted that a number of offices within the division provided the same or similar services. These overlaps created confusion for students and to a degree, a lack of clarity in the role of each office. Restructuring was seen as a way to reduce or eliminate overlap and duplication. It was also an effort to improve services to students. At Southern, as part of the planning process individual offices established goals
227
and objectives for the coming year. The goals and objectives of each office were clarified to reduce overlap. Each office then established goals and objectives that aligned with the strategic planning effort. The end result was a much tighter alignment with the planning effort as well as clarification of the roles and responsibilities of each office. Management of Human Resources In commenting on the human impacts of restructuring, MacTaggart (1996) observed that managing the human side of a restructuring effort requires knowledge in a number of areas including “…how humans behave in the midst of change that affects their lives and careers” (p. 135). Bridges (1991) points out that change is different than transition and that efforts often focus on change while transition is perhaps more important in helping people adjust to the new environment. The following section focuses on maintaining morale; personnel hires, reassignments, promotions; personnel resignations; role of the union; resistance to change; and leadership credibility. Maintain morale. In researching how restructuring affected employees, MacTaggart (1996) notes that "The human response to restructuring included a grieving process that progressed overtime through the now familiar stages from denial to anger to some form of acceptance" (p. 134). Cameron et al. (1987) found that low morale was an outcome of organizational change. Carlson (2003) identified the most common responses to restructuring which included morale problems. In this study, participants at Northern clearly believed that morale was negatively affected by restructuring, especially at the director level and above. This belief was consistent with the findings of Carlson (2003) and Cameron (1987) regarding the
228
responses to restructuring. At Southern, there was general agreement that morale had improved as a result of restructuring, unlike the findings of previous research that indicated morale was negatively affected by restructuring. The process used to restructure may have a very dramatic impact on employee morale. A Northern, a top-down approach with limited opportunity for involvement may have led to lower morale. This approach was contrasted with the inclusive and participatory process at used at Southern. At Southern, the employees seemed to have a degree of autonomy and latitude in determining the restructuring process. The employee driven planning committee played an integral role in preparing staff for change and for creating methods to communicate information. The employees believed they were a part of restructuring, noting that change is more effective when done with others – not done to others. Using Bridges’ (1991) framework regarding change and transition as a lens to examine restructuring at Southern, the planning committee played an important role in helping employees through the transition process. At Northern, little or no attention was given to the transition process. Consequently, employee morale at Southern was high and the employees looked forward to restructuring. At Northern, the employees never transitioned and employee morale was low. People were biding their time, keeping their heads low, providing lip service when necessary, and waiting for the Vice President to leave. The unfortunate outcome of restructuring at Northern is that employees were less inclined to work toward achieving the admirable goals of becoming student-centered and enhancing student engagement.
229
Personnel hires, reassignments, promotions and development. Cascio (2002) and Cameron (1994) note that employees should be viewed as valuable assets not liabilities. Noting that change often takes a long time, Kotter (1996) explains many forces can stall the change process. Kotter encourages leaders to hire, promote, and develop individuals who can successfully implement the “change vision.” At Northern, the Vice President created two new senior level positions and filled those positions with external candidates. A number of respondents believed that qualified internal candidates who applied for those positions were erroneously overlooked. While the candidates who eventually filled the new positions may be capable administrators, the respondents perceived the external hires as a figurative slap in the face of those currently employed within the division. A majority of those interviewed expressed a lack of trust and a sense of wariness in talking about the newly hired administrators. Efforts to produce more change instituted by the new hires were viewed skeptically, limiting the opportunity to implement more change. At Southern, the Vice President hired a limited number of new people in the division. The respondents talked positively about the changes the Vice President made and were neutral to positive when referring to the new hires. The planning committee played a critical role in developing people who led the change effort. The planning committee spent a considerable amount of time preparing people for change and providing opportunities that promote development. This approach may have prepared the division for additional change as noted by Kotter (1996). Previous research by Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that 43 percent of all student affairs divisions had eliminated positions compared to 56 percent of student
230
affairs divisions at research institutions. Restructuring at Northern did not result in anyone losing his or her job. One individual was reassigned. At Southern, the restructuring effort did not result in anyone losing his or her job; however, one person did retire shortly after restructuring was initiated. At Southern, there was a general agreement that reassigning employees was an approach utilized to manage human resources. Reassigning versus firing employees may have been a more humane approach or it may have been an acknowledgement that responsibilities were not matched with skills and abilities. Reassignments may also have been one of the limited options available to management in a union environment. Personnel resignations. As noted above, Cascio (2002) and Cameron (1994) believe that employees should be viewed as valuable assets. Kotter (1996) recommends getting rid of obstacles, barriers, and structures that undermine the change vision. At least one individual at each institution either resigned or “retired” under pressure as a result of restructuring. In the case of Northern, an upper level administrator, who retained his/her title, was given the opportunity to move over to a position in the education department. After a short period of time, this person resigned. Once restructuring started at Southern, a director level administrator was given the opportunity to retire “early.” His/her “retirement” created an opportunity to bring in a new hire and complete the centralization of that function. These subtle changes at both Northern and Southern were efforts to remove obstacles or barriers to the change vision. The changes also created an opportunity for each Vice President to hire new people who could implement the change vision outlined by Kotter.
231
Employee turnover is a potential unintended outcome of restructuring. A number of respondents at Northern stated that the workforce was fairly stable. Respondents with longevity noted that Northern had been a place that attracted and kept high quality staff. Citing discussions with other staff, respondents indicated that several people who had only been at the institution about three or four years were looking to leave. Participants perceived that employees in general were not being valued and newer employees with less invested in the institution were more likely to resign and leave. Employees with some longevity at the institution, planned to stick it out, keep their heads down, do their work, and try to outlast the Vice President. Employee turnover was not an issue at Southern. In fact, one respondent believed that restructuring was going to improve the ability of the division to attract and possibly retain high quality staff. It was unclear whether employee turnover increased as a result of the restructuring process. A followup study would be needed to determine if employee turnover did increase. Role of the union. The workforce at Southern was unionized and a number of respondents noted that while the union environment help protect and support employees, the union was viewed as an impediment to restructuring. The union limited the ability of management to make significant or “better and bigger changes.” Management had to be very careful changing responsibilities and duties to work within the aspects of job titles and the union contract. The ability to motivate individuals to introduce new concepts or approaches was also a limitation in a union environment. In addition, incentives in terms of job titles or salary increases were limited. It was unclear if the union environment greatly limited the Vice President’s ability to restructure the division. The Vice President at Southern seemed to
232
have been able to work with union leaders and negotiate appropriate resolutions to any challenging situations. Resistance to change. Cameron et al. (1987) found that employees of organizations undergoing restructuring were resistant to change. In his study of restructuring in student affairs, Carlson (2003) identified resistance to change as one of the most common responses to restructuring. One of the findings of this study was the disparity of employee attitude between the two institutions. At Southern, the employees generally were supportive of restructuring and had an optimistic outlook. They accepted change and anticipated continued improvement. At Northern, the employees were skeptical and not supportive of restructuring. A number of employees noted that they would do what was asked of them in order to keep their jobs but gave the impression that they would not volunteer to assist in any way. Nearly every respondent at Northern talked about restructuring in less than positive terms. A number of respondents at Northern seemed to communicate with each other on a fairly regular basis, often talking about a recent comment or decision made by the Vice President or one of the external hires. The conversations didn’t seem to be an effort of sabotage by those not included in the new regime, as noted by MacTaggart (1996), but more of an effort to keep each other informed about recent developments. A number of the respondents seemed to band together in an informal network that supported each other, while giving lip service to, or resisting, the change efforts of the Vice President.
233
It is clear that the respondents at Northern either believed that their roles had diminished or did not feel part of the new structure. As noted in MacTaggart, these individuals were skeptical about the chances for success and had a much darker view of the Vice President and the external hires. Employees at Northern took a wait and see approach about the chances of success and were cautiously hopeful. Leadership credibility. Cameron et al. (1987) identified a series of common negative attributes associated with restructuring. One of those attributes was the loss of creditability of the leader. At Northern, a majority of the respondents did not respect the Vice President and questioned his/her leadership abilities. Two decisions seemed to have served as the primary factors for the loss of creditability. The Vice President tried to shape the reassignment of a long serving, senior leader using positive and glowing terms. Respondents were told that the reassigned person, was an “international scholar/practitioner” who was going to provide his/her “wisdom” and “mentor” others. The terminology used in this reassignment was apparently used often by the Vice President. People knew the reassigned person wasn’t an international scholar/practitioner and believed that the Vice President was being disingenuous. The Vice President’s repeated use of positive and glowing terms in other settings resulted in a perception that he/she could not be trusted. The Vice President also created two new high level positions within the division. A number of highly qualified internal candidates applied for those positions but both positions were given to candidates that were brought in from the outside. Several respondents questioned the Vice President’s judgment, noting that the hiring of a
234
qualified internal candidate might have been able to more effectively communicate the Vice President’s thoughts and ideas to others in the division. Further, an internal candidate could have helped bridge the gap that existed between the Vice President and the staff. Respondents perceived the rejection of internal candidates as a statement about the value of the work they were currently doing. The apparent consistent use of overly positive language that was incongruent with the setting, and not hiring at least one internal candidate were tactical errors that, from the perspective of most respondents, resulted in a loss of credibility in the Vice President. At Southern, the credibility of the Vice President seemed to have actually increased as a result of restructuring. The Vice President was known as an honest, fair, and thoughtful leader who had an open door policy and listened to the concerns of employees. The Vice President also worked collaboratively and was action oriented. These attributes strengthened the credibility of the Vice President. Stream Line Budget Process and Obtain Budget Increases Carlson (2003) found that a majority of those responding to his survey reported that their budgets had increased over the 1996-1999 time frame. Sixty-five percent reported increases in their budget, with the balance either reporting no change or budget decreases. Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that 79 percent of the institutions studied reported budget increases or no change. The percentage of research institutions reporting budget decreases was approximately 68 percent. This study found that restructuring resulted in an increase in the student affairs budget in both institutions. Therefore, the results corroborate the work of Carlson and others that found that budgets increased as a result of restructuring. The Vice President at Northern noted that
235
restructuring may require additional resources, but it is unknown if a request for an increased budget was placed within the context of restructuring. Short-term Wins Kotter (1996) notes that short-term wins are often visible signs of change and institutional improvement. As noted earlier, short-term wins also provides data to support the change process and continued change. Kotter encourages leaders to recognize and reward those playing an important role in the change process. Such efforts increase morale and motivation and may build momentum within the change process. At Southern, the formation of a planning committee and the activities of that committee, which included bringing in speakers, organizing divisional retreats, and setting up communication networks served as some short-term wins. In addition, the clarification of job responsibilities and streamlining the budgeting process served as evidence of positive accomplishment. As noted earlier in this chapter, at Northern, the changes in the structure and reporting lines served as evidence of accomplishment. Unfortunately, some of the changes were not well received and would not necessarily correspond with the description of a short-term win. These changes were visible but were not seen as improvements. Formal Assessment of Results A comprehensive assessment program could provide important information regarding the need to restructure as well as specific areas in need of improvement. An assessment program could provide baseline data which could be used in a pre/post study, to evaluate the success of the effort.
236
Cascio (2002) pointed out that one mistake that should be avoided when restructuring was the failure to evaluate the results of restructuring and if appropriate, to learn from the mistakes that were made. In a study of restructuring in student affairs, Carlson (2003) found that the majority of institutions did not report objective or quantifiable assessment efforts to measure the success or failure of restructuring efforts. At Northern, there was general agreement that it was too early to tell if restructuring had improved performance. At Southern, there was agreement that some of the duplication had been reduced but that it was too early to tell if restructuring had improved performance. The lack of established baseline data on performance prior to restructuring hindered any effort to measure performance post-restructuring. Advice For Those Contemplating Restructuring The lessons learned from the restructuring of the two divisions examined in this study provide valuable insights to individuals interested in restructuring and reinforce many observations found in the literature. These lessons are described below. 1. Prior to initiating restructuring, an effort should be made to become familiar with the literature on organizational change. Many lessons could be learned, and perhaps pitfalls avoided, if leaders read the works of Bridges, Cameron, Cascio, Kotter, MacTaggart, and others. 2. Establish a comprehensive assessment program to develop baseline data regarding the performance of each unit within the division. This data should be utilized to determine if restructuring is necessary as well as identify areas in need of improvement, areas which may need additional resources, new areas that need to be added or existing areas that should be eliminated. It would be helpful if a future
237
assessment effort provided quantitative data on use, satisfaction, and student outcomes. Such a study would give greater insights into how often a service or office is used, how satisfied users were with the service provided, and give a general idea of whether the service or function was contributing to the educational mission of the institution. 3. Attending to the human side of restructuring is critical for a successful change strategy. In both of these institutions, restructuring was initiated after the arrival of a new Vice President. Extensive efforts should be made to build relationships within the division and the institution to develop trust and understanding. Developing effective processes to restructure is critical and must be a priority for the person initiating change. The process should be grounded in change theory and utilize data to guide the decision making process. The process should be well thought out and take the culture of the division into account. 4. At each of these institutions, long serving Vice Presidents had created stability within the organizational culture. Prior to restructuring, efforts should be made to build an atmosphere and culture receptive to anticipated changes. It must be noted that all change is not necessarily positive and that some decisions will produce negative outcomes. At Northern, the goals of the restructuring effort were laudable, yet the process used to restructure was not. An ineffective process limited the success of the effort. 5. Restructuring is more likely to be successful if undertaken using an inclusive participatory approach. This lessens the power of the Vice President to direct and control the process but if people understand the general goals of restructuring, the ensuing
238
recommendations are more likely to be implemented and supported. As noted earlier, change is best accomplished with others, not done to others. 6. Communication is a critical factor in restructuring. Individuals who are contemplating restructuring must make concerted efforts to communicate openly, honestly, in a timely fashion, and fully with all employees. 7. Success should be defined in advance. Individuals interested in restructuring should establish short-term and long-term goals that are acceptable and achievable. The Vice President should publicly acknowledge the attainment of those goals and publicly congratulate those involved in the achievement. 8. With the exception of incompetent staff, those contemplating restructuring should seek the reassignment of staff rather than the termination of staff. To accomplish this it is imperative to have the support of the President and other senior leaders at the institution. 9. Restructuring may identify the need for new or expanded services. Individuals interested in restructuring need to gain commitment for additional resources required to implement the outcomes of restructuring or staff expectations will be dashed, leading to cynicism and a lack of commitment. 10. In working with employees, leaders should understand the difference between change and transition. Restructuring should be accompanied by training and transition support for employees who may be assuming new responsibilities, otherwise, changes will not result in lasting improvements. 11. If the working environment is unionized, those interested in restructuring must work very closely with their human resources office to make sure they address
239
employee issues appropriately. An effort should be made, when possible, to work with union leaders in a collaborative fashion instead of an adversarial one. 12. Lastly, once restructuring is initiated it can take on a life of its own. Leaders should establish criteria that will determine when restructuring has been completed. Once completed, they should publicly announce the conclusion of restructuring, report the successes, and thank those who helped in the process. These suggestions generally agree with the work of Kotter (1996) regarding effective change strategies. Suggestions for Future Research The following section outlines suggestions for future research on restructuring student affairs divisions: 1. This study provided information on two institutions that had recently restructured. A follow-up study of these two divisions utilizing case study methodology and related research questions would provide insights into the longer-term effects of restructuring. 2. Carlson (2003) noted that management practices such as TQM were used in restructuring processes. A study of the effectiveness of a restructuring effort that utilized a formal management practice might provide insight into how a more formalized practice might affect the results of restructuring. Birnbaum (2000) notes that many formal management practices lack supporting data that indicate they are successful. Such a study might provide information to confirm or reject Birnbaum’s findings that the success of management innovations is limited. 3. Since serving students is the primary purpose of restructuring, it would be useful to conduct a pre/post study that identified how restructuring affected student
240
services. Such a study could help researchers better understand how and if students respond to the restructuring effort. 4. Individuals interested in studying restructuring may want to interview senior leaders outside of student affairs to gain a better understanding of the role restructuring played in a larger institutional context. 5. Future researchers should make every effort to examine institutions where they can obtain access to documents related to restructuring, including email correspondence, internal communications, data reports, and annual reports, if available. It would also be helpful to interview the Vice President both prior to commencing the study and at its conclusion. 6. Lastly, it might be advantageous to interview a larger sample size and to include in that larger sample a broad range of employees. Such a sample might include lower level employees affected by restructuring who could provide additional views on its nature and effects. Limitations of the Study The findings in this study may be limited by having utilized respondents who were nominated by the Vice Presidents for Student Affairs. Even though the snowball sampling technique was employed, the possibility exists that participants in the study did not provide a fully representative set of views on restructuring. Furthermore, some people did not wish to be interviewed even after repeated invitations to participate in the study. In one situation, an individual did not want to participate out of fear of reprisal. This created a situation that was less than ideal as it limited access to potentially important source of information.
241
The study may have been influenced by the lack of anonymity within the sample at Northern. While the researcher did not divulge who was participating in the study, a number of participants knew, in advance of their interview, who had already been interviewed or was scheduled for an interview. There was a possibility that information regarding the interview questions was shared prior to the actual interview. If this happened, it may have affected the responses of the participants. Lastly, while a request was made for documents related to restructuring, little documentation was provided. One campus directed the researcher to a website which provided an overview of the institution’s planning process; the other campus provided copies of organization charts. It is unknown if written memoranda and/or email exchanges were used during the initiation or conduct of the restructuring effort. If relevant documents existed, the inability to obtain them may have limited the researcher’s ability to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the restructuring effort prior to the interview process. The lack of documents may also have limited the use of triangulation. This study also may have limitations because follow-up interviews with the Vice President were not conducted.
242
December, 2003
Presicled
Vice President
for Student
EIeGtsd ~ l8adars (ESt)
Affaln
~C i=$ ~
N +:>. Academic ReIaIIonB 'ProgrBrmIhg CouOOI ~EWcaIIoo
w
~
CdIegB Uaisan 'Housing (Repct1s IDAudlary and Buslnen Servioes)
.
Human Resources
r-=l
InfoonaIion TecI1nalogy
P' -< > Nn oP'" 8~
Fi1amiaI
Officer
L:J
Cere
H
Affalls SeNIces
1#2
J#2
#2
fo(Women
Center
University
Religious -oooe ..... 11..=.1
II
:..-
Students
'-'IA" 12 "'.,-
rEl r=l
SII.Ident:s Activities Services
......
IB
PsychoIogIcaJ Services
""""""1
HaaItI1 Services
2006
Vice President for ---------------- Student Affairs
- - - -- - - - - ---'Division
Affairs Council
Cabinet of Student Leaders
Administrative Asst. Staff Asst. VIII Staff Asst. VI
ofStudeht
~(/) ::\..> Assistant Vice President
Associate Associate Vice Presi,deI)t for Student Affairs -
Vice President
g'Q
gOQ
10 .j::.. .j::..
~ ~. :2' ~
([)
Senior Director, Counseling &, Psych. St.,-vices
Jointly '"P~" '" "n~oo ~d ',..inm
Senior Director, Judicial Affairs
Assistant Vice President for Housing, Food Services and Residenco Life
Senior Director, Career Services
Senior Director, Unions and Student Activities SA Development
Senior Director, UniVersity Health Services
«10(")
Ctr for Student Activities & Programming
'"' 0 rJJ. ~ ~
.......
aD"'
g~
Center for Women Students
Fraiernity & Sorority Lit;'
Senior Director, Residence Life
,
,
~
Center It" Student Engagemen' SA Research and Assessment LGBTA Student Resource Ctr
Human Resources
f-
New Student
Programs
Infonnation Technology
L-
Special Populations
onCCal11pl1$ Livin" Cultural Center
Appendix B
Dear
:
My name is Ed Engelbride and I'm a doctoral student in the higher education, policy and leadership program at the University of Maryland at College Park. My dissertation focuses on restructuring in student affairs. I am writing to request your assistance with my research. Your Vice President has agreed to assist me with my research project and has nominated a number of individuals to participate in the study. Individuals who agree to participate will be asked a series of questions regarding the restructuring effort. Interviews will take place on campus and will last approximately 40-45 minutes. While your Vice President has nominated individuals for this study, the identity of the actual participants will be strictly confidential. Further, the identity of the institution will not be disclosed in my dissertation. I would like to include you in my research project. If you are willing to participate, I would appreciate your response by August 11th. If you would like additional information about this study, please reply back to this message or contact me via telephone at 518-443-5116. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely,
Ed Engelbride Doctoral Student University of Maryland, College Park
245
Appendix C Interview Guide My name is Ed Engelbride and I am a doctoral student at the University of Maryland. I am studying restructuring in student affairs, specifically the impetus, goals and processes and outcomes. The names of the individuals participating in this study as well as their institutions will be confidential. I have an Informed Consent Form that I'd like to review with you and ask that you sign it. Do you have any questions before we start? Background How long have you worked at this institution? How would you describe the restructuring process that took place in your division? When did the restructuring effort start? What were some of the major issues facing student affairs at that time? How would you describe your financial situation prior to restructuring? When was the restructuring completed? Did you have a role in the restructuring effort? If so, what was your role?
Question #1 - What was the impetus for restructuring? Who initiated restructuring efforts for student affairs? Did it primarily come from within the University or an external source? What rationale was given to initiate restructuring in student affairs? In your opinion was the “public” rationale for the restructuring the real or complete reason it was initiated? Follow up probes on factors not covered in initial response: - Were financial issues a factor? - Was it an attempt to remove “bottle necks” in the previous structure? - Was a concern about using technology more effectively a factor? - Were personnel issues a factor? - Was restructuring a convenient way to respond to more general concern about the effectiveness of the division or to ward off other worse alternatives? - Were there concerns within the division that the pressures to restructure might not be completely legitimate? Question #2 - What were the goals of restructuring? What were the goals of the restructuring effort? Are they written anywhere?
246
Do you think staff in the division generally understood the goals of restructuring? Do you think there was general agreement on them? Follow up probes on factors not covered in initial response: - Was one of the stated goals to improve coordination and/or communication? - Was a goal to improve the responsiveness of units in the division? - Was an implicit or explicit goal an effort to work around particular employees thought to be impeding the progress of the division? - Was a goal to reduce costs? - Was a goal to centralize, decentralize, or restructure authority within the division? - Was an implicit goal to give the appearance of acting to resolve an issue that was intractable or was not considered a legitimate issue within the division? - Was a goal to give higher priority to emerging concerns such as the division’s role in facilitating student learning? Question #3 - What processes were employed? How would you describe the process employed to implement the restructuring? Follow up probes on factors not covered in initial response: - How open was communication about the process to division staff? - How inclusive was participation in the process? - How was the process structured? - What processes, procedures and strategies were employed in the restructuring process? - Did the process draw on concepts of formal management practices described in the literature such as “right sizing”, etc. - Who had the principal role in the restructuring effort? - Were consultants used to help design or assist with the process? - How did employees respond to the restructuring effort? Was there a high level of acceptance or was there some degree of resistance? If so, what was the nature of this resistance? Was it ignored or were they attempt to block or disrupt it? - How would your VP/supervisor describe the process? What appears to account for any differing perceptions? In reviewing your campuses restructuring effort, what processes facilitated its implementation? Were there aspects of the process that impeded its implementation? Follow up questions on factors not covered in initial response: - What was the most helpful feature of the restructuring process? What was the least helpful?
247
-
If you had the option of going through the restructuring effort again, what things would you do the same? What things would you do differently?
Question #4 - What were the results/outcomes of restructuring? How effective was the restructuring effort in achieving the stated goals? Was it not effective in some respects? Follow up questions on factors not covered in initial response: - Has the division’s performance improved since the restructuring effort? If so, how? - Did the restructuring effort affect staffing? - Did anyone lose their job or be reassigned in the process? - Did employee turnover increase as a result of the restructuring? - Did the restructuring effort affected employee morale? Perceptions of leadership? Employee relationships? - Was there a positive or negative affect on the division as a result of the restructuring process? In what ways? - Did restructuring affect your financial situation? Were there any changes in the way the division goes about it’s business as a result of the restructuring? Earlier, I asked about major issues facing student affairs when restructuring was initiated. What, if any affect did restructuring have on resolving any of those issues? What evidence is there to show the affects of restructuring? Were efforts made to analyze the success of restructuring? If so, what was the nature of these efforts? Have there been any unintended outcomes of the restructuring effort either positive or negative? If so, what were they? Closing If I wanted to talk to someone else about the restructuring effort, could you suggest who that might be? Are there aspects of the restructuring that I have not asked about that I should? Are there any documents about the restructuring effort that I might be able to obtain? Would you like to add anything? Thank you for your time.
248
Appendix D Carlson’s 1999 NASPA Survey “A Survey of the Restructuring of Student Affairs Administration” (17 Questions) Please identify the Carnegie Code Classification that comes closest to identifying your institution: __ Research University __ Comprehensive University __ Two-Year College I. DEMOGRAPHICS: The purpose of this section is to determine the background of those people serving as their institution’s Senior Student Affairs Officer. 1. Please indicate the number of years you have served as your institution’s Senior Student Affairs Officer. __ 2. What is the staff size (number of people) in your institution’s student affairs office/ department? __ 3. Please select the best description of the position you held prior to accepting your current appointment? __ Student Affairs Administration __ At this institution __ At another institution __ Other: (Please specify below) __ Professor of: ________________ __ At this institution __ At another institution __ Other: (Please specify below) __ Business Person __ Management __ Finance __ Administration __ Marketing/Sales __ Doctoral Institution __ Liberal Arts College
249
__ Other: (Please specify below) ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 4. Please indicate the number of years you were in your previous position: ___ 5. Please select your highest education level and indicate your program: __ BS/BA __ MS/MA __ Doctorate
Program: ____________________________________________________ II. RESTRUCTURING AT YOUR INSTITUTION The purpose of this section is to assess the restructuring occurring at your institution. 6. Has the office of student affairs at your institution been restructured in the past three years? __ Yes __ No (Please skip to question #9. Answers to questions 7-8 will be ignored) 7. What areas are NOW the responsibility of your institution’s student affairs office? __ Financial Aid __ Counseling __ Registrar __ Health Services __ Student Union __ Athletics __ Book Store __ Student Activities __ Food Services __ Housing & Residential Life __ Physical Plant __ Career Planning __ Greek Life __ Alumni Services __ Campus Security __ Dean of Students __ Other (s) (Please list below and separate with a semi-colon)
250
__ Admissions __ Other (s) (Please list other areas separating each with a semi-colon): ___________ _____________________________________________________________________ 8. What student affairs areas of responsibility were impacted (i.e., added, eliminated, combined, transferred) as a result of your institution’s restructuring, and what happened to these areas of responsibility? __ Financial Aid __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________ __ Student Union __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Counseling __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Athletics __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Registrar __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________ __ Health Services __ Added
__ Book Store __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________ __ Student Activities __ Added
251
__ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Food Services __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Career Planning __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Admissions __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Greek Life __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Housing & Residential Life __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________ __ Physical Plant __ Added __ Eliminated
__ Alumni Services __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________ __ Campus Security __ Added __ Eliminated
252
__ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Dean of Students __ Added __ Eliminated
__ Other (s) (Please list below)
__ Combined with: _______________________ __ Transferred to: _______________________
__ Other (s) (Please list other areas of responsibility that were impacted by the restructuring of student affairs AND what happened to them, (e.g., added, eliminated, combined with, transferred to). Please separate each entry with a semi-colon.): _______________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 9. Please indicate the amount and direction that your student affairs budget has changed over the past three years: Directions: __ No Change __ Increased __ Decreased __ $51K to $250K __ $251K to $500K __ 501K to $1M __ 1.01M to $2M
Amount: __ None __ Less than $5K __ $5K to $50K
__ $2.01M to $5M __ $5.01M to $10M __ $10.01M to $20M __ Greater than $20M
253
10. Please indicate the number and direction that student affairs personnel positions have changed in the last three years: Directions: __ No Change __ Increased __ Decreased Number: __ None __ 1 __ 2 __ 3-5 __ 6-10 __ 11-20 __ 21-30 __ 31-50 __ More than 50
11. Please indicate the institutional management level that decided to implement the restructuring, budgetary and/or personnel changes at your institution: Restructuring Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Board of Governors/Trustees __ President/Chancellor __ Senior Student Affairs Officer __ Other: (Please Specify) _____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
__ Budget Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Board of Governors/Trustees __ President/Chancellor __ Senior Student Affairs Officer __ Other: (Please Specify) _____________________________________________
254
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
Personnel Position Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Board of Governors/Trustees __ President/Chancellor __ Senior Student Affairs Officer __ Other: (Please Specify) _____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 12. Please select the description that best fits the way the need for the following changes was determined: Restructuring Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Study Commissioned __ Expert/Consultant Engaged __ Suggestion provided/solicited from within the Institution __ Decision Maker Reach Decision Independently without External Input __ Other (Please Specify): __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Budget Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Study Commissioned
255
__ Expert/Consultant Engaged __ Suggestion provided/solicited from within the Institution __ Decision Maker Reach Decision Independently without External Input __ Other (Please Specify): __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Personnel Position Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Study Commissioned __ Expert/Consultant Engaged __ Suggestion provided/solicited from within the Institution __ Decision Maker Reach Decision Independently without External Input __ Other (Please Specify): __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
13. Please select the method (s) or technique (s) that most closely describes those used to implement the restructuring of student affairs (multiple choices permitted): __ N/A (No Changes)
__ Total Quality Management (TQM): Involves strategic planning, focus on quality, continuous (incremental) improvement, ongoing training __ Outsourcing: Involves hiring contractors to manage processes such as food services, payroll, etc., allows institution to focus on ‘core’ competencies __ Reengineering: Involves radical changes to all or part of existing processes for dramatic improvement to areas central to customer satisfaction. Cost, scope and schedule are key considerations __ Employee Empowerment: Involves pushing responsibility and authority for decisions to the lowest competent level
256
__ Horizontal Management Shift: Involves eliminating management ‘layers’ __ Decentralization of Support Functions: Involves returning key functions to customer control to avoid duplication and bureaucracy __ Other Methods/Techniques: (Please separate methods with a semi-colon): __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
14. What evaluation process is being used to measure the effectiveness of the student affairs restructuring? __ N/A (No Changes) __ Specific Metrics Collected, Analyzed and Disseminated __ Senior Management Discusses Effectiveness of Changes __ Decision Maker (s) Requests Reports/Briefings __ The Success or Failure of the Changes is NOT being measured
__ Other (Please Identify): __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
257
III. TRENDS AND LESSONS LEARNED: The purpose of this selection is to determine if there is any consensus about what national Trends may have a major impact on the future of student affairs, and to gather restructuring lessons learned. 15. Please list three trends that may have a major impact on the future of student affairs: (In Order of Importance) 1. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 3. _________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
16. What would you like your colleagues to know about what went well when your institution’s student affairs office was being restructured? (In Order of Importance) 1. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
258
2. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 3. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
17. What would you like your colleagues to know about what did not go well when your institution’s student affairs office was being restructured? (In Order of Importance) 1. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 3. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
259
That’s it!! If you have any questions or comments about the survey please send Carl Carlson an email at the following address: Please mail or fax your completed survey to: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators 1875 Connecticut Avenue , N.W., Suite 418 Washington, D.C. 20009-5728 Fax number: (202) 797-1157 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey! Sincerely, Carl G. Carlson
260
Appendix E Engelbride’s 1996 NASPA Survey “Survey on the State of Student Affairs” Name: _______________________________ Institution: __________________________________ Your Title: __________________________________ Years in that Position: ______________________________ I. Organizational Structure 1. Current Institutional Appointment: __ One year contract. (year to year rollover) __ Multi-year contract. Duration: Years ____ __ No formal agreement, serve at the pleasure of : ___________________ (Title) 2. Are you considered a member of the President’s Council? ___ Yes ___ No 3. To whom do you report directly? President ___ Chancellor ___ Provost ___
Executive V. P. ____
Board of Trustees ___
___ Other (Please Specify) _____________________________________ 4. Has this reporting structure changed over the past five years? ___ Yes ___ No ___ N/A (less than 5 years in the position) If “Yes” please describe: ______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
261
5. Please place a check mark next to the area reporting to you: __ Admissions __ Conference Srv. __ Registration and Records __ Residence Life/Housing __ Center for Academic Advising __ Commuter Student Services __ Counseling/Psychological __ Dean of Students __ Enrollment Management __ Financial Aid __ Fraternity/Sorority __ Auxiliary Services __ Food Srv. __ Bookstore __ Career Services __ Student Activities __ Student Government __ Orientation __ Student Leadership __ Student Union __ Wellness Education __ Judicial Affairs
__ Fund Raising Efforts for Student Affairs __ International Student Services __ Student Health Center __ Registration and Records __ Multicultural Student Services __ Others – Please Specify
II. Administration Supervision 6. Have the area under your administrative supervision changed in the last five years? ___ Yes ___No ___ N/A (less than 5 years in position)
262
If “Yes,” changes were made to: ________ Reduce budget. ___ Improve delivery of student services. ___ Increase productivity. ___ Maintain parity with other areas. ___ Other-please specify: ____________________________________ 7. Within the past five years, have any of the area reporting to you merged and/or consolidated within student affairs or with other departments outside of student affairs? ___ Yes ___ No ___ N/A (less than 5 years in position) If “Yes,” please describe: ________________________________________ 8. Have you eliminated positions that reported to you as a result of budget changes or institutional restructuring? ___ Yes ___ No If “Yes,” please explain: __________________________________________ 9. Has the institution eliminated non-student affairs positions as a result of budget changes or institutional restructuring? ___ Yes ___ No
III. Budgeting 10. What is the appropriate total annual budget for student affairs? _____________ 11. Do you have complete authority for the divisional budget? ___ Yes ___ No 12. Over the past five years, the budget for the division of student affairs has: ___ increased, approximately _______ percent
263
___ decreased, approximately ________ percent
___ remained the same ___ N/A (less than five years in position) 13. If the budget for the division for student affairs has decreased, how do these cuts compare to budget circumstances for other divisions in the institution? ___ budget cuts to student affairs were more severe than other divisions ___ budget cuts to student affairs were less severe than other divisions ___ budget cuts to student affairs were the same as other division ___ not applicable, budget has not decreased If budget cuts to student affairs were more or less severe than other divisions, please explain: ____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 14. If the divisional budget has decreased, what strategies have been employed to accommodate this decrease? In general, the amount of student fee has increased ___ Yes ___No Number of services areas charging fees for service have increased ___ Yes ___ No Some services have been eliminated ___ Yes ___ No Service area have become privatized ___ Yes ___ No Restructuring has taken place within the division, positions lost ___ Yes ___ No Increased emphasis placed on entrepreneurial opportunities
264
___ Yes ___ No Twelve-month employees shifted to 9 or 10 month contracts ___ Yes ___ No Vacant line “given up” or not filled ___ Yes ___ No Student workers have been hired to replace professional staff ___ Yes ___ No Fund raising initiated for division of student affairs ___ Yes ___ No Other: _____________________________________________________ 15. Please comment on other factors impacting student affairs not covered in this survey. ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey. Please return this survey by November 1, 1996 to: Dr. Suzanne E. Gordon President, NASPA 1875 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 418 Washington, D. C. 20009-5728 Fax (202) 797-1157
265
REFERENCES
Allen, R., & Chaffee, E. (1981). Management fads in higher education. (Monograph No. 3) National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Boulder, Co. Allen, R. C. (2000, July 21). Why can’t universities be more like businesses? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(46), B4. American Association of Higher Education, American College Personnel Association, and National Association of Student Personnel. (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. Washington, DC: Authors American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author. American College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1997). Principles of good practice for student affairs. Washington, DC: Authors. Arnone, M. (2004, January 16). State spending on colleges drops for first time in 11 years. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(19). Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors. Certified insolvency and restructuring advisor. Retrieved July 20, 2005, fromhttp://www.airacira.org Atiase, R. K., Platt, D. E., & Tse, S. Y. (2004). Operational restructuring charges and post-restructuring performance. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 493522. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33. Retrieved December 27, 2005 fromhttp://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU33.html Balderston, F. E. (1995). Managing today's university, strategies for viability, change, excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D., Ecker, G. P., & Riley, G. L. (1991). Alternative models of governance in higher education. In M. W. Peterson, E. E. Chaffee, & T.H. White (Eds.), Organization and Governance in Higher Education. (ASHE Reader, 4th ed., pp. 30-46). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster. Barrow, C. W. (1996). The new economy and restructuring higher education: Thought and action. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 12, 37-54.
266
Benjamin, R. & Carroll, S. (1993). Restructuring higher education–by design. (RAND issue paper No. 2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED359893) Benjamin, R. & Carroll, S. (1996). Impediments and imperatives in restructuring higher education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 705-719. Berdahl, R. O. (1971). Statewide Coordination of Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Berdahl, R. O. & Schmidtlein, F. S. (1996). Restructuring and its aftermath: Maryland. In T. J. MacTaggart (Ed.), Restructuring higher education: What works and what doesn't in reorganizing governing systems. (pp. 157-199). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1998, November). The life cycle of academic management fads. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting, Miami, FL. Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blimling, G. (2001). Uniting scholarship and communities of practice in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 381-396. Bowen, H. R. (1977). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boyer, E. (1987). The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper and Row. Boyer, E. (1997). Selected speeches 1979-1995. (L. Green, Ed.). Washington, DC: The Carnegie Foundation. Boyle, T. (1995). Good questions for sound decision making. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (New Directions in Student Services No. 70, pp. 51-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Breneman, D. W. (1993). Higher education: On a collision course with new realities. (AGB Occasional Paper. Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities) Harvard University: American Student Assistance Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED379975) Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
267
Briton, D. (1996). Marketspeak: The rhetoric of restructuring and its implications for adult and higher education. Studies in the Education of Adults, 28(1). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ521136) Brookings Institute. Improve government performance. Retrieved July 8, 2005, fromhttp://www.brook.edu/gs/cpa/research/projects/50ge/endeavors Brookings Institute. (2005) Urgent business for America revitalizing the Federal government. Retrieved July 8, 2005, fromhttp://www.brook.edu/gs/cps/volcker Bruegman, D. C. (1995). An organizational model for the 21st century: Adopting the corporate model for higher education. National Association of College and University Business Officers Business Officer, 29(5), 28-31. Burd, S. (2004, March 12). Plan to punish big increases in tuition is dropped. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(27). Burke, R. J. & Nelson, D. (1997). Mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, and privatization: A North American perspective. In M. K. Gowing, J. D. Kraft, & J. Campbell, (Eds.), The New Organizational Reality: Downsizing, restructuring, and revitalization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Byrne, J. A. (1994, May 9). The pain of downsizing. Business Week, 9, 61-69. Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cameron, K. S. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 604-632. Cameron, K. S. (1983). A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors. Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED232612) Cameron, K. S. (1991). Organizational adaptation and higher education. In M. W. Peterson, E. E. Chaffee, & T. H. White (Eds.), Organization and governance in higher education. (ASHE Reader, 4th ed., pp. 284-299). Needham Heights, MA; Simon and Schuster. Cameron, K. S. (1994). Strategies for successful organizational downsizing. Human Resource Management, 33(2), 189-211. Cameron. K. S., Freeman, S., & Mishra, A. (1991). Best practices in white-collar downsizing: Managing contradictions. The Academy of Management Executives, 5, 57-73.
268
Cameron, K. S., Kim, M. U., & Whetten, D. A. (1987). Organizational effects of decline and turbulence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 222-240. Carlson, C. G. (2000, March). The restructuring of student affairs administration. Presented at the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA. Carlson, C. G. (2003). The restructuring of student affairs administration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Definitions. Retrieved July 2005, fromhttp://www.carengiefoundation.org/CHIE2000/defNotes/ definitions.htm Carnevale, A. P., Johnson, N. C., & Edwards, A. R. (1998, April 10). Performancebased appropriations: Fad or wave of the future? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(31), B6. Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge Publishing. Cascio, W. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? The Academy of Management Executive, 7, 95-104. Cascio, W. (2002). Strategies for restructuring responsibly. The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 80-91. Chabotar, K. J., & Knutel, P. (1996). Reengineering: A view from the frontlines. Planning for Higher Education, 25(Winter), 11-17. Chait, R. P. (1990). The 1990’s: The decade of the trustees. In L. W. Jones & F. A. Nowotny (Eds.), An agenda for the new decade. (New Directions for Higher Education No. 70, pp. 25-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chavez, A. F. (1998). Coping with restructuring and fiscal constraint in student affairs: A critical review. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. Champlin, D. P., & Knoedler, J. T. (1999). Restructuring by design: Government’s complicity in corporate restructuring. Journal of Economic Issues, 33, 41-58. Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac: 1999-2000. (1999, August 27). Vol. 46(1). Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac: 2005-2006. (2005, August 27). Vol. 52(1).
269
Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Clark, B. (1993). The problem of complexity in modern higher education. In Rothblatt & Wittrock (Eds.), The European and American university since 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Commission on National Investment in Education. (1997). Breaking the Social Contract, The Fiscal Crisis in Higher Education. Council for Aid to Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414806) Covin, T. J. (1993). Managing workforce reduction: A survey of employee reactions and implications for management consultants. Organizational Development Journal, 11, 67-76. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1997). Organization development and change. (6th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. DePamphilis, D. (2003). Mergers, acquisitions and other restructuring activities - An integrated approach to process, tools, cases, and solutions. (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dickman, M., Fuqua, D., Coombs, W., & Seals, J. (1996). Downsizing in higher education: Institutional budget reduction priorities and strategies. Journal of College Student Development, 37(4), 457-467. Dill, D. (1997). Effects of competition on diverse institutional contexts. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment. (pp. 88-105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dillon, S. (2005, October 16). At public universities, warnings of privatization. The New York Times. Retrieved on April 11, 2007, fromhttp://www.nytimes.com Dressel, P. (1987). Mission, organization, and leadership. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(1), 101-109. Drucker, P. F. (1994). The age of social transformation. Atlantic Monthly, 274(5), 5380. Dungy, G. J. (2003). Organization and functions of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
270
Eaton, J. S. (1995. January 5). Investing in American higher education: An argument for restructuring. Position paper Council for Aid to Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED378906) Eccles, R. G., & Nohria, N. (1992). Beyond the hype: Rediscovering the essence of management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Education Commission of the States. (1996). Restructuring colleges and universities: The challenges and consequences. Policy Papers on Higher Education presented at the Education Commission of the States National Forum and Annual Meeting in Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397704) El-Khawas, E. (1994). Campus trends 1994: A time of redirection. (Higher Education Policy Report No. 84). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. El-Khawas, E. (1994). Restructuring initiatives in public higher education: Institutional responses to financial constraints. (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. El-Khawas, E., & Knopp, L. (1996). Campus trends 1996: Adjusting to new realities. (Higher Education Policy Report No. 86). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Engelbride, E. P., & Goodale, T. (1998, March). Survey on student affairs: Findings and implications. Presented at the meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Philadelphia, PA. Etzioni, A. (1991). Administrative and professional authority. In M. W. Peterson, E. E. Chaffee, & T. H. White, (Eds.), Organization and governance in Higher Education. (ASHE Reader, 4th ed., pp. 441-448). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster. Fenske, R. H. (1989). Historical Foundations of student services. In U. Delworth, G. R. Hanson, & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession. (2nd ed., pp. 5-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fink, I. (1997). Adapting facilities for new technologies and learners. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment. (pp. 319-339). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gaylord, T. A., & Rodgers, B. (1988). An analysis of the need and process of restructuring the University of Alaska statewide system of higher education. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED301089)
271
Goldenkoff, R. (1997, February 1). Report card on downsizing. Retrieved December 27, 2005, from http:/www.govexec.com/features/0297mgmt.htm Goldsmith, S. S. (1995, November 2-5). Beyond restructuring: Building a university for the 21st century. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Orlando, FL. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED391427) Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054. Gumport, P. (1988). Curricula as signposts of cultural change. The Review of Higher Education, 12(1), 49-61. Gumport, P. (1993). The contested terrain of academic program reduction. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(3), 283-311. Gumport, P., & Pusser, B. (1995). A case of bureaucratic accretion: Context and consequences. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(5), 493-520. Gumport, P., & Pusser, B. (1997). Restructuring the academic environment. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment. (pp.453-478). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guskin, A. (1994). Reducing costs and enhancing student learning: The university challenge of the 1990's Part I - Restructuring the administration. Change Magazine, 27(2), 8-18. Guskin, A. (1994, July/August). Reducing costs and enhancing student learning: The university challenge of the 1990's Part I - Restructuring the administration. Change Magazine, 26(5), 16-25. Guskin, A. (1996, September/October). Facing the future: The change process in Restructuring universities. Change Magazine. 28 (6), 26-37. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1994). Competing for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
272
Hartle, T. W., & Galloway, F. W. (1997). Federal guidance for a changing national agenda. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets, (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. (pp. 30-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Haas, R.M. (1997). Organizing the elements of planning. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets, (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. (pp. 246-263). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Healy, P., Lively, K., Mercer, J., Nicklin, J., & Schmidt, P. (1996, June 14). Both private and public colleges fight for financial health. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 42(40), A15. Hebel, S. (2004, December 17). State spending on higher education up slightly, a reversal from previous year. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(17), A27. Hebel, S., & Selingo, J. (2001, April 20). For public colleges, a decade of generous state budgets is over. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(32), A10. Henkoff, R. (1994, October). Getting beyond downsizing. Fortune. 58-64. Heydinger, R. B. (1997). Principles for redesigning institutions. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. (pp. 106123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hoover, E. (2004, October 29). Public colleges see a 10% rise in tuition for 2004-05. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(10), A1. Horn, R. N., & Jerome, R. T. (1996). When corporate restructuring meets higher education. Academe, 82(3), 34-36. Ikenberry, S. O. (1970). Restructuring the governance of higher education. American Association of University Professors Bulletin, Winter, 371-374. Jaschik, S. (1992, October 21). One per cent decline in state support for colleges, thought to be first 2-year drop ever. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 39(9), A21. Jenkins, C. (1997, Spring). Downsizing or dumbsizing: The restructuring of corporate America. Brigham Young Magazine. Jones, L. W., & Nowotny, F. A. (1990). An agenda for the new decade. New Directions for Higher Education, Summer(70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
273
Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning Reconsidered: A Campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and American College Personnel Association. Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2006). Learning Reconsidered 2: A Practical guide to implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers International, Association of College Unions International, National Academic Advising Association, National Association for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National Intramural Recreational Sports Association. Kennedy, D. (1993). Making choices in the research university. Daedalus, 122(4), 127156. Kennedy, D. (1995, May/June). Another century’s end, another revolution for higher education. Change Magazine, 27(3), 8-15. Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kerr, C. (1990). Higher education cannot escape history: The 1990’s. In L. W. Jones, & F. A. Nowotny (Eds.), An agenda for the new decade. New Directions for Higher Education, Summer(70), (pp. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kettinger, W. J., & Wertz, R. D. (1993). The financial restructuring of higher education: Reengineering or radical reform? The Journal of Higher Education, 9(1), 13-26. Kezar, A. (2003). Enhancing innovative partnerships: Creating a change model for academic and student affairs collaboration. Innovative Higher Education. 28(2), 137-156. Komives, S. R., Woodard, D., & Associates (Eds.). (2003). Student services: A handbook for the profession. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Koskinen, J. (1997). Testimony before the senate governmental affairs subcommittee on oversight of governmental management, restructuring and the District of Columbia regarding "The Freedom from Government Competition Act." (S.314). Retrieved July 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. Kotter, M. (1995). Restructuring student services: A philosophical framework. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (New Directions for Student Services No. 70, pp. 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
274
Lenth, C. S. (1996). What political leaders expect from postsecondary assessment. In National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, The National assessment of college student learning: An inventory of state-level assessment activities. (pp. 157-164). Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Leslie, L., & Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising administrative costs: Seeking explanations. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 187-211. Levy, S. (1995). Sources of current and future funding. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (New Directions for Student Services No. 70, pp. 39-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lively, K. (1992, July 29). New group aims to ‘restructure’ nation’s colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(38), A12. Lively, K. (1992, October 21). First recorded drop in state appropriations to higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 9(39), A21. Lively, K. (1993, February 3). State colleges face tough decisions on ‘downsizing.’ The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22(39), A23. Lively, K. (1993, October 27). State support for public college rose 2% this year. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(10), A29. Lovett, C. (1996). How to start restructuring our colleges. Planning for Higher Education, 24(3), 18-22. MacTaggart, T. J. (Ed.). (1996). Restructuring higher education: What works and what doesn’t in reorganizing governing systems. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Madson, D. (1995). Management strategies as a basis for budgeting and restructuring. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (pp. 8798). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Marcus, L. R. (1997). Restructuring state higher education governance patterns. The Review of Higher Education, 20(4), 399-418. Marks, M. (1994). From Turmoil to triumph: New life after merger, acquisition, and downsizing. New York: Lexington Books. Masland, A. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 8(2), 157-68.
275
Massey, W. E. (1994). The public university for the twenty-first century: Beyond the land grant. David Dodds Henry Lecture (16th) in Chicago, IL. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401837) Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (Applied Social Research Methods Series, 41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McPherson, M., & Shapiro, M. (1993). Changing patterns of college finance and enrollment. In D. Breneman, & L. Leslie (Eds.), ASHE Reader on finance in higher education. (pp. 163-179). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1992). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In J. W. Meyer, & R. W. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. (pp. 21-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing. Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Characteristics of excellence in higher education. Retrieved on December 27, 2005, fromhttp://www.msche.org/ Mielke, P., & Schuh, J. (1995). Ethical issues related to restructuring. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (pp 75-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mortenson, T. G. (1994). Restructuring higher education finance: Shifting financial responsibility from government to students. Paper presented at the 11th Annual National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs Conference, San Francisco, CA. Available from Postsecondary Education Opportunity, Iowa City. Nadler, D. A., & Heilpern. (1998). The CEO in the context of discontinuous change. In D. C. Hambrick, D. A. Nadler, & M. L. Tushman, (Eds.), Navigating Change: How CEOs, top teams, and boards steer transformation. (pp. 3-28). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. New York: Oxford University Press. National Association of College and University Business Officers. (2005). Retrieved July 7, 2005, from www.nacubo.org/documents/bookstore/ 2005NACUBOPublications.pdf
276
National Association for Student Personnel Administrators. (1937). The student personnel point of view. Washington, DC: Author. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Percentage of total revenue for public institutions from federal, state, and local appropriations. Retrieved July 7, 2005, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt334.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). State and local appropriations as a percentage of operating costs. Retrieved July 20, 2005, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/ National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Retrieved July 20, 2005, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/ National Organization of Downsized Employees. Retrieved June 12, 2005, fromhttp://pages.prodigy.com/NODE/ Nicklin, J. L. (1995). The hum of corporate buzzwords. The Chronicle of Higher Education. A33-34. 1/795 issue 20 article 41 Novak, R. J. (1996). Methods, objectives, and consequences of restructuring. In T. J. MacTaggart (Ed.), Restructuring higher education: What works and what doesn't in reorganizing governing systems. (pp. 16-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nuss, E. M. (2003). The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession. (4th ed.). (pp. 65-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial Spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Parker, M., & Slaughter, J. (1994). Beware! TQM is coming to your campus. The NEA Education Journal, 10(1), 5-30. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peterson, M.W., & Dill, D. (1997). Understanding the competitive environment of the postsecondary knowledge industry. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment. (pp. 3-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peterson, M. W., Dill, D., & Mets, L. A. (Eds.). (1997). Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
277
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organizational theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row. Provan, K., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1-33. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (2001). (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rhoades, G. (1983). Conflicting interests in higher education. American Journal of Education, 91(3), 283-327. Rhoades, G. (1987, Jan/Feb). Higher education in a consumer society. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(1), 1-24. Rhoades, G. (1995). Rethinking restructuring in universities. The Journal for Higher Education Management, 10(2), 17-30. Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising, stratified administrative costs: Student services' place. In D. B. Woodard, (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (pp. 25-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professional: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic labor. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (1997). Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supply-side higher education. Social Text 51, 15(2), 9-38. Rifkin, G. (1994). When is a fad not a fad? Harvard Business Review, 72(5), 11. Rodgers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. (4th Ed.). New York: Free Press. Sandeen, A. (1989). Issues influencing the organization of student affairs. In U. Delworth, G. R., Hanson, & Associate (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession. (2nd ed.). (pp. 445-460). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmidt, P. (1997, November 14). State appropriations for colleges increase at highest rate since 1990. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(12), A23. Schmidt, P. (1998, November 27). State spending on higher education rises 6.7% in 1998-99 to a total of $52.8 billion. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(14).
278
Schmidt, P. (1999, June 25). States make healthy increases in spending on higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(42), A39. Schmidt, P. (2002, January 18). State spending on higher education grows by smallest rate in 5 years. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(10). Schmidtlein, F. A. (1999). Organizations that mislead institutional researchers. Research in Higher Education, 40(5), 571-587. Schmidtlein, F. A., & Glenny, L. A. (1977). State budgeting for higher education: The political economy of the process. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education. Selingo, J. (2000, October 3). One-fifth of states reorganized higher-education governance in 1990's, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on July 7, 2005, fromhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2000/10/ 2000100304n.htm Shirley, R. C. (1994). Strategic and operational reform in public higher education: A Mandate for change. The AGB Occasional Paper Series, #21. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED412848) Shull, R., & Hughes, A. (2005, June 30). White house power grab puts public at risk. Retrieved July 8, 2005, from www.ombwatch.org. Slaughter, S. (1985). From serving students to serving the economy: Changing expectations of faculty role performance. Higher Education, 14(1). 41-56. Slaughter, S. (1993). Retrenchment in the 1980's: The politics of prestige and gender. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(3), 250-282. Slaughter, S. (1994). Academic freedom at the end of the century. In P. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport, (Eds.), Higher education in American society. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books. Slaughter, S. (1995). Criteria for restructuring postsecondary education. Journal of Higher Education Management, 10(2), 31-44. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1993). Changes in intellectual property statutes and policies at a public university: Revising the terms of professional labor. Higher Education, 26, 287-312.
279
Slavin, R. E. (1989). PET and the pendulum: Faddism in education and how to stop it. Phi Delta Kappan, 20(10), 752-758. Smart, J., & Cameron, K. (1998). Maintaining effectiveness amid downsizing and decline in institutions of higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(1), 65-86. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. (2004). Principles of Accreditation. Retrieved December 22, 2005, fromhttp://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/ PrinciplesOfAccreditation.PDF Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. State Appropriations for Higher Education, 1998-99. (1998, November 27). The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(14), A27. Titus, S. E. (1998). The restructuring goals of Minnesota state colleges and universities: Exploring the interpretations of institutional presidents. Dissertation. University of Virginia. Accession number: AAG9916385. Trombley, W. (1995). Ambitious reform agenda: Restructuring Virginia higher education. Cross Talk, 3(3), 1-6. Trow, J. (1995). Budgetary climate. In D. Woodard, (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (New Directions in Student Services No. 70, pp. 15-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Trow, M. (1970). Reflections on the transition from mass to universal higher education. Daedalus, Winter, 1-42. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Accountability report. Retrieved on March 26, 2007, fromhttp://www.hhs.gov/of/reports/account/ acct99/pdf/acctrpt.pdf U. S. General Accounting Office. (1995, May 17). Government reorganization: Issues and principles. GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166. 2-3. Retrieved on July 8, 2005, fromhttp://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/gao/exec.html Walker, D. M. (2003, July 24). Competitive sourcing: Implementation will be challenging for federal agencies. Testimony before the subcommittee on oversight of government management, the federal workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs. U.S. Senate. U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-03-1022T.
280
Warner, M. E. (n.d.). Government Restructuring. Retrieved March 26, 2007, fromhttp://government.cce.cornell.edu Warner, M. E. (n.d.). Privatization. Retrieved May 6, 2005, fromhttp://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/viewpage_rasp?ID=Privatization Warner, M. E., & Hefetz, A. (2001). Privatization and the market role of government. Briefing paper, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved on December 28, 2005, fromhttp://www.epinet.org Weick K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19. Weick, K. E. (1991). The nontraditional quality of organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 116-124. White, J. B. (1996, November 26). Re-engineering gurus take steps to remodel their stalling vehicles. The Wall Street Journal. p. 1. Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1998). Student learning as student affairs work. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Wildavsky, A. (1992). The new politics of the budgetary process. (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research-design and methods. (3rd ed.). (Applied social research methods series, 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zemsky, R., & Massey, W. F. (1990). Cost containment-Committing to a new economic reality. Change Magazine,22(6), 16-22.
281
doc_232823827.pdf
Restructuring is the corporate management term for the act of reorganizing the legal, ownership, operational, or other structures of a company for the purpose of making it more profitable, or better organized for its present needs.
ABSTRACT
Title of Document: RESTRUCTURING IN STUDENT AFFAIRS: A CASE STUDY OF TWO RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Edward Philip Engelbride, Doctor of Philosophy, 2007 Directed by: Frank Schmidtlein, Associate Professor Emeritus, Department of Education Policy and Leadership
The higher education system in the United States is generally accepted as the most comprehensive and diverse in the world. Nonetheless it is not immune to internal and external pressures to become more efficient and effective. In the early 1990’s higher education in most states faced declining state appropriations, increased competition for funds, calls for increased accountability, rising costs, increased consumer expectations, and questions about the quality of the educational experience. In responding to these pressures, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness and have sought ways to become more “business-like,” adopting ideas from the corporate world. As restructuring became a popular management initiative in the corporate sector, governing boards, governors, presidents and business officers became inundated with information about this type of management "reform" effort (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). In 2003 restructuring was reported at more than half of all public institutions of higher education. A higher percentage of research universities reported they had undertaken this management initiative. Over 60 percent of those responding to a national survey reported reorganizing student affairs (Carlson, 2003).
Several reasons are given as a basis or rationale for initiating restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions on college campuses (Carlson, 2003; El-Khawas, 1994; Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Those reasons include anticipated improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, cost reductions, improvement of services, streamlining processes, re-focusing of programs or services, and enhanced utilization of technology. This study focused on the restructuring efforts in the student affairs divisions at two public research universities. Utilizing a case study approach, it explored the impetus, goals, processes and results of the restructuring process. The lessons learned from this research will be useful to higher education practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs. Restructuring efforts that utilize an inclusive and participatory process where the goals are understood and open communication appeared to had a higher likelihood of success. Restructuring efforts that limit participation, have unclear goals, and limited communication, appeared less likely to succeed.
RESTRUCTURING IN STUDENT AFFAIRS: A CASE STUDY OF TWO RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
By
Edward Philip Engelbride
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2007
Advisory Committee: Professor Frank E. Schmidtlein, Chair Professor Robert O. Berdahl Professor Susan R. Komives (Dean's rep) Professor Sharon Fries-Britt Dr. Kevin Kruger
Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Mary Beth, and our family. This study was a group effort with many people having to make sacrifices in order for work to continue. I couldn’t have done it without you. To our children, I am pleased to inform you that Daddy is done with his book! Thank you for allowing me to pursue my dream!
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Frank Schmidtlein for his expertise and guidance. The completion of this research effort would not have been possible without his support, insight and patience. When I veered off track, he was there to keep me focused and provide direction. When I was frustrated, he was there to help me work through it. And when I was done, he was the first to offer congratulations.
Second, I would like to thank those people who provided opportunities for me to grow and develop in this profession. To the student affairs folks at SUNY Plattsburgh, both past and present, thank you for getting me started in this line of work. It has been both enjoyable and rewarding!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Acknowledgement Table of Contents List of Tables Chapter I Introduction Background Definition of Terms Higher Education – Size and Scope State and Federal Appropriations to Higher Education Adoption of Corporate Management Efforts Restructuring in Student Affairs Purpose of the Study Statement of the Problem Contributions/Significance of the Study Chapter II Review of the Literature Context Overview of Student Affairs Student Affairs Structure and Practice The Nature of Restructuring Restructuring Defined in the Literature Defining Restructuring for this Study Historical Overview Restructuring in Business Restructuring in Government Restructuring in Higher Education Restructuring in Student Affairs Sources of the Impetus to Restructure External Sources Internal Sources Rationale to Restructure Area and Scope of Restructuring Processes Employed to Undertake Restructuring Implications for the Design of the Study The Results of Restructuring Intended Results Unintended Results Conclusions from the Literature Page iii iv vii 1 1 2 2 3 6 9 10 11 14 15 15 16 17 19 20 24 24 25 29 33 44 47 48 52 54 67 70 75 76 76 83 90
iv
Chapter III Research Design and Methodology Research Questions Research Variables Impetus for Restructuring Goals of Restructuring Processes Involved in Restructuring Results of Restructuring Linking Theory, Research Questions, and Data Research Methodology and Rationale The Case Study Unit of Analysis Selecting Institutions Selecting Participants Data Collection Documents Interviews Interview Questions Interview Process Human Subjects Data Analysis Methodological Rigor Limitations of the Study Chapter IV - Research Findings Northern University What Was the Impetus for Restructuring? What Were the Goals of Restructuring? What Processes Were Used to Restructure? What Were the Results of Restructuring? Southern University What Was the Impetus for Restructuring? What Were the Goals of Restructuring? What Processes Were Used to Restructure? What Were the Results of Restructuring? Chapter V - Discussion and Recommendations The Impetus for Restructuring The Location of the Impetus The Motivations for the Impetus Potential Motivations That Were Not Apparent The Goals of Restructuring The Role of Goals and Having a Vision When Restructuring The Stated Goals of Restructuring
91 91 92 92 94 95 97 98 100 100 102 103 105 109 109 110 111 111 112 112 114 115 116 117 118 133 145 154 166 167 174 180 189 199 199 199 200 205 208 208 209
v
Processes Used to Restructure Creating a Sense of Urgency Creating a Guiding Coalition Communicate the Change Process Empowering Broad-Based Action Generating Short-term Wins Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change Anchor New Approaches in the Culture Employ Formal Management Practices Assess the Success of the Program Results of the Restructuring Nature of Structural Changes Affect on Functions Management of Human Resources Stream Line Budget Process and Obtain Budget Increases Short–term Wins Formal Assessment of Restructuring Advice for Those Contemplating Restructuring Suggestions for Future Research Limitations of the Study Appendix A - Northern University 2003 and 2006 Organizational Charts Appendix B - Invitation to Participate in the 2006 Study Appendix C - Qualitative Research Questions – Interview Guide Appendix D - Survey Instrument from the 1999 NASPA Study Appendix E – Survey Instrument from the 1996 NASPA Study References
213 213 214 215 216 219 220 221 222 222 224 224 225 228 235 236 236 237 240 241 243 245 246 249 261 266
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Percentage of Total Revenue for Public Institutions from Federal, State, Local Appropriations Percentage of CSAO’s Reporting Areas Under Their Supervision Changed Over a Five-Year Period Percentage of Student Affairs Divisions Reporting Budget Decreases How Do Budget Cuts Compare to Cuts in Other Divisions Percentage of Campuses Where Student Affairs Areas Merged or Consolidated Over the Past Five Years Proposals from State-Level Higher Education Restructuring 1989-1994 Institutional Management Level that Decided to Implement Restructuring State and Local Appropriations as a Percentage of Operating Costs Percentage of Student Affairs Areas Affected by Restructuring Percentage of CSAO's Reporting Positions Eliminated as a Result of Budget Changes or Institutional Restructuring Restructuring Strategies Employed to Accommodate Budget Decreases Theoretical Assumptions, Research Questions, and Data Sources Research Methodology Flow Chart
Page 5
2.1
46
2.2 2.3 2.4
46 46 47
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
50 54 56 69 82
2.10 3.1 3.2
82 99 108
vii
CHAPTER I
Introduction
This dissertation utilized case study methodologies to examine the restructuring efforts in the student affairs divisions at two public research institutions. Specifically, this study includes an analysis of the impact of the restructuring effort, the goals and processes utilized, and makes recommendations on how to improve future restructuring efforts. Higher education often adopts and adapts management practices that are popular in other sectors of society (Allen & Chaffee, 1981; Birnbaum, 2000). Restructuring efforts in the corporate sector increased dramatically in the late 1980’s (Horn & Jerome, 1996) and in higher education and student affairs in the 1990’s (Carlson, 2003; Engelbride and Goodale, 1998). These efforts were often characterized by a comprehensive management initiative focused on improving functionality, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, reducing costs, often involving new technologies, and reducing the workforce. The impact of restructuring efforts in student affairs is not well understood. Background The expansion of higher education has created increased opportunities that benefit individual students as well as society as a whole. Colleges and universities, often innovators of creative solutions to complex problems, adopt corporate management approaches to resolve fiscal, personnel, and political issues. Restructuring is a rubric utilized to address a range of concerns on a formal and informal basis.
1
Definition of Terms SSAO’s – Senior Student Affairs Officers are those who have the primary responsibility for supervising and leading the division of student affairs. Also referred to as Vice Presidents. Departmental Directors – those campus employees in student affairs who provide leadership to, and supervise, a specific functional area. Public Research University – a state supported institution that typically offers a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and is committed to graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied, the institution awarded 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines (extensive) or intensive where the institution awarded at least ten doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall (Carnegie Foundation, 2000). Restructuring – a comprehensive and managed approach to organizational change that focuses on the structure or functioning of a program, department or division often with the intention of improving functioning, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, and/or reducing costs. Outcomes – the intended and unintended results of the restructuring process. Variables – the factors that are assumed to affect the "impetus" for, and "processes", "purposes", and "outcomes" of restructuring student affairs divisions that will guide the collection of data needed to assess the nature of restructuring and its consequences (Dr. F. Schmidtlein, personal communication, October 19, 2005). Higher Education - Size and Scope The higher education system in the United States is a complex web of institutions generally focused on teaching, research, and service. Over the course of the past 60 years, the size, complexity and influence of the higher education system on society has increased significantly. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (2005) there are 4,236 institutions of higher education currently operating in the United States. Over 16.6 million students are enrolled at those institutions, which received over $63 billion in State funds for operating expenses and over $21 billion in Federal funds for research and
2
development (The Almanac of Higher Education, 2005). Colleges and universities employ approximately 2.75 million employees who serve as faculty, administrators, or staff members who played some role in helping over 2.2 million students earn a degree in over 400 different fields of study (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005) Campuses range in size from small, specialized institutions with a few hundred students to large multipurpose universities with combined enrollments and workforces that rival the populations of medium-sized cities. Some view colleges and universities as big businesses that need to be managed as such (Bruegman, 1995; Guskin, 1994). To others, they are not corporate entities and should not be subjected to corporate business practices (Gumport, 1993; Horn & Jerome, 1996). State and Federal Appropriations to Higher Education A number of researchers have identified financial constraint as a reason for restructuring. State funding for higher education has not remained constant but has fluctuated over the past several decades (Arnone, 2004; Hebel and Selingo, 2001; Jaschik, 1992; Lively, 1993; Schmidt, 2002). In responding to fluctuating state support, higher education has taken a number of approaches to minimize costs. Some institutions have utilized internal processes such as eliminating academic programs, reducing course offerings, using adjunct faculty, limiting the purchasing of new materials, and increasing class size (Hartle and Galloway, 1997). In addition to these approaches, a number of institutions have adopted the corporate practice of restructuring at the divisional or institutional level. Hartle and Galloway (1997) examined the role Federal policy plays in establishing and altering the environment for higher education. According to Hartle and
3
Galloway (1997) "…efforts to balance the federal budget will result in deep cuts in federal spending." Further, "In addition to the increasingly constrained federal budgetary climate, the shifting budget priorities of state governments make increased support for higher education highly uncertain" (p. 41). Throughout the early 1990’s higher education faced declining state appropriations, increased competition for funds, rising costs, calls for increased accountability, increased consumer expectations, and questions about the quality of the educational experience. After an extended period of sustained growth, higher education experienced its first two-year decrease in state support in 1991-92 (Jaschik, 1992). According to sponsors of a study by Illinois State University, this was the first two-year drop in American history. From 1990-1991 to 1992-1993, state support for colleges and student-aid programs decreased by approximately $500 million dollars. Taking inflation into account, 36 states were providing less money to public colleges and universities than they did two years earlier (Jaschik, 1992). Ed Hines, former coordinator of the study (cited in Jaschik, 1992) states this decline was leading to “…the beginning of a fundamental reshaping of higher education” (A21). According to Hines, instead of seeking ways to support higher education, lawmakers and higher education officials were “…debating how to best allocate funds, eliminate academic programs and define workable missions for colleges” (Jaschik, 1992, p. A21).
4
Table 1.1. Percentage of Total Revenue for Public Institutions from Federal, State, Local Appropriations.
Percentage of Total Revenue for Public Institutions From Federal, State, and Local Appropriations 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 Year 1997 1998 1999 2000
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2003) In the late 1990's, robust growth in many state economies relieved some of the financial pressures exerted on colleges and universities. State appropriations for the 1997-1998 fiscal year increased six percent over 1996-1997 levels and 11.5 percent over 1995-1996 levels (Schmidt, 1997). In addition, state appropriations for 1998-1999 rose 6.7 percent over 1997-1998 levels. Schmidt (1997) quotes Hines who stated "Higher education should not look at these figures and think this is a return to the good old days of never-ending expansion” (p. A23). He further stated "When the economy takes a nosedive, we will be suffering disproportionately" (Schmidt, p. A23). Recent reports regarding state funding for higher education are proving Hines’ predictions to be very accurate. Schmidt (1999) reported that public colleges and universities could expect "healthy increases" in state appropriations with a majority of the state legislatures agreed to provide increases in state aid that would exceed the inflation rate. Four years later,
5
Potter (2003) reported that half of the states reduced appropriations to public colleges. In 2004, Arnone reported that state spending on public colleges dropped for the first time in 11 years. Adoption of Corporate Management Efforts While some authors (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, and Riley, 1991; Birnbaum, 2000; Etzioni, 1991; Gumport, 1993
have sought to differentiate colleges and universities from the corporate sector, higher education is not immune to internal and external pressures to become more efficient and effective. In responding to these pressures, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness and have sought ways to become more “business-like,” adopting ideas from the corporate world (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). Birnbaum (2000) studied the adoption of business practices in higher education. In studying the lifecycle of management innovations in higher education, Birnbaum proposes that extensive use of a management innovation in a particular setting results in a common knowledge or “conventional wisdom.” As more individuals become aware of or comfortable with an innovation, they explore new sectors where the innovation may be adopted. Boundary-spanning individuals, or those who may work in a number of sectors, may play a role in bringing ideas from one sector to another. Birnbaum identifies these people as "intersector carriers” which: ...might include business leaders or legislators serving higher education boards of trustees, college presidents appointed to business boards of directors, professional associations formed at least in part to maintain linkages between higher education and external groups, academics who read journals in multidisciplinary areas such as business or human resources management, and consultants who solicit clients in both education and non-education sectors. (p. 134)6
Birnbaum (2000) found that the generation of a management innovation in a nonacademic sector and its transference into an academic sector usually results in a "culture lag." The innovation which may have been around for some time in its original sector, is perceived as “new” by the adopting sector (Rodgers, 1995). While it is helpful to understand the processes by which innovations are transferred between sectors, perhaps the most telling aspect of the adoption process is the lack of information about the effectiveness of the innovation in its original or adopted sector. Birnbaum states “In both sectors, initial decisions to adopt management innovations appear to be based on subjective judgements disseminated by peers within a social system rather than analyses of empirical data...” (p. 134). The business world experienced a series of management reforms in the late 1980’s, including downsizing or its derivatives, rightsizing and re-engineering (Cameron, 1994). A fairly familiar term, “restructuring,” took on new importance in the corporate world as the leveraged buy-out frenzy of the 1980’s sought to create larger, more efficient corporations (Horn & Jerome, 1996). As one company bought out another, efforts were made to consolidate the workforce by reducing redundant operations. Efforts to streamline products or services generally resulted in reducing the number of employees or services, thereby reducing costs (Horn & Jerome, 1996). While restructuring is not a new management initiative, the intensity and popularity of restructuring in the late 1980’s glamorized this type of management approach. In a study of 2000 corporate executives in six countries, 94 percent reported that they had engaged in downsizing between 1993-95 (Jenkins, 1997).
7
As the literature review will reveal there are a number of working definitions regarding restructuring. For the purposes of this study, having reviewed the literature on this topic, this researcher is using the following definition of restructuring: It is generally considered to be a comprehensive and managed approach to organizational change that focuses on the structure or functioning of a program, department or division often with the intention of improving functioning, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, and reducing costs. Efforts to streamline products and services, increase efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce the workforce are not limited to the corporate sector. According to Birnbaum (2000): Institutions of higher education are always under pressure to become more efficient and effective. In response, many have attempted (either voluntarily or under mandate) to adopt new management systems and processes originally designed to meet the need of business or governmental organizations presumed to be more efficient. (p. 3) In the early 1990's shrinking state budgets constrained state appropriations to public higher education and increased efforts to control costs in colleges and universities. Budget constraints were not as challenging during the late 1990’s but have returned more recently (Arnone, 2004; Schmidt, 2004). While fiscal constraint may be one of the major driving forces for restructuring, it is not the only reason institutions restructure. The rationale to restructure can include overtures from elected officials seeking to exercise greater control over higher education. Institutions are often restructured to increase coordination, or accountability, centralize functions or to enhance power and control of operations (Marcus, 1997). Restructuring efforts are also initiated to take advantage of advances in technology, to refocus the
8
mission of the organization, to address challenging human resources issues by realigning staff, or to appear to deal with an issue without taking action. Restructuring in Student Affairs Studies by El-Khawas (1994) found that restructuring was taking place at more than half of all public institutions of higher education in the United States. A national survey of Senior Student Affairs Officers or SSAOs, also known as Vice Presidents for Student Affairs or Deans of Students, conducted by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) found that 43 percent of the respondents had eliminated positions because of budget changes or restructuring (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). A follow-up study done in 1999 by NASPA found 61 percent of the institutions surveyed reported that restructuring was taking place in student affairs (Carlson, 2000). As restructuring became popular in the corporate sector, governing boards, governors, presidents and business officers became inundated with information about this type of management effort. As noted earlier, restructuring was taking place at more than half of all public institutions of higher education (El-Khawas, 1994). While a majority of all public institutions were experiencing varying degrees of restructuring, a higher percentage of research universities had undertaken this management initiative. Seventyseven percent reported reorganizing administrative units, 59 percent redesigned administrative activity, 56 percent reorganized academic units, and 67 percent reorganized student services (El-Khawas, 1994). In the 1996 NASPA study, one out of every five chief student affairs officers experienced changes in whom they reported to in a five year period (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Three out of five SSAOs experienced changes in the areas reporting to
9
them. At research institutions, the percentage of institutions eliminating student affairs positions because of budget changes or restructuring was 57 percent. Sixty-six percent of the research institutions reported mergers or consolidations within student affairs or with departments outside of student affairs. A follow-up study done in 1999 by NASPA found 61 percent of the institutions surveyed reported that restructuring was taking place in student affairs (Carlson, 2000). According to Carlson (2000), the most common source of restructuring was the campus president, who initiated 35 percent of all efforts. The frequency of restructuring in student affairs may be associated with constrained state budgets or declining state appropriations to higher education (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). If true, student affairs may be subjected to increased restructuring activity in the current economic slump occurring in most states in 2004 when this study was undertaken. Therefore, the lessons learned from this study will be useful to higher education practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs. Purpose of the Study Corporate restructuring efforts and the adoption of those efforts by colleges and universities was noted in the introduction to this study. Corporate entities often share a fairly uniform set of goals or expectations including enhancing profits to improve financial outcomes or improving the "bottom line." These goals are not necessarily consistent with those of higher education and significant differences exist between these two sectors of society (Baldridge et al., 1991; Etzioni, 1991). However, higher education has adopted and continues to adopt management efforts from the corporate world (Birnbaum, 2000). A significant number of institutions in higher education have experienced some degree of restructuring over the past five years. A number of
10
institutions have initiated restructuring efforts in the division of student affairs. This is especially true in public research institutions (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). There are a number of reasons given for initiating restructuring efforts in student affairs; yet it is unclear if these efforts have been successful. The purpose of this study is to examine the impetus, scope and goals of the restructuring processes that took place in the student affairs divisions at two public research universities. The research questions posed in this study include: What was the impetus to restructure, what were the goals of restructuring, what processes were used to restructure, and what were the results of restructuring? This study is being proposed to further understand restructuring in student affairs and to determine the impact this process has on the student affairs divisions. Lastly, this study will examine the strategies, processes and approaches used as well as the results of the restructuring effort. The lessons learned from this study will be useful to practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs. Statement of the Problem Higher education has a history of adopting management practices that are popular in other sectors of society (Birnbaum, 2000). Restructuring efforts in the corporate sector increased dramatically in the late 1980’s and in higher education in the 1990’s (Horn & Jerome, 1996). There is a lack of empirical evidence on the effectiveness of restructuring efforts on student affairs divisions. Further, the effects of restructuring efforts are not well understood. Restructuring and other management innovations seek to increase efficiency and effectiveness in an effort to improve performance and enhance profitability. According to Horn & Jerome (1996) many prominent economists and business writers identify a
11
“first wave” of corporate restructuring as taking place in the early 1980’s. This first wave was characterized by a sharp increase in hostile takeovers (HTO’s) and leveraged buyouts (LBO’s). Birnbaum (2000) points out that a number of management innovations originally developed for the corporate world are eventually adopted by higher education. In discussing the movement of corporate practices into higher education, MacTaggart (1996) states: “Pervasive examples of restructuring, reengineering, rightsizing, downsizing, and a host of other organizational changes in the corporate world also contribute to a climate in which similar massive change is expected among public enterprises” (p. 6). Birnbaum (2000) contends that the practice of adopting business or governmental systems or processes is not new but has been taking place for over 40 years. A review of the literature notes numerous seminars, articles, presentations and books on the need to restructure higher education. The titles of various articles and books tell the tales of restructuring in higher education “When corporate restructuring meets higher education,” (Horn & Jerome, 1996), “How to start restructuring our colleges” (Lovett, 1996), “Investing in American higher education: An argument for restructuring” (Commission on National Investment in Education, 1997). Horn and Jerome (1996) point out that the focus of improvement and increased efficiency has shifted to the organizational structure of the institution, under the rubric of “restructuring.” While noting that restructuring has taken place on campuses across the country, Horn & Jerome (1996) contend it is often “…viewed as a virtual panacea for all problems – real and imaginary – confronting colleges and universities” (p. 34).
12
While there are a number of organizational characteristics that are similar between corporations and institutions of higher education, there are also a number of significant differences. Baldridge et al. (1991) identify some of the differences between businesses and higher education: goal ambiguity, problematic technology, a professionalized workforce, client involvement in decision making, and environmental vulnerability. These characteristics make colleges and universities relatively unique, complex organizations. Businesses usually have well defined products, clear goals and well developed processes which lend themselves to measures of efficiency and effectiveness (Birnbaum, 2000). Birnbaum contends that businesses are examples of tight coupling, which allows for a greater degree of hierarchical control. Unlike most businesses, colleges and universities are loosely coupled organizations which are responsive while preserving an identity and a degree of separateness (Weick, 1991). There have been some questions regarding the applicability of using corporate management efforts to improve higher education. Horn and Jerome (1996) state “What has escaped much of the restructuring debates on campuses is an awareness of the origins of organizational restructuring and the impact certain types of restructuring have had on corporate America-and how this impact will affect higher education” (p. 34). Chavez (1998) studied the impact of fiscal decline and restructuring in higher education. She stated: Studies have yet to be conducted of the meaning making and strategies utilized by SSAOs (Senior Student Affairs Officers) to deal with the current budgetary situation. Nor has research explored the possible effects that restructuring and fiscal decline are having on the organization, management styles, priorities, and philosophies of student affairs professionals. (p. 17)
13
There is a lack of information regarding the impact that restructuring has had on student affairs divisions. In addition, there is a lack of information available regarding the processes and practices utilized in restructuring. Lastly, the effects (intended and unintended outcomes) of restructuring efforts on a student affairs division are unclear. More information is needed about the impact of previous restructuring efforts in student affairs to help provide guidance and insight into future restructuring efforts. Contributions/Significance of the Study Restructuring has been and continues to be a management practice utilized in student affairs divisions (Carlson, 2003; El-Khawas, 1994; Engelbride & Goodale, 1998; Horn & Jerome, 1996). Internal and external pressures will continue to be driving factors that lead to restructuring efforts. Research indicates that restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions in public research institutions takes place at higher rates than private institutions (El-Khawas, 1994; Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Declines in state and federal appropriations may encourage leaders to maintain academic quality at the expense of other functional areas. Additional forces may increase restructuring efforts in student affairs in the future. It is unclear if restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions have achieved their goals and objectives. Therefore, this study seeks to develop a clearer understanding of restructuring in student affairs divisions, to explore the motivation or impetus for initiating restructuring, to examine the processes involved in restructuring, and to determine the outcomes of such efforts. It will also identify factors that enhanced success as well as those that impeded success. The lessons learned will be useful to practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs. Lastly, the results of this study will be helpful in identifying additional areas in need of further study.
14
CHAPTER II Review of the Literature
The literature reviewed for this study includes research on the nature, context, impetus, goals, processes and results of restructuring. Context The growth and development of colleges and universities over the past 70 years has transformed higher education into a complex and influential sector of society. Once considered a relative luxury, a college degree is now perceived by many as an economic necessity. Increased access to higher education, and increasingly differentiated academic programs, have resulted in a multifaceted and interrelated system. However, colleges and universities are not immune to some of the challenges facing other segments of society. Funding for public institutions continues to be closely tied to economic cycles, fluctuating as tax revenues rise or fall. While state laws mandate funding for health care, corrections, primary and secondary education, funding for public colleges and universities continues to be discretionary. A number of authors have expressed concern that higher education has become less responsive to societal needs, more resistive to external input, and mired in a number of issues that have tarnished the image of colleges and universities, resulting in a loss in public trust. While some may argue that funding levels have never been guaranteed and that other factors affecting higher education are not new, there is some agreement that the convergence of these factors has created a very challenging environment. In response to
15
some of these concerns, internal and external pressures have been exerted to reshape higher education. In responding to these pressures, higher education leaders have employed a number of management techniques to enhance efficiency and effectiveness, increase productivity, address personnel issues and deflect political intrusion. In the mid-1990's restructuring gained popularity as a management technique to respond to budget constraints and calls for reform. In addition, restructuring has been used to address performance, productivity, and personnel issues. This purpose of this literature review is to provide an overview of student affairs as well as research related to restructuring efforts in higher education. This dissertation focuses on restructuring of student affairs structure and practice. This section is followed by a discussion of the nature of restructuring in business and government. It then focuses on restructuring in student affairs. Overview of Student Affairs An overview of student affairs begins with the development of early American colleges which followed the English residential university approach in the seventeenth century (Fenske, 1989). The English model utilized a holistic approach to education that emphasized the intellectual, moral, spiritual, and social development of students. The term in loco parentis (in place of the parent) defined the holistic approach used by college staff members. This holistic approach continued until the end of the nineteenth century (Fenske, 1989). Nuss (2003) traces the development of student affairs beginning with in loco parentis through the creation of specialized roles of professionals in positions such as
16
deans of students and the patterns and roles evident in current student affairs practice. According to Nuss, the major developmental stages of student affairs include the founding or early years (1636-1850), diversification (1850-1900), emergence of the profession (1900-1945), expansion (1945-1985), and the contemporary scene (1985present). A number of factors gave rise to the development of student affairs as a profession. Secularization, changes in the curriculum, the expansion and specialization of higher education (Fenske, 1989) and a shift in the responsibilities of faculty away from discipline and regulations (Nuss, 2003). The first program of study for student affairs practitioners was established in the early 1900’s, followed by the creation of various professional associations (Nuss, 2003). The American Council on Education supported efforts to study student personnel practices in the 1930’s. The resulting report, The Student Personnel Point of View, was first published in 1937 and revised in 1949 (Nuss, 2003). Nuss states: “The principles outlined in both the 1937 and 1949 Student Personnel Point of View influenced the philosophical development of the profession and persists today as guiding assumptions” (p. 72). Student Affairs Structure and Practice The Student Personnel Point of View outlined a series of student needs and the personnel services needed to help students achieve optimum development (American Council on Education, 1949). As a result of changes in higher education and the context in which it operates, the responsibilities of student affairs has expanded and become increasingly complex, often resulting in linkages with other campus offices (Dungy, 2003; Sandeen, 1989).
17
In discussing the functional areas in student affairs, Dungy (2003) notes that size of the institution and the available resources influence the organizational structure of student affairs. Dungy categorizes functional areas into two categories, noting that some areas are considered “traditional” and others as “emerging.” (p. 342). The areas of admissions, orientation, housing, counseling, student activities, and placement comprise some of the more traditional responsibilities of student affairs (Sandeen, 1989). In addition to these functional areas, student affairs divisions may be responsible for athletics, campus safety, college unions, community service programs, commuter services, dining services, disability support services, enrollment management, fundraising, Greek affairs, health services, international student services, judicial affairs, leadership programs, lesbian, gay, bisexual student services, multicultural student services, recreation and fitness, religious services, and women’s centers (Dungy, 2003). In examining student affairs research and practice, Blimling (2001) identified two separate student affairs philosophies; one focused on management, the other on education. Each philosophy is further divided into two communities of practice or orientations. According to Blimling, the management philosophy includes a student administration orientation and a student service orientation. The educational philosophy includes a student development orientation and a student learning orientation. The student administration orientation focuses on leadership and organizational issues while using efficiency and effectiveness as core criteria (Blimling, 2001). Student administration is characterized by a focus on “…the administration of resources available to students” (p. 388). The student service orientation shares some of the concepts of student administration, incorporating a business perspective which views students as
18
consumers. Student services focuses on providing “…high quality student services that are cost-efficient and result in student satisfaction” (Blimling, 2001, p. 389). The educational philosophy in student affairs is comprised of student development and student learning orientations. Based in psychology, the student development orientation focuses on the psycho-social and cognitive growth of students (Blimling). Practitioners seek to provide programs and activities that facilitate growth at various stages of development. In the student learning orientation, student affairs educators are viewed as partners in the learning process. According to Blimling, “The basic premise of this community of practice is that the work of student affairs educators is realized through the process of engaging students in various forms of active learning and that these experiences result in skills and knowledge consistent with the learning mission of higher education” (p. 390). The student learning orientation has recently gained momentum within the profession. Numerous publications including the Student Learning Imperative (ACPA, 1994), Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs, (ACPA/NASPA, 1997), Student Learning as Student Affairs Work (Whitt & Associates, 1998), Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004), and Learning Reconsidered II (Keeling, 2006) serve to advance student learning. The Nature of Restructuring Authors have discussed the dimensions of restructuring including efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness, structural changes, the health or well being of the organization, and changes in processes and relationships. One of the earliest references to restructuring in higher education comes from a work by Stanley Ikenberry entitled:
19
"Restructuring the Governance of Higher Education," which appeared in the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Bulletin in winter 1970. In discussing growth in the 1960’s, Ikenberry points out that expansion was a hallmark of higher education marked by multiplication and duplication within a framework of traditional models of organization. Ikenberry states: The familiar models worked reasonably well in an earlier day, in less complex institutions in which most faculty knew each other personally and were engaged in the institution’s primary mission, teaching. Perhaps such conditions continue to predominate in some colleges and universities, but for the rapidly expanding two-year college, the emerging university, the multipurpose state college, the now classic multiversity, and others, the model no longer approximates reality. (p. 371) While Ikenberry's statement refers to a period of growth in higher education, restructuring has more recently been associated with budget decline. Restructuring Defined in the Literature The use of the word "restructuring" in higher education literature has increased steadily since 1980. A word search on the ERIC database yielded 126 hits searching under the terms "Restructuring" and "Higher Education" in the 1980-1984 time frame. In the 1995-1999 time frame, this same search resulted in over 618 hits, a 390 percent increase. Restructuring can take place at a number of different levels including state systems, institutional, divisional or departmental. Given its popularity, one might assume that there is a common understanding or definition of restructuring. Unlike some other management processes, a widely accepted definition of restructuring does not exist. A number of authors have offered their own descriptions of restructuring.
20
In reviewing corporate restructuring efforts (Nicklin, 1995) offers descriptions of a number of business buzzwords used in academe: Downsizing, rightsizing: reducing the number of employees through attrition or layoffs, in an effort to operate within a target budget. Re-engineering: rethinking and radically redesigning business processes or academic programs to increase quality, service, and speed, while reducing costs. Restructuring, reorganizing: consolidating employees jobs and duties, often as a result of downsizing or rightsizing. (p. 34) Gumport and Pusser (1997) analyzed restructuring initiatives and identified “…three distinct strands of action: reengineering, privatization and reconfiguring. Taken together, they constitute the essence of contemporary restructuring” (p. 461). The literature on restructuring falls into a number of broad categories including efforts to enhance efficiency and effectiveness, the well being of the organization, and processes and relationships. Efficiency and effectiveness. According to Horn & Jerome (1996) restructuring was born in the corporate world of hostile takeovers and leveraged buyouts. Restructuring efforts usually include announced plans to increase efficiency, visible changes in mid-level administration, and visible changes in organizational structure. In defining restructuring in the corporate world, DePamphilis (2003) notes "Corporate restructuring is a catchall term that refers to a broad array of activities from mergers, acquisitions and business alliances to divestitures and spin-offs” (p. 5). Restructuring is defined as "Actions taken to expand or contract a firm's basic operations or fundamentally change its asset or financial structure are referred to as corporate restructuring activities." DePamphilis (2003) describes
21
operational restructuring in terms of efficiency stating "Operational restructuring refers to the outright or partial sale of companies or product lines or to downsizing by closing unprofitable or non-strategic facilities" (p. 5). A second form or corporate restructuring is financial restructuring which "…describes actions by the firm to change its total debt and equity structure" (DePamphilis, 2003, p. 5). Gumport and Pusser (1997) define reconfiguring as a form of restructuring. According to Gumport and Pusser, the goals of reconfiguring are to enhance organizational efficiency, flexibility, and improved response time. A number of authors use the terms restructuring and downsizing interchangeably, as these efforts may have some degree of overlap. Cameron (1994) defines downsizing as "…a set of activities, undertaken on the part of management of an organization and designed to improve organizational efficiency, productivity, and/or competitiveness. It represents a strategy implemented by managers that affects (a) the size of the workforce, (b) the costs, and (c) the work processes” (p. 192). Health/well being. In discussing restructuring in colleges and universities, Davies (1996) points out that for some, “…restructuring means taking steps to insure an institutions’ capacity to serve its students and sponsors as changes occur in knowledge, technology, and external demands made in higher education" (p. 1). Further, Davies states that “Sometimes the impetus to restructuring is the desire to reach the next level of excellence; sometimes it is the will to survive another semester” (p. 1). Eaton (1995) describes restructuring in higher education as “…a serious rethinking of higher education’s resources, uses, and expected results….[It] is one way to
22
approach insuring the health of this important national enterprise and enhancing both its efficiency and effectiveness” (p. 20). Davies (1996) notes that “...restructuring takes a view of the academy that stresses the well-being and effectiveness of the institution as a whole rather than of single parts in isolation” (p. 1). Processes/relationships. MacTaggart (1996) notes that restructuring "...refers to shifts in authority among the various individuals, agencies, administrations, and boards that collectively oversee the way public, and sometimes, private, higher education is led, funded, and managed" (p. xi). Richard Novak, in MacTaggart (1996) discusses institutional restructuring noting that it “…is a campus-based self-examination requiring no changes in state governance laws” (p. 29). Further, MacTaggart states: It is the internal reordering of both administrative and academic priorities by reexamining the incentives for growth and cost escalation. It goes beyond cost cutting or retrenchment to change internal administrative and academic work processes through resource reallocation and applications of new educational technologies designed to increase efficiency, productivity, and consumer orientation. (p. 30) As cited in Jenkins (1997) Lee Perry, professor of organizational behavior at Brigham Young University, points out that restructuring involves not just size (workforce reductions) but changes in the processes and relationships. Gumport and Pusser (1997) identify re-engineering as one strand of contemporary restructuring efforts, based upon the use of technology which allows managers to rethink basic processes. Further, re-engineering allows organizations to redesign the nature of work. Gumport and Pusser (1997) state “When adapting corporate strategies that attempt to reengineer core work processes (Hammer and Champy, 1993), higher education
23
organizations have been called upon to rethink the nature of the work to be done and to redesign processes as well as culture” (p. 461). Gumport and Pusser (1997) describe another form of restructuring called as "reconfiguring" which “...aims to reshape organizational structures in order to facilitate implementation of reengineering processes” (p. 461). Nicklin (1995) differentiates restructuring from similar management approaches noting that restructuring focuses more on consolidating jobs and work duties. Defining Restructuring for This Study A review of the literature provides a number of different dimensions to restructuring. Restructuring is seen as a managerial response to improve efficiency and effectiveness, as a means to ensure the well being of the organization, and as a means to change processes or relationships. Because a single, commonly accepted definition does not exist, for the purposes of this research, restructuring is defined as a comprehensive and managed approach to organizational change that focuses on the structure or functioning of a program, department or division often with the intention of improving operations, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, and reducing costs. Historical Overview In order to better understand current restructuring efforts, one must recognize that restructuring is not a new management approach. One could argue that restructuring is an accepted organizational practice that has been taking place for quite some time. What seems somewhat unusual is the relative increase in the popularity and formalizing of this management approach in the corporate world, in government, and in higher education.
24
Restructuring in Business In providing a perspective on large-scale change in the corporate sector, Nadler and Heilpern (1998) point out that the current environment can be traced back to the mid1980's. Increased competition from abroad pressured companies to "…improve quality, increase productivity, and heighten overall efficiency." According to Nadler and Heilpern (1998) global competition, new technology, and changes in public policy, including deregulation, are the basic market forces which have converged to create an environment where there is a continued need for constant change. Nadler and Tushman (1997) point to the restructuring effort undertaken by General Motors in 1984 as one of the largest, most public, redesign efforts in the corporate world, which may have contributed to other large scale restructuring efforts in the business world. Cameron (1994) studied downsizing activity in the corporate sector. Cameron (1994) cites the work of Bennett (1991) and Buch (1992) who reported that over 85 percent of the Fortune 500 companies had downsized in the previous five-year period and that 100 percent planned to downsize in the next five year period. Nadler and Heilpern (1998) contend that “This current period of large scale change in our major organizations started in the mid-1980’s, driven by competitive pressure on U.S. companies to improve quality, increase productivity, and heighten overall efficiency” (p. 5). In projecting into the future, Nadler and Heilpern (1998) state the “...response to competition from abroad continued unabated through the mid-1990's and seems likely to remain a fact of organizational life into the next century" (p. 5).
25
Champlin and Knoedler (1999) state: The view that corporate restructuring is not only inevitable, but necessary, has become commonplace in American policy and business circles. Only by imposing job losses and shedding unnecessary costs can American business hope to compete in the "new global economy" and regain the position of dominance it held during the "golden age" of American capitalism after World War II. (p. 1) This narrative of corporate restructuring as necessary and inevitable hinges on the notion that the job losses and other unfortunate consequences of restructuring are simply the result of impersonal market forces over which businesses and governments have no control. The new global economic environment requires "leaner and meaner" as well as larger and more powerful corporations (Champlin & Knoedler, 1999). In studying restructuring activity, DePamphilis (2003) noted that the decade of the 1990's was unlike any other in US history. According to DePamphilis, the number and dollar volume of corporate restructuring activity between 1990 and 1995 exceeded the previous record achieved in the 1980's. DePamphilis (2003) attributes this high level of activity to a number of factors including highly favorable financial environments where soaring stock multiples and low interest rates combined with a regulatory environment that focused more on enhancing operating efficiency than the size of the transaction. Burke and Nelson (1997) identified mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, and privatization as three newly emerging sources of organizational change. Citing the work of Marks (1994), Burke and Nelson (1997) contend that these three sources of organizational change are "…interrelated because all represent the effects of economic recession and attempts by organizations to survive and to increase productivity" (p. 21).
26
To provide an example of how pervasive restructuring is in the corporate world, typing the word "restructuring" into an Internet search engine yielded 2.6 million hits. As evidence of the extensive use of restructuring in the corporate world a professional association exists to assist business leaders with their restructuring efforts. The Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors (AIRA) was founded in 1984 and hosted its 21st annual conference in 2005. In 1992, the association established a certification program “to recognize those professionals that demonstrate a high level of competency through not only the completion of a course of study and examination but by providing evidence of comprehensive experience.” (http://www.airacira.org/). Members of the AIRA are encouraged to participate in the Certified Insolvency & Restructuring Advisor (CIRA) program, to “Improve your competence and gain recognition.” In order to receive certification, the applicant must meet a number of minimum standards including “…4,000 hours of specialized business turnaround, restructuring and bankruptcy experience within an eight year period ending no earlier than the exam completion date.” (http://www.airacira.org/). As further evidence of the acceptance of restructuring in the corporate world, those interested in restructuring can subscribe to the daily newsletter “Restructuring Today” which outlines activities associated with this management approach. Cascio (2002) notes that companies that choose to restructure should use this opportunity to focus on those areas of the business where the company enjoys its greatest competitive strengths. By focusing on employees as assets, instead of costs to be cut, managers will enjoy several advantages including more positive employee relations. Cascio (2002) identified practices to avoid when restructuring as well as approaches to
27
restructure "responsibly." In studying corporate restructuring and downsizing efforts since the early 1990's, Cascio (2002) identities ten mistakes to avoid when restructuring. This list includes: -failing to be clear about long and short term goals -using downsizing as a first resort, rather than a last resort -using nonselective downsizing -failing to change the way work is done -failing to involve workers in the restructuring process -failing to communicate openly and honestly -handling ineptly those who lose their jobs -failing to manage survivors effectively -ignoring the effects on other stakeholders -failing to evaluate the results and learn from mistakes. (p. 85) In trying to promote responsible restructuring efforts, Cascio (2002) provides the following suggestions: -build a plan for restructuring into the overall economic plan for your business -carefully consider the rationale behind restructuring -consider the virtues of stability -before making any final decisions about restructuring, managers should make their concerns known to employees and seek their input -don't use downsizing as a "quick fix" to achieve short-term goals in the face of long-term problems -get lean without getting mean -if layoffs are necessary, be sure that the process of selecting excess positions is perceived as fair and that decisions are made in a consistent manner -communicate regularly and in a variety of ways to keep everyone abreast of new developments and information -give survivors a reason to stay and prospective new hires a reason to join -train employees and their managers in the new ways of operating
28
-examine carefully HR systems in light of the change of strategy or environment facing the firm. (p. 89) Bridges (1991) studied change process noting that there are differences between a change and a transition. According to Bridges, change is often the result of external pressures, while a transition is the result of internal accommodations. Further, Bridges (1991) states “Transition is the psychological process people go through to come to terms with the new situation.” (p.3) Noting the relationship between change and transition, Bridges (1991) states “Unless a transition occurs, change will not work” (p. 3). Kotter (1996) provides a number of insights into why major change efforts fail and suggests an eight stage process to help leaders achieve transformational change in organizations. Kotter offers the following suggestions: -establish a sense of urgency -create the guiding coalition -developing a vision and strategy -communicating the change vision -empowering broad-base action -generating short-term wins -consolidating gains and producing more change -anchoring new approaches in the culture. (p. 21) This framework will be used in Chapter V to analyze the results of this case study. Restructuring in Government Restructuring efforts have been instituted to address concerns in a number of different types of organizations. Federal, state, and local governments have participated in restructuring efforts. Research on restructuring efforts in the public sector often focuses on increasing efficiency and seems to fall into two broad categories: efforts to
29
restructure agencies and service providers, and the impact public policy has on regulating or deregulating various industries (Warner, n.d.). Efforts to restructure and reinvent government were popularized in a book by Osborne and Gaebler (1992) who argue the bureaucratic model of governance is not able to meet the needs and demands of the American public. Increased interest in quality and choice are pressuring governments to change the way it provides public services (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). To better meet the needs of the American public, Osborne and Gaebler contend that government should decentralize authority, reduce bureaucracy, promote competition, and focus on results. The Brookings Institute tracks Federal legislative efforts to improve government performance. Citing nine laws passed since 1964, the Brookings Institute notes that "The Federal government has passed a variety of laws to improve its services, attract better employees, ensure fairness, reduce corruption, and raise the overall efficiency of its institutions." Further, "Congress has pursued these goals by rearranging the Federal bureaucracy, adding and removing regulations, and restructuring problem agencies." (Brookings Institute, 2005). A number of laws were passed to address concerns in specific agencies. In 1970, legislation was passed to restructure the Post Office Department, forming a semi-public, for-profit company called the US Postal Service. In 1978, Congress passed legislation that restructured the Civil Service Commission, replacing it with the Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board. To improve services and enhance operations, the legislation also "…required that all hiring and promotion be based on relevant ability and skills……and outlined procedures for firing incompetent employees."
30
The Government Performance and Results Act, passed by Congress in 1993 requires all Federal agencies to develop and administer performance standards and required all Federal agencies with budgets in excess of $20 million to submit five-year goals. In addition, the bill directed the Office of Management and Budget "…to submit a performance plan for the entire Federal government along with its budget beginning in fiscal year 1999" (Brookings Institute, 2005). Since 1993, a number of Federal agencies have undergone restructuring efforts including the Internal Revenue Service, Homeland Security, and the intelligence community. In 1998, Congress passed the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act which resulted in a major reorganization of the IRS. According to the Brookings Institute, the bill reorganized "The agency by replacing the existing nationalregional-district structure with units addressing particular types of tax issues." It also "…shifted the burden of proof in tax evasion cases from the taxpayers to the agency" (Brookings Institute, 2005). A report given by the U.S. General Accounting Office (1995) to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee provides context for governmental reorganization efforts: The case for reorganizing the federal government is an easy one to make. Many departments and agencies were created in a different time and in response to problems very different from today's. Many have accumulated responsibilities beyond their original purposes. As new challenges arose or new needs were identified, new programs and responsibilities were added to departments and agencies with insufficient regard to their effects on the overall delivery of services to the public. (pp. 2-3) In responding to the needs of society, governments have attempted to improve services through privatization (Warner, n.d.). Warner notes that privatization is a
31
worldwide phenomenon. Further, "In recent years all levels of government, seeking to reduce costs, have begun turning to the private sector to provide some of the services that are ordinarily provided by the government. The fundamental belief that market competition in the private sector is a more efficient way to provide these services and allows for greater citizen choice." Referring to the work of Savas (1987) on privatization, Warner notes, "Proponents argue private firms are more efficient than governments because of economies of scale, higher labor productivity, and fewer legal constraints." According to Warner (n.d.) governments have attempted to privatize some functions while restructuring others. Warner has written a number of articles on restructuring local governments, contending that “Fiscal stress, changing public expectations and shifting responsibilities for services due to devolution have prompted many local governments to consider restructuring service delivery." Warner has established a website “…to provide local governments and public sector employees with information on restructuring trends and innovations in public sector service provision, public-private partnerships, privatization, inter-municipal cooperation and contracting back-in (Warner, n.d.). Warner and Hefetz (2001) studied the strategies local governments used to restructure government services. Using data from a national longitudinal survey data from the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), Warner and Hefetz found that restructuring service delivery was the most common approach to restructuring local governments, occurring in 60 percent of all efforts. In addition, Warner and Hefetz found that "Ninety percent of all public service restructuring takes the
32
places of three forms - privatization to for-profit companies, privatization to non-profits, and inter-municipal cooperation" (p. 2). In analyzing data from the ICMA survey Warner and Hefetz (2001) note that fiscal stress often pressures local governments to restructure service delivery. In noting the link between fiscal stress and privatization, Warner and Hefetz (2001) note "Indeed, the up and down pattern of the privatization trends does appear to mirror the overall economy's cycles.” Governmental efforts to restructure will most likely continue. The Volcker Commission recently released a series of recommendations to reorganize government. In outlining the need to restructure government the report states "Fundamental reorganization of the federal government is urgently needed to improve the capacity for inherent design and efficient implementation of public policy." (Brookings Institute, 2005). In addition, the White House submitted a proposal to streamline government and increase effectiveness called the "Government Reorganization and Program Performance Improvement Act of 2005." One of the controversial components of this proposal is a ten-year sunset clause for most Federal agencies. Agencies would face automatic elimination unless reauthorized by Congress (Shull and Hughes, 2005). Restructuring in Higher Education A number of factors appear to have created the growing interest in restructuring institutions. In discussing restructuring and the failure of reform, MacTaggart (1996) identifies the most intensely felt external pressures that will affect higher education: changing public attitudes, economic pressure, corporate restructuring, reinventing government, and emerging political pressures.
33
Changing public attitudes. In providing a historical context for higher education, Clark Kerr (cited in Jones and Nowotny, 1990) examined conflict and changes in each decade in the twentieth century. Kerr characterizes the 1960’s and 1970’s as transformational, while changes in the 1980’s were described as "Minor." In the 1980's, enrollments, financing, and academic programs were all fairly static. Kerr’s impression of the 1990’s was a period where there would be major changes or conflicts. Concerns with athletic programs, rising tuition, alleged misconduct in scientific research and denial of free speech influenced the public impression of colleges and universities. In citing Sykes (1988), Kerr states that “The universities ‘will be saved’ not by themselves but rather by legislators, governors, parents and students, and perhaps even some trustees…” (p. 9). Kerr noted the need for higher education “…to put more effort into rebuilding the public trust that has eroded over the past 30 years as scandal and complaints have accumulated and into resisting increased external coordination and control” (p. 15). In perhaps an even stronger statement, Kerr cites a 1989 draft report from the Education Commission of the States: We sense a growing frustration-even anger-among many of the nation’s governors, state legislators, and even corporate leaders that higher education is seemingly disengaged from the battle. Colleges and universities are perceived more often than not as the source of the problems rather than part of the solution. The issues raised are usually specific: lack of involvement in solutions to the problems of urban schools, failure to lead in the reform of teacher education, questions about faculty work load, and productivity and lack of commitment to teaching or the escalating, and seemingly uncontrollable cost of a college education. But whatever the issue, the overall sense of many outside of colleges and universities is either that dramatic action will be needed to shake higher education from its internal lethargy and focus, or that the system must be bypassed for other institutional forms and alternatives (p.16).
34
In discussing external pressures that threaten higher education MacTaggart (1996) states: “Simply put, the challenge facing public higher education is to regain credibility by reforming itself to meet higher public expectations” (p. 3). In anticipating the potential for greater intrusions from the state, MacTaggart adds: “A review of current attempts to improve management, performance, and reputation of the enterprise in the minds of the public and its elected representative suggests that these efforts at reform have not gone nearly far enough” (p. 3). Economic pressure. In reviewing some of the challenges of the 1980’s Gumport and Pusser (1997) point to the work of numerous scholars who have identified the following ongoing challenges: rising tuition, increasing administrative costs, low productivity. “It was widely agreed that, as financial stress increased, more precise alignment of resourcedependent relationships would be a key strategy” (p. 458). Zemsky and Massy (1990) noted that “...faculty salaries regained and then exceeded their buying power of the early 1970’s, as administrative and academic support staffs expanded, as building booms spread across our campuses…”. Further, “Looking for allies as well as analogies, our colleagues began citing the experiences of American firms that had developed bloated bureaucracies and financial strategies yielding shortterm profits at the expense of long-term growth” (p. 16). Zemsky and Massy (1990) contend that the number of administrators has increased as a result of an “administrative lattice” based upon a number of factors including increased regulations. The term “academic ratchet” was used to describe the one-way expansion of opportunities for
35
faculty research and service. The expansion of administrators and faculty has increased the costs of higher education. Chait (1990) identifies a number of ongoing trends that were likely to accumulate in the 1990’s. Included in these trends is "Mounting public resistance to the spiraling price of higher education that places pressure on boards to cure the so-called cost disease" (p. 25). According to Shirley (1994), Public disenchantment with costs and managerial irresponsibility is soon reflected in State capitals, of course, and this often leads to pressures for greater accountability and in particular, cost containment. These economic and political pressures have reached such heights that higher education institutions – public and private alike – must respond with significant institutional reform efforts. (p. 8) Kotter (1995) contends that the "pressure of increasing costs of education coupled with demands for access and enhanced learning outcomes and rapid advances in technology, will force radical change in the administrative and educational practices in American higher education" (p. 7). Eaton (1995) points out that public support for higher education is diminishing. In examining federal, state and local revenues to higher education, Eaton found that “...higher education is receiving less public money than it has in the past and, when increases in funding are available, those increases are smaller than in past years” (p. 6). According to Breneman (1993) higher education’s share of state appropriations has steadily declined since 1968. Breneman identifies this period of declining appropriations as the “new austerity” (p. 6). Lovett (1996) points to public scrutiny and shrinking state and federal budgets as a basis for the need for fundamental changes in higher education (p. 18).
36
Adopting corporate practices. In discussing ongoing trends that were likely to affect higher education in the 1990's, Chait (1990) anticipated "Intensified calls for accountability that promote ‘business-like behaviors’ such as marketing, strategic planning, and performance" (p. 25). In responding to pressures to contain costs, preserve quality and increase efficiency and effectiveness, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to become more “business-like” (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). The incorporation of business practices into higher education is not new. According to Callahan (1962) business practices were adopted into educational administration as early as 1900. The scientific method, popularized in the late 1800's and early 1900's, was perhaps the first management technique adopted by higher education. In tracing the introduction of management practices in higher education, Birnbaum (2000) identifies two "revolutions." The first focused on "managerialism" based on the scientific method, which served as the basis for future studies focused on efficiency. The second revolution focused on "rationality" which grew out of the use of management information systems and systems methods starting in the 1940's (Birnbaum, 2000). In discussing the rationality framework Birnbaum (2000) states: "Institutional goals and objectives had to be clearly defined, measurable standards of performance set, ways of assessing alternatives developed, and a common database using agreed-on definitions constructed" (p. 24). In defining one form of rationality, Birnbaum (2000) writes "The hallmarks of decision rationality in higher education management have included a commitment to cost-benefit analyses and the importance of measurement, a pro-innovation bias, and a
37
Neo-Darwinian belief that change and improvement are closely related (if not identical)” (p. 28). Rhoades (1995) points out that a neoclassical view of productivity exists, suggesting that minimizing direct costs or the costs associated with productive labor are the primary means to increase productivity. According to Rhodes (1995) “Higher education is labor intensive, with most of its expenditures – around 85 percent - being for personnel… The problem, then, in regard to organizational inefficiency, lies in the productivity of the workforce (faculty) and in that workforce’s allocation of effort” (p. 18). In outlining the problem of assessing organizational effectiveness, Cameron (1983) notes that "…different approaches to assessing effectiveness are products of different arbitrary models of organizations; the fact that the construct space of effectiveness has never been bounded; the fact that effectiveness is a product of individual values and preferences" (p. 2). Further, Cameron (1983) points out that managers and members of the lay public are less interested in these issues. However, "Researchers, on the other hand, are less willing to accept any arbitrary criteria of effectiveness in their assessments, so they struggle to identify indicators that can be measured reliably, that relate to organizational performance (i.e., the indicators possess validity), and that may have some theoretical utility” (p. 3). Cameron (1991) states “Difficulty in empirically assessing organizational effectiveness has arisen because no one ultimate criterion of effectiveness exists" (p. 300). In addressing the challenges associated with assessing organizational effectiveness, Cameron identifies two problem areas which include the selection of the type of criteria
38
used to measure effectiveness, and the sources of the criteria. Cameron refers to the work of a number of scholars in stating that effectiveness is often based on outputs and goal accomplishment. Colleges and universities share a number of organizational characteristics with other complex organizations such as corporate entities, industrial organizations and government agencies. Colleges and universities also share a number of similarities (common elements) with corporate, not-for-profit, and governmental organizations (Baldridge et al., 1991; Etzioni, 1991). However, a number of researchers have pointed out that while colleges and universities share certain organizational characteristics with other organizations, there is a significant body of knowledge that outlines the differences between colleges and universities and other organizations (Baldridge et al., 1991). According to Baldridge et al. academic organizations differ from other organizations in a number of significant ways: goal ambiguity, client service, problematic technology and a highly professionalized and autonomous workforce. While corporate entities often focus on the customers who purchase their products, Heydinger (1997) notes that …there is a strong belief among many people working in colleges and universities that their mission is much different than the traditional service institution in which the customer (that is, for the instructional mission, the student) knows best. Often this argument centers on a confusion of who really is the customer. Is it the student? The parents? Is it future employers? Or is it really the community? (p. 117) While some authors (Baldridge et al., 1991; Birnbaum, 2000; Etzioni, 1991) have sought to differentiate colleges and universities from the corporate sector, higher education is not immune from similar internal and external pressures to become more
39
efficient and effective. In responding to these pressures, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness and have sought ways to become more “business-like,” often adopting ideas from the corporate world (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). Birnbaum (2000) contends that the practice of adopting business or governmental systems or processes is not new but has been taking place for more than 40 years. Birnbaum studied a number of management innovations that affected higher education. The three management innovations that were identified in the 1960 to 1985 time frame included Planning Programming Budgeting System (PPBS), Management by Objectives (MBO), and Zero-Base Budgeting (ZBB). Each of these management innovations were created by either the government or in industry and were later transported into higher education (Birnbaum, 2000). Schmidtlein (1999) noted "New theories on organizational behavior, structure, and processes are transmitted to new generations of students and practitioners, leading to new management concepts, techniques, and processes" (p. 572). Schmidtlein cites several examples including Program Planning and Budgeting Systems (PPBS); Program Evaluation and Review Techniques (PERT); strategic planning, and Total Quality Management (TQM). In discussing new concepts, techniques and processes, Schmidtlein (1999) notes that the persistence of new approaches is dependent on the accuracy of the underlying theories in depicting organizational reality. If the underlying theories are inaccurate or incompletely describe reality, they will eventually be abandoned (Schmidtlein, 1999). In addition to PPBS, MBO and ZBB, Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), Business Process Engineering (BPR), “performance based
40
funding,” “re-engineering,” “rightsizing,” and “restructuring” have been introduced into higher education (Birnbaum, 2000). Allen and Chaffee (1981) studied the introduction of business management practices in higher education, establishing criteria to determine if the innovation is a fad. Birnbaum (2000) has studied the adoption of corporate management innovations in colleges and universities, outlining a life-cycle approach for such efforts. Birnbaum (2000) contends that management innovations or fads are usually created in the corporate sector, then introduced into higher education. In examining restructuring efforts in higher education, Rhoades (1995) found that: A dual governance system (academic and administrative) creates an institutional divide where separate processes may take place at the same time. In a competitive and protectionist environment, academics argue for the sanctity of their programs while watching the number of administrators grow. Conversely, administrators state they have cut their staff because tenured faculty and their programs are protected. (p. 19) Rhoades continues “Faculty have major responsibility in curricular matters; administrators have responsibility in business matters” (p.19). Therefore institutions are more likely to utilize a business management technique on the administrative side of the organization. Rhodes (1995) points out that there have been few efforts to restructure the academic side of higher education. Slavin (1989) notes that "One major factor inhibiting systematic progress in education is the lack of agreement about what constitutes progress and what constitutes adequate evidence to support action" (p. 753). In discussing why new practices are embraced in education Slavin notes "…educators rarely want or demand hard evidence before adopting new practices on a wide scale. Of course every innovation claims
41
research support for his or her methods, at a minimum, there is usually a ‘gee-whiz’ story or two about a school or district that was ‘turned around’ by the innovation" (p. 753). Birnbaum (2000) notes “After being hailed for its great promise, each was eventually abandoned, only to be replaced shortly thereafter by another fad” (p. 125). Carnevale, Johnson and Edwards (1998) points to the work of Paul Light, director of public policy programs at the Pew Charitable Trusts who argues “…that public organizations have undergone too many waves of reform in recent years – none of which is ever fully implemented or evaluated” (p. B6). Slavin (1989) states "If faddism in education is ever to end, decisions about adopting or maintaining programs must be based on reliable data" (p. 753). Horn and Jerome (1996) contend “Despite the ambiguous results of corporate restructuring, other institutions, including higher education, have jumped on the restructuring bandwagon to find ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness” (p. 35). Horn & Jerome point out that “Although institutional arrangements prevent buyouts, university administrators are behaving similarly to their counterparts in the corporate world. This behavior is typified by: -announced plans to increase efficiency -visible changes in mid-level administration -visible changes in organizational structure. (p. 35) Birnbaum (2000) argues: Still, management fads in the academic sector continue to be created or reinvented despite the absence of data suggesting that they have been successful and in the face of failure of most of them to be widely adopted by the sector. Why does this happen? Those who develop the fads, as well as those who support them, appear to view academic organizations through the lens of an organizational paradigm that emphasizes the importance of goals, rationality, and causality. (p. 140)
42
Political pressure. Numerous authors outline the pressures from elected officials to make changes in higher education. It is widely understood that Federal and State governments provide the legal context and significant levels of funding for public higher education, and through a political lens are often viewed as engines that drive economic well being. In 2001, State spending on higher education totaled 62.9 billion dollars, while Federal spending on higher education exceeded 19.7 billion dollars (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Given the financial support from government and the role colleges and universities play in economic development, elected officials often have a vested interest in higher education. Marcus (1997) studied restructuring proposals submitted in 29 states over a five year period. Of the 49 proposals submitted, 51 percent were submitted by legislatures while 18 percent were submitted by governors. Elected officials accounted for nearly 70 percent of the restructuring proposals submitted between 1989 and 1994. An example of gubernatorial interest in restructuring is provided by former Governor Wilder in Virginia. In reporting on restructuring efforts in Virginia, Carrier (Education Commission of the States, 1996) noted that Wilder “…pointed his finger at all of us in Virginia Higher Education. He said, in effect ‘Either you make changes in the way you deliver higher education in Virginia, or we, in government and the public, will’” (p. 3). One of the largest restructuring efforts in higher education took place in Alaska in the mid-1980's (Gaylord and Rogers, 1988). The state economic collapse, caused by fluctuations in oil prices, resulted in a significant restructuring effort that "...created three
43
multi-campus institutions from three universities and eleven community colleges over a two-year period" (Gaylord & Rogers, 1988, p. 3). Restructuring activities were not limited to interest in or pressure from elected officials. A 1990 taxpayer initiative in Oregon caused a review process that resulted in a nearly 25 percent reduction in state support to public higher education. Oregon used a review process “modeled after similar reorganization efforts in large corporations” (Education Commission of the States, 1996, p. 2). Institutions of higher education will continue to respond to changes in their external environment. Changing public attitudes, economic pressure, corporate restructuring and emerging political pressures will continue to affect colleges and universities often resulting in the adoption of business processes such as restructuring. Restructuring in Student Affairs Rhoades (1995) noted that most colleges and universities were restructuring not just their academic programs but their administration as well. Rhoades contends that administrative restructuring follows two patterns. In the first pattern, institutions are more likely to reorganize offices and activities than reduce staff or administrative layers. Citing the research of El-Khawas (1994) Rhoades notes that approximately two-thirds of all institutions were reorganizing administrative offices, over half were redesigning administrative activity, about one-third were reducing administrative layers, and 29 percent were reducing senior administrative positions. According to Rhoades (1995, p. 30), a second pattern involves the contracting out of services and increasing revenues through fundraising activities or by charging fees for facility use.
44
Kotter (1995) promotes the restructuring of student affairs divisions, stating “As institutions redesign themselves to meet new demands, student services must also redesign roles, processes, and organizational structures" (p. 7). In discussing restructuring efforts at James Madison University, Carrier (1996) states “Finally, I must emphasize that student services are very much a part of restructuring and very much a part of the educational experience of our students” (p. 4). In 1996, this researcher worked at the National Association of Student Personal Administrators (NASPA) national office as a doctoral intern. Part of my responsibilities were to develop an instrument that assessed the level of restructuring taking place within student affairs in all institutional types and to analyze how campuses were responding to restructuring initiatives. Several members of the NASPA staff along with Elizabeth Whitt, the chair of the research committee, and Alicia Chavez, a doctoral student, provided advice on the instrument. The 15-item survey was mailed to 625 randomly selected member institutions in the fall of 1996. Of the 625 surveys that were mailed, 382 were returned, resulting in a return rate of 61 percent. The results of this study provided a considerable amount of data related to the extent of restructuring that was taking place within student affairs in a number of critical areas. The results of the 1996 study conducted for NASPA found that 59.9 percent of all institutions reported the areas of supervision reporting to the Vice President of Student Affairs had changed over the past five years. Further, changes in the reporting structure were not uniform across campus types.
45
Table 2.1. Percentage of CSAO’s Reporting that Areas Under Their Supervision Changed Over a Five Year Period Yes No NA All 59.9 26 14.1 Research 70 22 8 Doctoral 60 20 20 Comprehensive 64.4 22.9 12.7 Liberal Arts 54.1 31.6 14.3 Two-Year 51.4 32.9 15.7
From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) In researching restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that slightly more than a fifth of all student affairs divisions reported budget decreases. In comparing budget decreases by institutional type, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that a larger portion (31.7%) of the research institutions reported budget decreases. Table 2.2. Percentage of Student Affairs Divisions Reporting Budget Decreases All 21.2 Research 31.7 Doctoral 10 Comprehensive 23.4 Liberal Arts 23.9 Two-Year 13.3
From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) In examining how budget cuts to student affairs compared to budget cuts to other divisions, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that over a quarter of all institutions responding to the survey reported that cuts were more severe. Approximately 13 percent stated budget cuts were less severe than cuts to other divisions. Table 2.3. How Do Budget Cuts Compare to Cuts in Other Divisions? All Research Doctoral Comprehensive 26.1 31.3 19 More Severe 25.6 17.4 6.3 19 Less Severe 13.2 61.2 56.5 62.5 61.9 The Same From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) Lib. Art. 28.6 3.6 67.9 Two-Year 30 20 50
In addition to budget decreases, 46 percent of all institutions responding to the survey reported that offices were merged or consolidated with other offices. The
46
percentage of research institutions reporting mergers or consolidations was higher than other institutional types. Table 2.4 outlines the frequency of mergers and consolidations across different campus types. In addition, research institutions eliminated positions at a slightly higher rate (56%) than other institutions (43%) (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Table 2.4. Percentage of Campuses Where Student Affairs Areas Merged or Consolidated Over the Past Five Years. All Research Doctoral Comprehensive 46.3% 66% 56.4% 48.7% From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) Liberal Arts 35.1% Two-Year 38.6%
Carlson (2000) refined a number of questions on the 1996 survey and redistributed it in 1999. Data from Carlson helped clarify a number of items and improved the usefulness of the information collected by the instrument. Carlson added questions dealing with the merging of offices within student affairs, the person most responsible for initiating restructuring, as well as which offices had been added, merged, or eliminated from the division. Of the 1,145 surveys that were sent out, 607 were completed, resulting in a return rate of 53 %. Carlson (2000) found that 61 percent of the institutions had restructured their student affairs divisions from 1996-1999. The results of the work of Engelbride and Goodale (1998), Chavez (1998) and Carlson (2003) are detailed later in this literature review. Sources of the Impetus to Restructure The impetus for change in higher education comes from a variety of sources, some external, others internal. Generally, the impetus for restructuring efforts can be described in economic, political, ideological (e.g. to appear progressive), or human
47
resource terms. Given the complex nature of higher education, the impetus to restructure can also be a combination these factors. Heydinger (1997) notes there are two primary organizational change strategies: “Outside-in” and “Inside-out.” In “Outside-in” strategies, the impetus for organizational changes comes from outside "…often being superimposed by another organization or governing body" (p. 115). Further, Heydinger describes "Inside-out strategies are those in which the organization decides on its own that it must change and sets about to craft a strategy that will yield the desired results" (p. 115). For the purposes of this study "Outside-in" strategies will be characterized as "External" sources of restructuring efforts; "Inside-out" strategies will be characterized as "Internal" sources of restructuring. External Sources The impetus to restructure can come from external sources. Governors, legislators, governing boards, consultants, or professional associations, including accrediting bodies, are often the initiators of restructuring efforts (Birnbaum, 2000; Carlson, 2003). In evaluating why organizations adopt new management techniques, Birnbaum (2000) notes that "If an organization has clear goals and understands its management technology, it might be able to predict whether an innovation would improve its efficiency" (p. 152). Birnbaum contends that when organizational goals are not clear, state systems and institutions develop patterns of imitation: "When one state adopts an innovation, it may spread to other states as part of a process of imitation, even in the absence of credible evidence that the innovation is instrumentally effective" (p. 153).
48
Birnbaum (2000) contends that higher education is often characterized as being in a state of crisis, pointing out that this claim has been made for so long that "crisis" seems to be a natural state. Warren Bennis provides an example of this approach, writing in 1973 "Unquestionably, universities are among the worst managed institutions in the country" (Cameron, 1983, p. 19). Such statements, even without data to support them, can serve as the focal points for external actors who seek to restructure higher education. According to Birnbaum "Claims of crisis serve to support ideologies, and gain attention, power, and control of organizational and symbolic processes in a noisy policy environment” (p. 144). Further, "Institutions that uncritically accept these claims of crisis or stagnation become receptive to management innovations" (p. 144). In response, "Institutions may adopt new management techniques to satisfy critics and symbolize their intention to reform" (p. 145). Birnbaum quotes the work of Eccles and Nohria (1992) who state "The quest for new organizational practices for new words, new structures, new designs, new systems, and new strategies-has become a rather frenzied pursuit" (p. 4). Calls for restructuring also come from external groups that are directly involved in higher education. The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) promoted a form of restructuring called “rightsizing” in an article which appeared in "Business Officer." Numerous articles have appeared in this publication including “An Organizational Model of the 21st Century: Adopting the Corporate Model for Higher Education” written by Bruegman (1995). NACUBO also supports publications focused on restructuring including "Practical Approaches to Rightsizing", "Organizational Paradigm Shifts," "Managing a Comprehensive Change Effort." Other publications are available from the NACUBO Store (NACUBO, 2005).
49
A group called the Alliance for Higher Education was formed to help colleges improve in the following areas: retention and graduation rates, job placement, citizenship, and international awareness (Lively, 1992). Members of the group included the director of the Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research, the executive vice-president of the McKnight Foundation, the executive director of the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), and the student body president of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. James Mingle, former executive director of SHEEO, stated “It seems unrealistic that, while the rest of the American economy and institutions go through fundamental restructuring, higher education is immune” (Lively, 1992, p. A12). Restructuring efforts also take place in state higher education governance systems. Marcus (1997) analyzed restructuring in state-level higher education governance initiatives that took place from 1989 to 1994. In this study, Marcus found that 49 proposals had been submitted in 29 states. Governors, legislators, and state higher education entities were the most frequent source of restructuring proposals. Table 2.5. Proposals for State-Level Higher Education Restructuring, 1989-1994 Source of Proposal Governor Legislature State-level higher education entity Multiple & other Total From Marcus (1997) Number of Proposals 9 25 10 5 49 Percentage of All Proposals 18 % 51 % 20 % 10 % 100 %
50
In addition, Marcus (1997) found that the source or originator of the proposal was positively correlated with enactment. Eighty percent of the restructuring proposals developed by state-level boards were enacted (Marcus, 1997). A study by the North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research examined efforts to reorganize governance patterns in public higher education. According to Selingo (2000) the report found "…that after two decades of little activity, the 1990's marked a ‘second wave’ of changes in higher education governance structures. In the last decade, 11 states have overhauled how they oversee higher education and four others are considering changes..." (para. 2). These efforts, initiated by state lawmakers, are taking place as demands for accountability increase and plan for a surge in enrollment (Selingo, 2000). In Minnesota, the legislature passed a bill that merged technical colleges, community colleges and state universities (Titus, 1998). The 1991 legislation, backed by Senator Roger Moe, did not specify general goals or articulate intentions, but was included in the higher education appropriations bill (Titus, 1998). While elected officials may be a source of restructuring efforts, they are not the only source. In Oregon, a 1990 taxpayer initiative caused a review process that resulted in a nearly 25 percent reduction in state support to public higher education. Oregon used a review process “modeled after similar reorganization efforts in large corporations" to restructure (Education Commission of the States, 1996, p. 2). More recently, changes in some of the accreditation standards or requirements are resulting in a renewed focus on student learning. A number of the regional accrediting bodies have enhanced their focus on assessment and outcomes. The Middle States
51
Commission on Higher Education included a standard on assessing student learning in 2002 (Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002). The Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools established a core requirement focusing on quality enhancement and student learning. Instituted in 2004, this standard “…requires an institution to develop an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) and show that the plan is part of an ongoing planning and evaluation process. Engaging the wider academic community, the QEP is based upon a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the learning environment for supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the institution.” (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2004). New standards or core requirements, such as those initiated by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education or the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, are placing additional pressures on institutions to examine their current administrative structures and practices as they relate to student learning. Internal Sources The impetus to restructure can come from internal sources including Trustees, Presidents, and Vice Presidents such as the Vice President for Business and Finance, or the Vice President for Student Affairs (Birnbaum, 2000; Carlson, 2000). Birnbaum (2000) contends that one state may imitate the efforts of other states to resolve similar issues. Presidents or Trustees may become aware of the management efforts of other institutions, giving rise to another level of imitation at the institutional level. Birnbaum notes "…similar institutions might tend to adopt similar fads, both because they might be
52
facing similar performance gaps and because they are more likely to be influenced by institutions like themselves" (p. 153). Birnbaum (2000) studied the sources and modes of transfer of management innovations. According to Birnbaum a major vector for the transmission of corporate practices in higher education may involve individuals who serve on both academic and non-academic boards. These "boundary spanning" individuals, often internal actors such as board members or trustees, bring business or governmental management practices into higher education. Trustees also serve as vectors to transfer business practices into higher education. In writing about current trends in higher education, Kennedy (1995) stated "One perfectly understandable response is a tendency to imitate what appears to be popular and successful in other domains. Since this is the decade of privatization and productivity, we should not be surprised that one of the new directions being taken entails the adoption of corporate norms" (p. 12). Kennedy contends that "The corporate values that academic institutions are being urged to adopt - frequently by trustees who come about them quite naturally - often fit uncomfortably into the university environment" (p. 12). The role internal actors play in initiating restructuring efforts in student affairs is outlined in a study done by Carlson (2003). In a study of 607 participating student affairs divisions, Carlson (2003) found that 30 percent of the efforts came from a "Suggestion provided/solicited from within the institution," while 19 percent reported that the need for restructuring was determined by a "Decision maker reached a decision independently without external input" (p. 80).
53
Carlson (2003) found that college presidents were the most likely source of restructuring efforts (35%), followed by the senior student affairs officer (17%). The President and the SSAO collaborated to initiate restructuring in four percent of the responses, the Boards of Trustees accounted for only one percent (Carlson, 2003).
Table 2.6. Institutional Management Level That Decided to Implement Restructuring
President Senior Student Affairs Officer President and SSAO Board of Governors/Trustees Other Source: Carlson (2003) Carlson (2003) found that:
35% 17% 4% 1% 8%
Contrary to the impression of some student affairs professionals, the determination of the need for change, whether restructuring, budget, or personnel, came not from an outside consultant, or from a college president or chancellor acting on their own counsel, but rather, by an almost two to one margin, from a suggestion from within the institution. (p. 92) Rationale to Restructure External and internal actors often use a number of rationales to support claims that restructuring is necessary. Difficult economic times, calls for increased accountability, political intrusion, efforts to improve efficiency or effectiveness, the need to take advantage of technology to streamline processes are often used to justify restructuring. Such rationales generally fall into to five broad categories: economic, political, ideological, technological, and human resource.
54
Economic – fiscal constraint. Economic or fiscal constraint is one of the most common rationales used to restructure. In discussing why a number of states initiated restructuring efforts in the mid-1990’s, Lenth (1996) identified changes in financial support, rising costs and shifting educational needs as factors requiring leaders to change how they think about and manage institutions of higher learning. In introducing her call for institutional restructuring, Lovett (1996) points to public scrutiny and shrinking state and federal budgets as a basis for fundamental changes in higher education. In studying why restructuring was initiated in state-level higher education systems, Marcus (1997) identified six rationales used to justify restructuring. Of those identified, Marcus found that the desire to reduce or contain costs was the most frequently cited. Of 49 proposals initiated from 1989-1994, 55 percent focused on cost containment. Marcus notes that about half of the proposals "...specifically sought to reduce program duplication across the state" (p. 407). In examining federal, state and local revenues to higher education, Eaton (1995) found that “...higher education is receiving less public money than it has in the past and, when increase in funding are available, those increases are smaller than in past years” (p. 6). According to Breneman (1993) higher education’s share of state appropriations has steadily declined since 1968 creating what Breneman called the “new austerity” (p. 6). In 1992, Jaschik stated that “State appropriations for higher education this year are about one percent less than they were two years ago-probably the first two-year drop in the country’s history” (p. A21). Jaschik quotes Edward Hines, Director of a study, who said “...that the bleak state budget picture has lead to the beginning of a fundamental
55
reshaping of higher education” with State lawmakers and educators deliberating how best to reallocate existing funds, eliminate programs, and redefine workable missions for colleges. Seventeen states lowered state appropriations to public colleges and universities. Taking inflation into account “…36 states are providing less money than they did two years ago” (Jaschik, 1992, p. A21). In 1997, state appropriations to higher education increased by six percent, the highest rate since 1990 (Schmidt, 1997). Hebel and Selingo (2001) reported that the decade of generous state budgets for public colleges was over with 20 states cutting budgets between one percent and five percent. In 2002, spending on higher education grew by the smallest rate in five years (Schmidt, 2002). Spending on higher education declined 2.1 percent in 2003 but rebounded by 3.8 percent in 2004 (Hebel, 2004). Table 2.7. State and Local Appropriations as a Percentage of Operating Costs
S ta te a n d L o c a l Ap p ro p ria tio n s a s a P e rc e n ta g e o f O p e ra tin g C o s ts
60 55 Percentage 50 45 40 35 30
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 96
Y ear
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2003)
56
In the early 1990's dramatic cuts in state appropriations to public higher education resulted in severe financial pressures (El-Khawas, 1994). Several years of cuts to state appropriations, combined with mid-year reductions, diminished core operating support. El-Khawas (1994) identified four primary strategies to respond to financial constraints: expenditure control, identification of new sources of revenue, reorganization, and selective decisions about academic programs. El-Khawas noted that 77 percent of research universities in the study reported reorganizing administrative units, the highest of any type of institution. Sixty-seven percent of the research universities reported reorganizing student services. As noted earlier, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that the percentage of chief student affairs officers at research institutions reporting structural changes, decreases in their budgets, and merged or consolidated functions was higher than in other institutional types. Mielke and Schuh (1995) point out that inflation, unfunded federal mandates and shifts in state funds all contribute to financial strain. "In this environment, with resources in short supply and decision making challenging, the student affairs officers could be faced with having to reduce costs, restructure units, or reassigning staff” (p. 75). Political. Authors have articulated a number of reasons why external and internal actors initiate restructuring efforts including attempts to enhance centralization, improve coordination, exercise power and control, or appear to deal with an issue without taking action. In discussing the rationale for politicians to make changes in higher education, Heydinger (1997) notes that "...all evidence indicates that such ‘levers for change’ will
57
look increasingly attractive to state legislatures, particularly if they perceive institutions as being unresponsive to the ‘real’ higher education needs of their state" (p. 115). In discussing restructuring efforts in the State of Maryland, Berdahl and Schmidtlein (1996) note that the governor “...placed higher education at the top of his legislative agenda, proposing a major restructuring of the states higher education system to provide greater operating efficiency and fiscal and academic accountability” (p. 157). In examining statewide restructuring efforts in Maryland, Berdahl and Schmidtlein (1996) point out that the multi-layered higher education system was perceived differently by various leaders. While the Board of Regents presented information to support increased State support, the State had a slightly different view. In describing the view of the State, Berdahl and Schmidtlein state “From the State point of view, in contrast, the reform concerns were less about finances and more about issues of efficiency, duplication of programs, quality and excellence and accountability” (p. 163). In studying restructuring and redesign in the corporate world, Nadler and Tushman (1997) state that some managers initiate such efforts because "…it offers managers - particularly those just starting out in a new position - a clear opportunity to put their personal stamp on an operation" (p. 11). Marcus (1997) found that 22 percent of the restructuring proposals studied between 1989 and 1994 "...sought to increase the authority of the governor and/or legislature over higher education" (p. 408). Of those proposals, 64 percent were enacted. Further, Marcus found that "Power struggles between institutions and the state board and other governmental entities were involved in 18 percent of the proposals, 56 percent of which were enacted" (p. 408).
58
Marcus cautions higher education leaders to resolve power struggles before elected officials get involved. In his study, Marcus (1997) found that …the correlation between the existence of a power struggle and the effort to increase the role of the governor and legislature in higher education apparently confirms the observation that if the institutions and the state-level board are battling each other or if the state-level board is not able to mediate power struggles occurring among institutions, then elected officials may seek to restore order by taking a strong hand themselves. (p. 410) Marcus (1997) concludes by stating power struggles between institutions or institutions and the state-level board may result in "...a narrowing of the arm's-length distance between elected officials and higher education" (p. 410). Centralization. In providing a historical overview of state-level higher education trends, Marcus (1997) characterized the 1970's as a period of increased centralization. In the 1980's, a focus on quality and accountability coincided with major studies of effectiveness in 27 states, 14 of which implemented reforms. According to Marcus (1997), 12 of those 14 states were moving "…in the direction of centralization" (p. 402). While acknowledging that the relationship between state-level boards, institutional governing boards and their member campuses is dynamic, Marcus (1997) notes that in the first half of the 1990's, three states "…adopted both consolidation and deregulation aspects, increasing institutional autonomy and, simultaneously, concentrating more authority in the governor's office” (p. 402). Novak (1996) notes that "The impetus toward centralization of state governance structures continues. It is based on the belief that efficiency and productivity are best achieved through centralized operations and decision making or that more, rather than
59
less, scrutiny is called for during times of declining resources" (p. 35). Novak (1996) cites examples of centralization efforts in the states of Maryland, Minnesota, Texas, and Nebraska to support his claim. Coordination. The role that state-level boards, institutional boards and institutional leaders play in the management of higher education is dynamic. Berdahl (1971) described and analyzed the basis for the structures and underpinnings of state-wide governing bodies. Marcus (1997) traced the shifts between centralization and decentralization efforts. Coordination is often associated with centralization efforts, while autonomy is often associated with decentralization efforts. Marcus found that of the 49 restructuring proposals he studied, 45 percent sought to improve coordination. An equal number sought to enhance institutional autonomy. In Maryland, there was some concern that having 13 public institutions governed by four different and competing governing boards did not “…provide effective coordination” (Berdahl & Schmidtlein, 1996, p. 163). A commission examining higher education recommended the creation of a governing board “with teeth” (p. 165). That recommendation, in combination with an action-oriented governor provided the momentum to make major changes in how higher education was governed in Maryland (Berdahl & Schmidtlein, 1996). In studying the restructuring of three separate systems in Minnesota, Titus (1998) found that increased coordination was a priority of the state legislature. The enacting legislation to restructure specifically stated that coordinated degree programs and coordinated financial aid were part of the mission of the Higher Education Board.
60
Accountability. Elected officials and campus leaders often seek to improve institutional productivity. Marcus (1997) found that the desire to increase accountability was the second most frequent rationale given to support restructuring higher education at the state-level. Twenty-five of 49 restructuring proposals identified by Marcus (1997) focused on increasing accountability. Further, 15 of those 25 proposals sought to increase productivity. Marcus found that restructuring proposals focused on improving accountability had the highest success rate of all proposals (68 %). Efforts to determine the underlying issues in those proposals seeking to improve accountability provided some interesting results. According to Marcus, (1997) nestled in the issue of accountability were efforts to improve institutional outcomes, which appeared in nine of the 49 proposals, and public dissatisfaction with higher education, which appeared in six of the 49 proposals. The study of restructuring efforts in the state of Minnesota, Titus (1998) notes that accountability was one of the underlying forces in the strategic plan. Citing the 1996 Legislative Agenda, Titus states that the restructuring framework “…was predicated on an accountability model…” (p. 118). According to Titus, “The three primary objectives of the accountability model are: (1) focus on results; (2) provide managers and leaders with appropriate authority and responsibility; (3) hold those individual accountable through routine, strong, and effective evaluation” (p. 118). Ideological. Authors have articulated a number of reasons why external and internal actors initiate restructuring efforts. One underlying tension involves the philosophical view of
61
higher education. Is higher education a social institution that is shaping or molding the next generation of citizens or an expense that must be managed using a free-market approach? In discussing the role of higher education, Boyer (1997) states that "Historically, higher learning in this country was viewed as a public good" (p.76). The role of the early colleges was to "...prepare civic leaders for the country" (p. 76). "Not that long ago, it was generally assumed that higher education was an investment in the future of the nation - that the intellect of the nation was something too valuable to lose, and we needed to invest in the future through the knowledge industry” (p. 85). Boyer contends that more recently that view has changed stating: "…increasingly today, as I listen to the politicians and the public policy people, even the press, the work of higher learning in this country is being viewed as a private benefit and not as a public good…" (p. 76). According to Boyer, current leaders have lost the vision for higher education. "Student tuition continues to rise as an alarming rate, with virtually no public policy debate or vision about the mission of public learning, no sense that to invest in young people is to invest in the future of the world" (p. 76). In extolling the virtues of the modern multiversity, Kerr (1963) stated that higher education "…has few peers in the preservation and dissemination of the external truths; no living peers in the search for new knowledge; and no peers in all history among institutions of higher learning in serving so many of the segments of an advancing civilization" (p. 45). Peterson et al. (1997) cite the work of Kerr (1987) who observed that there has been revolutionary change rather than evolutionary change in the environment resulting in a "new age" for colleges and universities.
62
The challenges facing institutions require a new paradigm for how we think about postsecondary education. Our institutions are beginning to exist in a fundamentally changed context, from a loose system of postsecondary institutions to one that might be better described as a postsecondary knowledge industry. (p. xix) Balderston (1997) points out that financial stringency and conflicting demands have resulted in "serious new stresses" for universities (p. xi). According to Balderston, "In the past, these institutions were capable of growing in many directions without having to assess mission or scope and without being specifically accountable, financially or otherwise, to funding agencies, the tax-paying public, faculty of students" (p. xi). Even though universities graduate large numbers of students, conduct research, and provide service, "…the task of justifying the continued investment in higher education is formidable" (p. xi). In an effort to balance multiple funding pressures, elected officials have increasingly shifted the burden of funding higher education from the state to students. The increased reliance on students to shoulder an increased portion of higher education is evidenced by the increased cost of attendance. Peterson and Dill (1997) note that higher education is changing to a postsecondary knowledge industry and trace a number of factors affecting higher education. The higher education amendments of 1972 transferred federal student aid from the institution to individuals and broadened the number of institutions able to accept students with federal financial aid. This shift in aid to the student and the increased number of institutions able to accept these students "…redefined the competitive relationship and nature of the industry" (p. 6). The marketoriented environment developed in the 1970's created a competitive environment that has continued.
63
In discussing the state support for public higher education, Dill (1997) cites the work of Slaughter and Leslie (1997) who found state governments cutting per student aid as a result of rising expenditures and voter revolt over taxes. To make up for lost state support, colleges and universities are raising tuition and fees. Citing research done by the College Board, Hoover (2004) notes that the cost to attend a four-year public college rose 14% in 2003 and an additional 10% in 2004. In decrying diminished state support, Katharine Lyall, president emeritus of the University of Wisconsin, states: "...we have to ask what it means to be a public institution." Further, "America is rapidly privatizing its public colleges and universities, whose mission used to be to serve the public good" (Dillon, 2005, p. 1). Technological. The literature on the role technology has played on manufacturing is extensive. Technological advances in machinery has affected nearly every segment of industry ranging from the automobile industry (Cameron, 1987) to food production (Burke and Nelson, 1997). In a 1999 study conducted by the American Management Association, Marks (1994) identified new technologies as one of the major reasons businesses restructure and downsize. Hammer and Champy (1993) contend that technological advances allow leaders to critically examine work processes. Since many work processes were designed using paper as the primary medium, electronic processes create opportunities to radically redesign how work is done. According to Fink (1997) the importance of the physical location of campuses and the facilities that comprise them is decreasing. Advances in computer-based technologies are presenting students with distance learning opportunities, removing the need to come
64
to campus to attend classes. Students can register for classes, pay their tuition, order books, research books in the library, attend classes and submit homework without ever stepping foot on campus. Human resources reasons. One restructuring strategy that often involves the entire organization is known as “Workforce Reduction.” This approach, which focuses on reducing personnel costs, is often applied throughout the organization. In a workforce reduction effort, executives are told to reduce their workforce by predetermined reduction targets, often using an acrossthe-board approach. In referring to workforce reduction strategies used in his study of 30 organizations, Cameron (1994) found that “They were almost always implemented across the board since the objective was to reduce headcount quickly" (p. 194). Cameron (1994) notes "...quick hit, across-the-board cuts get attention…" [but such] ‘grenade-type’ strategies utilize a non-prioritized method regarding personnel loss" (p. 194). In addition, workforce reduction efforts often create problems since the same amount of work must be carried out with fewer employees, which may increase employee burnout. In referring to workforce reduction strategies (Cameron, 1994) states "...when implemented in the absence of other strategies, ‘grenade-type’ approaches were rarely positive and were generally negative in their consequences" (p. 197). A second approach, called “Systemic Strategies,” is a downsizing approach that focuses "...on changing the organization's culture and the attitudes and values of employees, not just changing the size of the workforce or the work." (Cameron, 1994, pp. 198-199). Further, Cameron states this form of "Downsizing is also equated with simplification of all aspects of the organization - the entire system - including suppliers,
65
inventories, design processes, production methods, customer relations, marketing and sales support, and so on" (p. 199). In this form of downsizing, employees are critical components in the change process. According to Cameron "Instead of being the first for elimination, employees are defined as resources to help generate and implement downsizing ideas" (p. 199). In his study of 30 organizations over a four-year period, a third of the organizations implemented Systemic Strategies as part of downsizing efforts. Cameron (1994) identifies worker attrition as a powerful Workforce Reduction strategy. This across-the-board reduction approach involves hiring freezes that inhibit replacing employees who leave the organization. Cameron states that this approach deprives organizations of "crucial skills and human resources" (p. 202). Cameron cites a survey by Ernst and Young that involved 548 downsized firms which found that "...87 percent of those companies had difficulty keeping star performers…" (p. 202). Anecdotal information suggests that organizations may restructure in an effort to remove or work around employees that are difficult to work with, are not productive or not politically aligned with current leadership. While this type of activity may be taking place, empirical evidence on this approach is lacking in the literature. Functions in an organization. Restructuring or downsizing activities can be focused on redesigning the work done within the organization. Work redesign is a strategy that focuses change on work processes and organizational arrangements (Cameron, 1994). Work redesign seeks to reduce work by redesigning tasks, merging or consolidating units, eliminating functions, hierarchical levels, groups, divisions, or products or reducing hours (Cameron, 1994). This approach is considered a medium-term strategy that may "...require(s) some
66
advanced analysis of the areas that should be consolidated or redesigned, followed by an elimination or a repositioning of sub-units within the organization to reduce required tasks" (p. 198). Cameron states that downsized organizations that utilize this approach "...can achieve a greater degree of efficiency because of its simplified structure" (p. 198). In a study of 30 organizations, Cameron (1994) found that half of them "...implemented a redesign strategy as least once in the study" (p. 198). Area and Scope of Restructuring Restructuring efforts may involve the entire organization, a division within the organization, or functions within the organization. Extent of the restructuring effort. Chavez (1998) analyzed the types of strategies student affairs leaders utilized in restructuring. With an overarching goal of maintaining maximum service to students, Chavez found the following results of restructuring efforts: 1) Flattening of the structure through the elimination of administrative layers; 2) consolidation or merging of similar student life areas; 3) a trend toward combining health and counseling/psychological services; 4) the creation of centralized student service areas that combine a number of informational and payment services; 5) changes based on philosophical beliefs about organizations; 6) a widespread increase in collaborating with faculty to provide more integrated learning experiences for students and/or to share resources for new or continued initiatives; and 7) restructuring based on opportunities that arise. (p. 96) Chavez (1998) notes that the elimination of administrative layers is one restructuring outcome. In quoting respondents from her study, Chavez provides the following examples: “I had an Associate VP and Dean of Students retire and I made the
67
decision to flatten the organization in order to look at redirecting money to enhance our career center” (p. 97). Chavez quotes another who stated “There were some positions that were eliminated, while not having merged departments, we now have some areas in which a single director is directing two different departments, minimizing high level administrative leadership” (p. 97). Merging and consolidating student affairs areas with a similar function is another restructuring strategy for senior student affairs officers (Chavez, 1998). In response to budget reductions or in an effort to increase efficiency, some SSAO’s merged offices. One SSAO responding to a $1.2 million cut stated “….we had to go right into it and so that led to sort of looking at where we want to be and how we could be more efficient and were there redundancies across the division. And it led to really streamlining the division from six major units into three” (p. 98). In addition, Chavez found that SSAO’s reported merging student health centers and counseling centers to achieve economies of scale and to utilize the funding stream generated by the student health center fee to offset costs. As noted earlier, Carlson (2003) found that 61 percent of the student affairs divisions had restructured between 1996 and 1999. The study reported indicated specific functional areas affected by restructuring and whether the functional area was transferred to student affairs, eliminated, combined with another area, or transferred within the University. Table 2.8 lists the percentage of respondents indicating if the functional area had been restructured and what action had taken place.
68
Table 2.8. Percentage of Student Affairs Areas Affected by Restructuring Functional Area Financial Aid Counseling Career Planning Athletics Health Services Registrar Dean of Students Campus Security Food Service Student Activities Student Unions Housing/Res. Life Admissions Book Store Greek Life Alumni Services From Carlson (2003) As noted in the above chart, financial aid was the functional area most frequently affected by restructuring. Financial aid was most often transferred to another division (academic affairs) or combined with another office (admissions). The counseling function was the second most frequently affected area with the highest percentage of those affected Affected and Added 19.1 14.5 13.7 13 10.4 9.7 9.7 9.6 8.2 6.8 5.9 5.9 4.7 4.3 3 2.8 2.6 2 2 4.1 1.6 1.3 3.3 2 2.8 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.8 Eliminated Combined 1.8 3.8 2.1 0.5 3 0.7 3.3 0.5 0.5 2.1 0.7 1.6 2.3 0 0.7 0.3 4.3 4.6 5.6 2.1 2.1 3 1.3 2.1 2.1 2 1.7 0.8 4 1.5 0.5 0.5 Transferred 8.9 4 3.8 5.9 3.1 4.8 1.8 4.8 2.8 1.3 2.1 2.1 6.6 1.6 0.8 1.2
69
combining counseling with student health services. On nearly five percent of the campuses, the counseling function was transferred; on nearly four percent, it was eliminated. Career planning was most often combined with enrollment management/admissions or transferred to academic affairs. Admissions was most frequently combined with enrollment services or transferred to academic affairs. Athletics was added to student affairs on 4.1 percent of the campuses, and transferred to the president's office or administrative services (5.9 percent). Restructuring also affected additional areas not discussed above but captured under the heading of "Other." This included the areas of multicultural affairs, community service, students with disabilities, and recreation and sports. Processes Employed to Undertake Restructuring A number of processes are utilized to initiate restructuring efforts. The principal processes by which restructuring efforts are implemented fall into two categories: bureaucratic or top-down directives which may come from the president or board of directors; and collegial or participatory processes that involve employees and other stakeholders. Bureaucratic – top-down approaches. In order to implement change, directives often have to come from those in authority. Nadler and Tushman (1997) state that “Managing major change in an
organization is always difficult. Implementing a redesign is particularly risky; more reorganizations fail because of poor implementation than because of faulty design” (p. 184). Further, Nadler and Tushman note that "All too often, managers develop a new design behind closed doors, either alone or with the assistance of one or two trusted
70
consultants or trusted advisors, and then present their executive teams and the organization with a complete, finalized package" (p. 188). One example of top-down restructuring efforts involves the identification of targets or goals and the across-the-board adjustments that are necessary to achieve those goals. According to Cameron (1994), Workforce Reduction strategies which focus on eliminating headcount or reducing the number of employees, are "...usually executed immediately via top-down directives. They were almost always implemented across-theboard since the objective was to reduce headcount quickly" (p. 197). Cameron characterizes such efforts as "grenade-type" downsizing which includes reductions via attrition, layoffs, and outsourcing. In a study of state-level restructuring, MacTaggart (1996) provides examples of bureaucratic processes that initiated restructuring. In 1991, the legislature in Minnesota passed a bill, later signed by the governor to restructure higher education in that state. The legislation joined the community colleges, technical colleges, and state universities, forming the Minnesota State College and Universities. In a criticism of higher education leaders and elected officials (Lenth, 1996) states “Even when post-secondary institutional leaders and state-level policy makers agree that restructuring is necessary, they have limited practical experience with proven policy and procedural frameworks that generate success” (p. v). In summarizing the organizational effects of downsizing Cameron (1994) states that "…the most commonly implemented form of downsizing - across-the-board, grenade-type- approaches is associated with organizational dysfunction" (p. 206). Further, Cameron states, “Typical top-down approaches, which typically assume, albeit
71
implicitly, that human resources are really human liabilities, are simply not effective” (p. 211). As noted earlier the management level that most often decided to restructure student affairs was the campus president, who initiated 35 percent of all efforts. The senior student affairs officer initiated 17 percent of all student affairs restructuring efforts. The president and the SSAO collaborated to initiate restructuring in four percent of the responses. Boards of Trustees accounted for only one percent of the restructuring efforts (Carlson, 2003). Participatory restructuring. Horn & Jerome (1996) state “While in some cases the decision to restructure was a command decision from above, the successful process involved workers at all levels taking an active role in changing their work environment into something much like the traditional academic model” (p. 36). To effectively reshape an organization, Nadler and Tushman (1997) offer a series of suggestions to managers contemplating restructuring. The first suggestion involves building a critical mass of support in key power groups. In discussing the steps to build a critical mass, Nadler and Tushman state the following “The first – and, by far, the most crucial – is participation. The single most common flaw we see in failed change efforts is an absence of appropriate participation by people who are expected to become major stakeholders in the future state” (p. 188). Nadler and Tushman continue: “The predictable responses are skepticism, resentment, and resistance” (p. 188). Cameron (1994) studied the factors that were predictive of organizational effectiveness in firms that have downsized. Efforts to change the organization's culture
72
and attitude, known as Systemic Strategies, increased communication and participation, increased employee effort, and gradual, incremental implementation were found to be significant predictors of organizational effectiveness. In discussing the effectiveness of downsizing strategies, Cameron (1994) states that "...gradual, incremental implementation of downsizing and conducting a systematic analysis in advance of downsizing are significant predictors of organizational effectiveness" (p. 203). Further, Involving employees through participation and increasing communication were also important factors in the effectiveness analyses, as was having an established set of downsizing goals and targets independent of outside mandate or encroachment. Rather than merely reacting to a mandate from a parent company to cut headcount, for example, effective firms used the mandate as an opportunity to accomplish other more laudable goals. (pp. 203-204) Cameron states: "Taken together, a picture emerges of effective downsizing firms being characterized by planning, up-front investment in analysis, participation, and information exchange" (p. 204). In summarizing the factors that affect organizational effectiveness, Cameron states that organizations that downsize tend to be more effective when "...they implement planned, systematic downsizing, where participation and involvement of employees is prevalent, and where the firm has an advanced and improving quality culture. Ineffectiveness is associated with stagnant quality and downsizing that relies mainly on workforce reduction strategies" (p. 204). Use of committees. In studying restructuring and redesign efforts in the corporate world, Nadler and Tushman (1997) cite the approach taken at Corning Incorporated, which restructured in the mid-1980's as an example of a successful committee approach. To instill dramatic and lasting change at Corning, the chairman of the board added a series of committees to
73
focus on policy and management. In addition to an inner circle of eight senior managers, Corning added a committee comprised of 30 executives that met four to five times per year. A third concentric circle, which included 130 of the top managers in the company, was formed to complete an approach that focused on inclusive leadership (Nadler and Tushman, 1997). In outlining the administrative restructuring process used on the institutional level Madson (1995), notes that while the directive to restructure came from the campus president, "The project approach assumed an open, flexible, progressive style of looking at management, not just tinkering with the existing bureaucratic line structure" (p. 94). The president held meetings with key stakeholders including the faculty to gain input and support to restructure the administration. This process was followed by the formation of a 16 member Administrative Restructuring Transition Team (ARTT). The ARTT broadly involved the campus community, dividing into eight pairs to talk to every staff member to discuss restructuring goals and outline options for each functional area (Madson, 1995). The initial outcome of this effort was an identification of structural, performance and technological problems that resulted in the changes in reporting relationships and enhanced training for staff. The institution continued to examine administrative restructuring options as the ARTT continued it's work (Madson, 1995). Carlson (2003) is one of the few researchers who provides an overview of the processes utilized in restructuring student affairs. In comparing restructuring and reorganization efforts in business and student affairs, Carlson (2003) found that one technique, such as benchmarking, reengineering or TQM, was usually found to dominate in the business literature. In studying restructuring in student affairs, Carlson found that
74
no one technique was dominant "Rather, a variety of techniques are ‘mixed and matched’ to fit the situation” (p. 98). Citing Ewell (1999), Carlson contends that this is consistent with academes lack of trust in a "one size fits all" approach. According to Carlson (2003), of those who restructured, 25 percent used reengineering, 20 percent used employee empowerment, 18 percent used a horizontal management shift, 17 percent used Total Quality Management, eight percent decentralized support functions, seven percent outsourced, and 15 percent used other methods including the combination of departments for efficiency, directive from upper management. Implications for the Design of the Study A number of researchers have described the processes utilized to implement restructuring. Bureaucratic approaches are closely linked with across-the-board cuts and workforce reduction strategies. While the decision to restructure may come from the top, participatory approaches may be more compatible with the traditional academic model. A limited number of formal techniques were used in restructuring student affairs divisions including reengineering and total quality management. Carlson (2003) found that employee empowerment and horizontal management shift were two additional approaches that were also used. It is unclear if there is any consistency in the implementation or application of these approaches. Given the potential variation in implementing restructuring, attention must be given to identify which approach was utilized and clarify the processes used to implement restructuring.
75
The Results of Restructuring The business literature regarding the results of restructuring, and similar efforts, is fairly extensive. Research examining the results of restructuring efforts on student affairs divisions is far less comprehensive. Empirical data on the results of restructuring in student affairs is limited. The results of restructuring fall into two general categories: intended and unintended. For the purposes of the section, improvement will be considered the intended outcome while dysfunction and instability will be considered unintended outcomes. Intended Results Restructuring can have a number of intended outcomes often associated with outcomes. The following section will address intended outcomes in business, government, higher education, and student affairs. Results of restructuring in business. One of the intended outcomes of restructuring efforts in the corporate world involves attempts to reduce costs and increase productivity, often by reducing the number of employees. Cameron (1994) noted that "Unfortunately, whereas most companies have implemented some form of downsizing in the past half decade or so, very few systematic or predictive studies have been conducted on effective strategies of downsizing or its effects" (p. 191). Most of the results of restructuring seem to be measured in the number of jobs lost. The National Organization for Downsized Employees (NODE) estimates that nearly 3 million workers were downsized between 1991 and 1995. NODE estimates that
76
another 580,000 workers were downsized and additional 615,000 workers were downsized in 1997 (National Organization of Downsized Employees, 2005). Citing the work of Cameron, Freeman and Mishra (1991), Cummings and Worley (1997) state that more than 85 percent of the Fortune 1000 companies reduced whitecollar workers between 1987 and 1991. Further, Byrne (1994) provides an abbreviated list of companies that have restructured through downsizing including IBM, General Motors, GTE, AT&T, and Kodak. According to Byrne (1994) as cited in Cummings and Worley (1997), there are a number of examples where restructuring has had positive outcomes. Florida Power and Light, General Electric, Motorola, Texas Instruments, Boeing, Chrysler, and HewlettPackard are identified as companies that have restructured successfully. A number of studies have been completed to understand the results of restructuring activities in the corporate world. Cascio (2002) has studied restructuring and downsizing in the corporate sector since the early 1990's. Citing surveys done by the American Management Society and the Society for Human Resource Management, Cascio states that after downsizing, companies witnessed profit increases about a third of the time and profit deceases about a third of the time. After downsizing, profits remained unchanged about a third of the time. One of the goals of many restructuring efforts was to improve operational performance. In one of the few studies on how corporate restructuring efforts affect performance, Atiase, Platt and Tse (2004) examined how restructuring affected earnings. Noting that "Companies' disclosures about restructuring charges frequently include forward-looking statements from management about expected improvements in
77
profitability from restructuring actions" (p. 496). Atiase et al. (2004) studied the return on equity, operating income, and cash flow in over 275 restructured firms and found firms that restructured improved earnings and operating income when compared to a control group. In summarizing their research, Atiase et al. state "Our results suggest that, in general, restructuring efforts are prompted by poor performance, and that, on average, restructuring charges are associated with performance improvements" (p. 518). Further, Atiase et al. state "However, the positive association between restructuring charges and earnings appears to be largely driven by firms reporting multiple restructuring events and by firms reporting losses in the restructuring year” (p. 518). Finally, "Thus, our results suggest that large restructuring efforts in the face of fundamental operational problems are most likely to increase future performance" (p. 518). In providing an overview of restructuring efforts in the corporate world, Hamel and Prahalad (2004) contend that the positive potential productivity benefits of restructuring may be temporary. Hamel and Prahalad state "…restructuring seldom results in fundamental business improvements. At best, it buys time. One study of 16 large U.S. companies with at least three years of restructuring experience found that while restructuring usually did raise a company's share price, such improvement was almost always temporary" (p. 4). Further, these authors state "Three years into restructuring, the share prices of the companies surveyed were, on average, lagging even further behind index growth rates than they had been when the restructuring effort began” (p. 4).
78
Results of restructuring in government. As noted earlier, the government has initiated a number of restructuring efforts. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 is one of the most recent reform efforts passed by Congress. Federal agencies, often under the direction of a legislative committee or the support of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or the General Accounting Office (GAO), restructure to reduce costs or improve services. In 1997 testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, John Koskinen, Deputy Director of the OMB reported that the government had downsized by 300,000 employees. Some government services were outsourced through an open competition process. In reviewing the results of allowing competition for government services, Koskinen (1997) states "Over the years, this has translated into billions of dollars of annual savings…" (p. 4). Agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy have participated in a workforce planning effort that focused on "...getting the right number of people with the right skills, experiences, and competencies in the right job at the right time" (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). Goldenkoff (1997) found that the downsizing targets outlined in the Workforce Reduction Act were being exceeded. Goldenkoff states "At the end of fiscal 1996, federal employment stood at 1.94 million, nearly 63,000 below target" (p. 2). Further he states "Since 1993, the workforce has been reduced by 11 percent…" (p. 2). Lastly, Goldenkoff identifies the Agencies which made the largest percentage reductions in staff:
79
Office of Personnel Management General Services Administration Defense Department NASA Agriculture Department -
38 percent 23 percent 16 percent 15 percent 13 percent
According to Walker (2003), the Government Accounting Office (GAO) was restructured, "…going from 35 teams to 13 teams, eliminating an extra organizational layer, and reducing the number of field offices from 16 - 11" (p. 17). The transformation of the GAO "...has helped the Congress and government leaders achieve $37.7 billion in financial benefits" (p. 19). Further, Walker reports significant improvement in client feedback and the results for several key performance indicators nearly doubling over a four-year time frame. Results of restructuring in higher education. Restructuring efforts have the potential to affect both processes and the people who perform them. While noting that restructuring has taken place on campuses across the country, Horn and Jerome state it is often “…viewed as a virtual panacea for all problems – real and imaginary – confronting colleges and universities” (p. 34). Further, Horn and Jerome (1996) state: “What has escaped much of the restructuring debates on campuses is an awareness of the origins or organizational restructuring and the impact certain types of restructuring have had on corporate America-and how this impact will affect higher education...” (p. 34). Haas (1997) contends that: Just as in industry, restructuring in higher education represents a mixed bag of efforts and results. For some, restructuring has been a buzzword that has merely replaced the worn-out buzzwords "reorganization" and "retrenchment." (p. 276)
80
Haas (1997) states “…it could be argued that institutions undergoing so-called restructuring in the absence of a concomitant plan that transforms the conceptualization of their products and/or markets may simply be rearranging the pieces (reorganizing, changing job assignments, or eliminating personnel) without an enduring imperative induced by genuine conceptual change” (p. 260). Further, Haas states: “It is the absence of such an imperative that in the past enabled institutions (after having tried restructuring) to lapse back into various inefficiencies, whose symptoms are higher unit cost, bureaucratic delays, and deteriorated customer service” (p. 260). Results of restructuring in student affairs. Restructuring in student affairs divisions has been studied by three researchers which have focused on budgets, structural changes, staffing, mergers and consolidations and the strategies employed in the restructuring effort. In a 1996 survey on restructuring in student affairs, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) studied changes in the structure of student affairs divisions. Engelbride and Goodale found that 79 percent of the SSAO's responding to the survey reported directly to the president or chancellor. Twenty percent indicated that this reporting structure had changed over the past five years. Sixty percent indicated that the areas under their supervision had changed in the past five years. The following charts outline some of the structural changes identified in the 1996 survey.
81
Table 2.9. Percentage of CSAO’s Reporting Positions Eliminated as a Result of Budget Changes or Institutional Restructuring All 42.9 57.1 Research 56.3 43.8 Doctoral Comprehensive 50 44.2 50 55.4 Liberal Arts 36.7 63.3 Two-Year 36.6 63.4
Yes No
From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998) In studying restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions, Engelbride and Goodale (1998) examined the restructuring strategies student affairs leaders utilized to respond to budget cuts. A significant number of student affairs divisions had given up or not filled open employment lines. Sixty percent of student affairs divisions responding to the survey restructured part of their workforce by moving employees to shorter contracts, usually from 12-month contracts to 10-month contracts. For each of the above strategies, the percentage of research institutions reporting that they had utilized the strategy was higher than the average for all institutions. Table 2.10. Restructuring Strategies to Accommodate Budget Decreases in Percent All 81.6 61.3 60 64.9 Research 94.4 73.7 72.2 13.3
Vacant Lines “Given Up’ or Not Filled Eliminate Services Employees Moved to Shorter Contracts Service Areas Privatized From: Engelbride and Goodale (1998)
Carlson (2003) examined the extent of restructuring in student affairs divisions as well as the addition, elimination, combination and transfer of functional areas. In addition, Carlson studied budget changes, personnel decisions, and the processes utilized in restructuring efforts.
82
While some correlate restructuring with budget decline, Carlson (2003) found that a majority of those responding to his survey reported that their budgets had increased over the 1996-1999 time frame. Sixty-five percent reported increases in their budget, 20 percent reported no change, and 15 percent reported that their budget had decreased. Of those that increased, 33 percent increased between $5,000 and $50,000, while 29 percent increased between $51,000 and $250,000. Of the 15 percent of the student affairs divisions that experienced budget decreases, 39 percent decreased between $5,000 and $50,000, while nearly ten percent decreased between $250,000 and $500,000. Carlson (2003) also captured information regarding how restructuring affected student affairs positions. In terms of personnel changes, 57 percent of the campuses responding to the survey reported that the number of student affairs positions increased, 23 percent reported no change, and 20 percent reported a decrease. Of those that reported personnel increases, about one-third added between three to five positions, while nearly 18 percent added between six and ten positions. Of the 20 percent that reported decreases in the number of student affairs positions, 37 percent lost between three and five positions, while 19 percent reported losing between six and 10 positions. Unintended Results Restructuring can also have a number of unintended outcomes associated with the process and outcomes of the restructuring effort. While unintended results can be both positive and negative, the literature on unintended outcomes focused on the less positive aspects of restructuring.
83
Unintended results in business. Citing surveys done by the American Management Society and the Society for Human Resources Management, Cascio (2002) reports that downsizing efforts increase profits about a third of the time and decrease profits about a third of the time. Using data collected on S&P companies over an 18-year period, Cascio (2002) found that stable employers (those with a 5 percent fluctuation in workforce, or less) outperformed most companies that had undergone restructuring. Cascio states "The only companies that seemed to outperform stable companies were firms that were actually growing and upsizing. Companies engaged in downsizing were next to the bottom in terms of profitability. The real message is that you can't shrink your way into prosperity" (p. 18). Cascio (1993) studied 16 firms that restructured and wrote off more than ten percent of their net worth. In those firms, stock prices increased when the restructuring effort was announced but declined afterward. Two years later, a majority of the stocks had lost between 17 percent to 48 percent. Downsizing was not particularly effective in making troubled companies more profitable. Cummings and Worley (1997) state "Research on the effects of downsizing has shown mixed results. Many studies have indicated that downsizing may not meet its intended goals." Citing the work of Bennett (1991), Cummings and Worley state "One survey of 1,005 companies that used downsizing to reduce costs reported that fewer than half of the firms actually met cost targets. Moreover, only 22 percent of the companies achieved expected productivity gains..." (p. 288). Additionally, Cummings and Worley (1997) cite Bennett (1991) who reported that "Fewer than 33 percent of the companies surveyed reported profits increased as much as expected, and only 21 percent achieved
84
satisfactory improvements in shareholder return on investment" (p. 288). In studying 1,005 firms that downsized between 1986 and 1991, Wyatt Associates "…found that only 46 percent actually reduced expenses, only 32 percent actually increased profits, only 22 percent actually increased productivity, and only 17 percent actually reduced bureaucracy, although each of these goals was intended" (Cameron, 1994, p. 190). Cameron (1994) notes that implementing a Workforce Reduction strategy is one approach that: ...may be necessary as a severe economic hardship is encountered, of course, but the short-term payoffs are usually negated by the long-term costs. The violation of the implicit contract between the organization and its employees leads to a loss of loyalty and commitment among the workforce and a deterioration in willingness to go the extra mile on behalf of the company. (p. 199) In summarizing his perspective on the organizational effects of downsizing, Cameron (1994) states: "...that the most commonly implemented form of downsizing -across-theboard, grenade-type approaches - is associated with organizational dysfunction" (p. 206). Cameron (1994) cites the work of Henkoff, (1990) who in a 1990 survey "…found that 74 percent of senior managers in downsized companies said that morale, trust, and productivity suffered after downsizing" (p. 190). Cameron again cites Henkoff who provided information indicating "A survey of the Society for Human Resource Management reported that more than half of the 1,468 firms that downsized indicated that productivity deteriorated from downsizing" (p. 190). In discussing government restructuring, Thomas (2000) states "Efforts to downsize the federal workforce, for example, occurred randomly rather than strategically, with no effort to make a distinction between essential and unnecessary employees. The
85
indiscriminate downsizing that followed actually exacerbated many of the core performance problems with each agency" (p. 7). Unintended results in higher education. In reviewing the impact of management innovations on institutions of higher education Birnbaum (2000) states: Although management fads in higher education have not had the positive outcomes promised by their proponents, it is also true that the loose coupling of academic organizations has prevented the dire consequences predicted by fad opponents. At the same time, it would be a mistake to believe that fads have no consequences at all for the organizations or systems that adopt them, neither in reality or virtually. Some of these consequences may be negative: people become cynical and resistant to new ideas, the judgment of leaders is questioned, and funds and energy are seen as being diverted from more important institutional activities. (p.1) Cameron, Kim, and Whetten (1987) studied the effects of organizational decline and turbulence on managers and workers in 334 institutions of higher education. A number of organizational attributes are associated with decline and turbulence including centralization, no long term planning, no innovation, scapegoating, resistance to change, turnover, low morale, no slack, fragmented pluralism, loss of credibility, non-prioritized cuts, and conflict. Cameron et al. (1987) called these attributes “The Dirty Dozen.” In providing a context for the prevalence of these characteristics, Cameron et al. note: "Turbulence exists when changes faced by an organization are nontrivial, rapid, and discontinuous" (p. 225). In addition, Cameron et al. state "When decline is present, organization-member responses are characterized by significantly more scapegoating of leaders, resistance to change, low morale, fragmented pluralism, withdrawal of leader credibility, conflict, and curtailment of innovation than conditions under growth” (p. 234). In discussing the impact of turbulence on managers, Cameron et al. state:
86
"…significantly more centralized decision making, absence of long-term planning, nonselective cuts in resources, top-administrator turnover, and loss of leader credibility occur when high turbulence is experienced" (p. 234). In studying restructuring in Minnesota, Titus (1998) determined that five of six of the principal consequences of that effort were primarily negative: Increased confusion and frustration, inadequate communication, lack of continuity in system-level leadership, increased campus activity and restrictive policies to carry out activity, and decreased interaction between presidents. In analyzing the human side of a major state-wide restructuring effort in Minnesota, MacTaggart (1996) found four basic types of responses to change. Winners, persons who had secured a new and higher position within the system, tended to feel positive about the change, while losers, some of them very sore losers, doubted that much good would come of it. The large majority of those affected might describe themselves, as one of them did in an interview, as "lunch bucket workers," individuals who bring a figurative lunch box to work each day and labor wherever they set it down. (p. 133) He describes a fourth type of response using the term "pathfinder" for those people who left the organization for a new career path. MacTaggart (1996) further notes that "The human response to restructuring included a grieving process that progressed overtime through the now familiar stages from denial to anger to some form of acceptance" (p. 134). According to MacTaggart several respondents affected by the restructuring effort in Minnesota reported a sense of conflict regarding whether they should be loyal to the previous administration or the incoming administration. In analyzing the impact of restructuring on those that might not be included in the new structure, MacTaggart notes:
87
The staff of the old system who did not receive a role in the new system or who felt diminished in the role given them took a much darker view of the new regime and its leaders. Skeptical about the chances of success for the system, these individuals pursued various forms of exit behavior. Some began to look for work elsewhere. Others distanced themselves psychologically. A few engaged in deliberate acts of sabotage directed at the merger itself but more often at the interim chancellor. The saboteurs tended to display anger, sometimes amounting to rage, at what they regarded as the unfairness of it all. (p. 141) MacTaggart found that people not engaged by the new system tended to have pessimistic attitudes, persistent anger, and displayed exit behaviors such as departure, psychic distance, and sabotage. Those who were engaged by the new system had positive attitudes, were optimistic, had a future orientation, had progressed through grief stages, and had shifts and conflicts regarding loyalty. In outlining lessons for leaders, MacTaggart (1996) states "It is widely estimated that 70 to 80 percent of attempts at reengineering in the corporate world fail not because of technical lapses but because leaders do not recognize the importance of human culture in the change process" (p. 151). In commenting on the human impacts of restructuring, he states: "Managing the human side of a major restructuring effort requires not only knowledge of the conventional aspects of personnel management, such as staffing procedures, contract negotiation, and outplacement strategies, but also a deep understanding of how humans behave in the midst of change that affects their lives and careers” (p. 135). Unintended results in student affairs. Information on the unintended results of restructuring student affairs divisions is limited. Carlson (2003) asked about unintended outcomes in his survey of 607 campuses. The Senior Student Affairs Officers responding to Carlson's survey were asked to
88
identify what did not go well when student affairs was being restructured. The most common response (34 percent) was a combination of fear, resistance to change, morale problems, and a lack of support. Inadequate communication (not enough dialog) was reported by 21 percent of the respondents, decreases in funding and salaries was reported by 11 percent. Issues associated with the quality of life, staff turnover and not enough staff remaining to address restructured responsibilities, as well as inadequate time to restructure properly, were also reported. While Carlson's survey specifically asked about what did not go well, participants who supported restructuring would be less likely to identify shortcomings of the restructuring process. Guskin (1996) offers the following assessment: As the restructuring process unfolds, many tough decisions will have to be made and some wrong turns will have to be redirected, some technology will not work as expected, some difficult people and situations will have to be overcome, and some adjustments in the timetable will be required. And people will grieve for the loss of the past – people, structures, and programs – as they enter the future, whether leaping or crawling. (p. 9) In conclusion, colleges and universities, like their corporate counterparts, seek to improve for a number of reasons. Restructuring is one management effort undertaken to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity. However, restructuring can also result in negative outcomes including resistance to change, low morale, a lack of trust in the leader, a disengaged workforce, and increased employee turnover (Cameron et al., 1987). Restructuring is also undertaken to respond to external and internal pressures. While restructuring seems to be a popular management effort, what constitutes restructuring is not well defined. Further, the results of restructuring are not well documented.
89
Conclusions from the Literature Restructuring efforts are initiated to respond to economic, political or ideological reasons by external and internal leaders. While restructuring is a popular management approach in the corporate sector, it is unclear if the results of restructuring have any longterm positive outcome on intended outcomes such as organizational productivity. There is a lack of long-term empirical data regarding the achievement of intended outcomes of restructuring. A number of researchers have identified a series of unintended outcomes related to restructuring, including decreased morale and trust. Research indicates that restructuring in student affairs is a popular management approach, especially at research institutions. Restructuring in student affairs often results in changes in budgets, the transfer or merger of functional areas, and changes in staffing levels. Restructuring can also have negative affects including a combination of fear, resistance to change, morale problems, and a lack of support. Additional research on restructuring and its outcomes will help practitioners better understand restructuring and help guide future efforts.
90
CHAPTER III Research Design and Methodology This chapter describes the research design and methodology used to understand restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions. The purpose of the study was to understand the rationale used to initiate restructuring, the goals of restructuring, the processes employed, and the results of restructuring. This chapter is organized into the following sections: 1) research questions; 2) research variables; 3) research design; 4) methods used in the study; 5) data analysis procedures; 6) methodological rigor; and 7) limitations of the study. Research Questions In order to investigate how restructuring affects student affairs divisions, this study asked the following questions: 1. What was the impetus to restructure? (a) Specifically, who initiated the restructuring effort and what factors led to the restructuring effort? What were the stated purposes of restructuring? (a) Specifically, what were the goals of the restructuring effort? What processes were employed? How did the institutions go about the process of restructuring? What were the results of restructuring? The first research question determined the reasons for starting a restructuring process within each student affairs division. The responses will also help develop insights that will shape further understanding in subsequent questions. Question two examines the rationale or reason why restructuring was undertaken.
2.
3.
4.
91
Questions three and four focus on the processes used and the outcomes of restructuring, respectively. This study seeks to develop conclusions that would be helpful to others seeking to restructure. By exploring restructuring in student affairs, it may be possible to establish recurrent themes or approaches as well as differences among the institutions studied. An analysis of impetus, goals, processes and outcomes of restructuring might assist other institutions determining their approach when faced with similar or analogous circumstances. Research Variables The research variables identified to answer the research questions come from literature related to restructuring. Given the nature of this study, it sought to identify new variables during the data collection portion of this research project. Impetus for Restructuring Research on restructuring points to external and internal factors as the impetus for restructuring. External impetuses include mandates from elected officials including the governor, state legislators, centralized higher education coordinating systems, or accrediting bodies (Chavez, 1998). Restructuring is also initiated internally by college boards, campus Presidents and Vice Presidents. In both scenarios, restructuring may be initiated in an effort to respond to fiscal constraints, to improve productivity, personnel issues, respond to critics, take advantage of technology, or improve effectiveness. The impetus to restructure large complex organizations can come from a variety of sources. Restructuring a subset of a larger organization, such as a division of student affairs, would most likely come from an internal source that was more familiar with the
92
sub-unit. This assumption seems to be confirmed by research on restructuring in student affairs. Internal actors, such as college presidents, play a crucial role in initiating restructuring efforts in student affairs (Carlson, 2003). Research on restructuring indicates that poor performance is a primary factor in decisions regarding this management approach. Efforts to improve productivity, especially through the use of technology, seem to be fairly common. Fiscal constraint is somewhat related to performance since poorly performing organizations are often those with less robust financial resources. In student affairs divisions, the relationship between fiscal constraint and restructuring efforts does not seem to be causal. Some student affairs divisions that restructured were not in fiscal decline and actually experienced budget increases and added personnel. Other divisions experienced reduced budgets and reductions in staff. The literature does not indicate that restructuring in student affairs is initiated to address personnel issues. The linkage between restructuring and personnel issues may be indirect. In situations where restructuring is focused on improving performance, ineffective personnel may be a cause for a lack of productivity. The variables in this section of the study establish the basis for the rationale to restructure. Obtaining a comprehensive understanding of why student affairs divisions restructure will provide valuable information in my effort to better understand why campuses use this management approach. The following taxonomy outlines some of the variables for this section of the study. - External impetus - effort started by an individual who is not an employee of the
93
institution or an effort started by a group of individuals who are not employees of the institution. - Internal impetus - effort started by an individual who is an employee of the institution or an effort started by a group of individuals who are employees of the institution. - Financial constraint - a reduction in resources which may be a result of decreased state support or internal funding decisions resulting in efforts to reduce costs and/or staff. - Political - efforts to enhance or maintain power such as fending off external intrusion. - Human resource - efforts to use restructuring to resolve personnel issues. -Take advantage of technology - the use of technology, in the broadest terms, to increase productivity or reduce personnel. - To respond to changing priorities to enhance effectiveness such as facilitating student learning. Goals of Restructuring Improved productivity, coordination, communication, responsiveness and financial situation are often goals of restructuring efforts. Restructuring also is used to realign people, processes and offices often in an effort to increase productivity, effectiveness or to respond to changing priorities. Restructuring can also be used as a means to remove or advance personnel or prevent intrusions from external sources. While several factors give rise to the impetus to restructure, goals help define the operational focus of the effort. Leaders or managers will often cite goals to support their efforts to improve the organization. The variables in this section generally fall into the area of improving efficiency or effectiveness, which seems to be more actively promoted. Efforts to make organizations more efficient and effective are important aspects of restructuring. Questions regarding these variables will be included in the interview guide.
94
Another grouping of the variables such as fending off intrusion or to give the illusion of working on an issue seem to be two unstated goals of restructuring. This may be because these goals are not generally articulated. It will be important to clarify if these variables were operating as a subtext within the restructuring effort. The following taxonomy outlines some of the variables for this section of the study. - Reduce costs - efforts to minimize expenditures in personnel service or other areas. - Improve coordination - efforts to enhance the ability to work together in a more synchronized manner. - Improve communication - efforts to enhance the ability to share information. - Improve responsiveness – efforts to reduce response times, stimulate reactions to suggestions. - Redistribute power – efforts to reallocate roles or responsibilities affecting the ability to perform or act effectively. - Realign processes or people - efforts to shift or reposition processes or individuals. - Reduce duplication - efforts to minimize the replication of similar work processes. - Fend off intrusion - efforts to resolve issues internally instead of having others do so. - Appear to resolve an issue - efforts to give the illusion that action is being taken to address an issue. - Modify mission and/or establish new priorities - the refocusing of the division including the identification of different goals and objectives. Processes Involved in Restructuring Restructuring efforts can be informal, open and inclusive where employees are invited to participate in the process and where developments and information is communicated on a regular basis. Restructuring could also be formal, closed and
95
exclusive efforts where a select few individuals are involved in the decision-making process and communication is limited. Either approach may be combined with another management process such as strategic planning, total quality management or similar practice. The research on restructuring indicates that the processes employed play an important role in the overall success of the effort. Processes that engage employees, encourage participation, with open lines of communication appear to be more productive than efforts that do not (Cascio, 2002). There is little evidence that formal processes, such as Total Quality Management are used in restructuring in higher education. Organizations may forgo a formal process to tailor the approach to meet the needs of the institution. This may be an indication of the wide range of processes and approaches used to restructure. The interview guide includes a number of questions related to the processes used to restructure. Questions regarding the approach used and the perceptions of those involved will help the researcher better understand the processes used to restructure. The following taxonomy outlines some of the variables for this section of the study. - Inclusive processes - a broad based process, participatory in nature where input is encouraged. - Exclusive processes - a process that limits the amount of participation to select individuals. - Formal, structured - a process that follows an established approach such as Total Quality Management (TQM). - Informal, unstructured - A process that does not follow an established approach.
96
Results of Restructuring The results of a restructuring effort can be divided into intended and unintended outcomes. From a managerial standpoint, the intended outcomes such as improved productivity, coordination, communication, responsiveness and fiscal situation represent positive outcomes. The realignment of resources to respond to changing priorities or philosophies is also considered a positive outcome. Unintended outcomes such as increased bureaucracy, decreased morale/alienation, reassignment of staff, increased training needs, increased costs, disruption of informal communication networks, decreased loyalty, decreased trust, and increased workloads are generally considered negative outcomes of restructuring efforts (Cameron, 1994; Carlson, 2003; Cascio, 2002). The variables in this section speak to the overall effectiveness of restructuring. The rationale, processes utilized, and the stated goals are important factors in initiating restructuring and working towards the objectives of the effort. Variables such as reduced costs, improved coordination, improved communication, and increased responsiveness are often more quantifiable and provide a basis to evaluate the success of restructuring. The variables outlined in this section may not be congruent with the variables outlined in the section on goals. Since unintended outcomes are not stated as goals, it is difficult to evaluate them against a stated expectation. Exploring the unintended outcomes of restructuring will provide insight into the overall effect of the effort and provide important information. Questions in the interview guide will help the researcher better understand the unintended outcomes of restructuring.
97
The following taxonomy outlines some of the variables for this section of the study. - Reduced costs - a reduction in expenditures for goods and services. - Improved coordination - enhanced ability to work together in a synchronized manner. - Improved communication - successful efforts to share information to increase awareness and understanding. - Improved responsiveness - enhanced reaction to suggestions, requests, changing needs. - Redistributed power - changes in roles, responsibilities or titles resulting in new reporting relationships. - Realigned processes or people - efforts resulting in a shift in processes or the working relationships of individuals. - Reduced staff - a reduction in the number of employees. - Decreased morale - a reduction in employee spirit or willingness to perform tasks. - Increased alienation - an increased sense of isolation or dissociation. - Improved responsiveness - the enhanced ability to be more aware of and react to changing needs or priorities. - Increased bureaucracy - enhanced organizational complexity often involving the addition of administrative layers or processes. - Increased training needs - additional preparation needed to learn new processes.
Linking Theory, Research Questions and Data Table (3.1) outlines the relationship between the theoretical assumptions, the research questions, the relevant variables associated with the research questions, and the data needed to answer those questions.
98
Table 3.1. Assumptions
Theoretical Assumptions, Research Questions, and Data Sources Research Questions What was the impetus to initiate restructuring? Potentially Relevant Variables Locus: Internal - effort started by Board, President, VP, etc. Externaleffort started by higher ed system, State legislature, Governor. Financial – cost reduction/staff reduction; Political - fend off external intrusion; Human Resources - resolve personnel issues; take advantage of technology, changing priorities. Reduce costs, improve coordination, communication, improve responsiveness, redistribute power, realign processes or people, reduce duplication, fend off intrusion, give the appearance of acting to resolve an issue, improve effectiveness, respond to changing needs. Open, inclusive; closed, exclusive; formal, structured; informal, unstructured processes. Data Sources
Student Affairs divisions use restructuring as a management technique to respond to changes in their internal and external environments.
Interviews with people in student affairs divisions that have recently restructured.
Restructuring is typically initiated to improve performance.
What were the stated and unstated purposes of restructuring?
Interviews with Senior Student Affairs Officers, departmental directors, and professionals involved in the restructuring effort. Interviews with Senior Student Affairs Officers, departmental directors, and professionals involved in the restructuring effort.
Corporate restructuring efforts are well documented. Little is known about the processes involved in restructuring Student Affairs divisions.
What processes were employed?
Restructuring can have both positive and negative effects.
What were the Reduced costs, improved results of coordination, improved restructuring? communication, improved responsiveness, redistributed power, realigned process or people, reduced staff, decreased morale/increased alienation, improved effectiveness, increased bureaucracy, increased training needs.
Interviews with Senior Student Affairs Officers, departmental directors, professionals involved in the restructuring effort.
99
Research Methodology and Rationale This section outlines the rationale for selecting the case study methodology and utilizing a multiple case approach. It also describes the unit of analysis and site selection. The Case Study This research employed qualitative methods to better understand the complex nature of restructuring in student affairs. The inductive approach of qualitative methods strengthens the researcher’s ability to understand the meaning, context, and processes associated with events, situations and actions (Maxwell, 1996). In outlining the
strengths of qualitative research, Maxwell identifies the following five particular research purposes for which qualitative studies are especially suited: 1) Understanding the meaning, for participants in the study, of the events, situations, and actions they are involved with and of the accounts that they give of their lives and experiences; 2) Understanding the particular context within which the participants act, and the influence that this context has on their actions; 3) Identifying unanticipated phenomena and influences, and generating new grounded theories about the latter; 4) Understanding the process by which events and actions take place; 5) Developing causal explanations. (pp.17-20) Miles and Huberman (1994) note that qualitative data “…are a source of wellgrounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes in identifiable local contexts. With qualitative data one can preserve chronological flow, see precisely which events led to which consequences, and derive fruitful explanations” (p. 1). Qualitative research efforts are divided into a number of different approaches (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This study utilized a case study approach since they are
100
conducted to develop a rich understanding of an event or series of events especially "… when a "how" or "why" question is being asked about a contemporary set events, over which the investigator has little or no control" (Yin, 2003, p. 9). The case study strategy provides researchers with an opportunity to "…..retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events - such as individual life cycles, organizational and managerial processes, neighborhood change, international relations, and the maturation of industries" (Yin, 2003, p. 2). Further, as stated in Yin, Schramm (1971) noted that a case study approach "…tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result" (p. 12). Yin further defines case study methodology as "...an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident" (p. 13). Multi-site case study. Merriam (2001) defines case study approaches based on their disciplinary orientation or by function. According to Merriam, case studies can be single site, multisite, comparative, descriptive, interpretive, or evaluative. Merriam states the multi-site case study approach "…involves collecting and analyzing data from several cases…" (p. 40). This approach to "…sampling adds confidence to findings" (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 29). By using multi-site sampling "We can strengthen the precision, the validity, and the stability of the findings" (p. 29). In order to make the research more robust a multiple case design was selected over a single case study (Yin, 2003). Yin (2003) divides case studies into two basic designs based upon the unit of analysis: holistic or embedded. In a holistic design, the focus of the case study is a
101
single unit. In an embedded design, the focus of the case study is multiple units in the same case (Yin, 2003). The holistic design focuses on the global nature of an organization and is, therefore, the most appropriate design for this research (Yin, 2003, p. 43). This study utilized a multi-site case holistic study design since the object of the research was to develop an understanding of restructuring and to compare the processes associated with restructuring. Two campuses were selected for the multiple case design in order to make the findings more compelling (Yin, 2003). By comparing the processes used and the outcomes of restructuring across institutions, the researcher would seek to develop a conceptual framework. Time constraints and resource limitations prevented adding to the number of cases. Unit of Analysis One of the challenging aspects of qualitative research is a definition of the case (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003). Two primary questions arise in trying to define a case: “what my case is” and “where my case leaves off” (Miles & Huberman, p. 25). A case may be an individual, an event or as noted by Miles & Huberman, “…as a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context” (p. 25). The case or unit of analysis is the focus of the study “…and a somewhat indeterminate boundary defines the edge of the case: what will not be studied” (Miles and Huberman, p. 25). For the purposes of this case study, the unit of analysis was the two student affairs divisions that engaged in a restructuring process.
102
Selecting Institutions The selection of institutions was a critical aspect in this study. In order to be included in the study institutions had to meet the following criteria: 1) Identified as public universities; 2) be classified as research I or research II according to the Carnegie classification system; 3) be located within 400 miles of the researcher; 4) must have restructured their student affairs divisions within the past six years and completed that effort more than a year ago; 5) must have undergone a restructuring effort where change can be described as more than just minor adjustments or tweaking (Eckel, Hill & Green, 1998); and 6) be willing to grant the researcher access (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The rationale to select public institutions is based on studies that found this type of institution restructuring at higher rates than other types (El-Khawas, 1994; Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Research universities were selected because research indicated that they are more likely to undergo changes in the areas that report to student affairs as well as changes in divisional budgets (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). The 400 miles radius was established since that distance could be reasonably driven in a one-day time frame. The five-year timeline established for the study increased the likelihood that those involved in the restructuring effort would still be employed at the institution and that the memory of those involved in the effort would not have diminished. Further, the one-year criterion allowed sufficient time for the outcomes of the effort to become evident. Eckel et al. (1998) categorized change based on its depth and pervasiveness. Change that is not deep or pervasive is categorized as an "adjustment." Other forms of change which are
103
deep or pervasive or both are categorized as isolated, far-reaching or transformational. Finally, the institutions selected for this study were identified because of the perception that they would be receptive to participation and provide access to documents and participants. For the purposes of this research, the selection of institutions was aided by the involvement of seven expert nominators. Expert nominators were selected based upon their expertise in higher education, knowledge of national trends in student affairs, and previous awareness of student affairs restructuring. The expert nominators were Dr. Greg Blimling, Vice President for Student Affairs, Rutgers University; Dr. Linda Clement, Vice President for Student Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park; Dr. Michael Gargano, Vice President for Student Affairs, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Dr. Karen Pennington, Vice President for Student Affairs, Montclair State University; Dr. John Saddlemire, Vice President for Student Affairs, University of Connecticut; and Dr. Vicki Triponey, Vice President for Student Affairs, Pennsylvania State University. The nominators were contacted via email and telephone to provide them with an outline of the study and to answer questions they had about the research. The expert nominators were asked to identify student affairs divisions that had undergone successful restructuring efforts as well as those where restructuring had not been as successful. The expert nomination process generated a pool of 14 institutions. Eight of the 14 nominated met the research criteria. Once a pool of potential sites was developed, the SSAO of each institution was contacted via email and provided with a statement of the purpose of the study. The SSAO was also provided with details regarding their selection and were invited to participate in the study.
104
Two institutions were selected from the pool based on the depth and breadth of restructuring. Another factor in the selection process involved the institutions’ willingness to participate in the study. Once the institutions were selected, the SSAO was contacted via email to inform them of their selection. A follow-up phone call or email to the SSAO provided additional information about the study, the role of the SSAO, and the confidential nature of the study. The SSAO at both institutions agreed to participate. Selecting Participants According to Merriam (2001), the two basic approaches to sampling are probability sampling and nonprobability sampling. In referring to the work of Honigmann (1982), Merriam notes that nonprobability sampling methods are appropriate "…to solve qualitative problems, such as discovering what occurs, the implications of what occurs, and the relationships linking occurrences" (Honigmann, 1982, p. 84 as cited in Merriam, 2001, p. 61). According to Merriam, purposeful sampling, a form of nonprobability sampling, is used when the researcher "…wants to discover, understand, and gain insight, and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (p. 61). Purposeful sampling can be further broken down into a number of different types (Merriam, 2001). This study utilized two types of purposeful sampling to maximize the probability of interviewing information-rich subjects. The "typical" type of sampling was used to obtain the perspectives of "…the average person, situation, or instance of the phenomenon of interest" (p. 62). Merriam (2001) states to augment the information provided by the subjects identified via the typical technique, the snowball or network technique was used to identify information-rich cases (p. 63).
105
The two senior student affairs officers were asked to participate in the study. In addition, each senior student affairs officer was asked to nominate ten departmental directors and ten professionals who were employed at the institution at the time of restructuring. The senior student affairs officers was asked to nominate individuals who helped design or carry out the restructuring effort as well as individuals who were not involved in the development or implementation of the restructuring effort but were affected by the changes. The departmental directors and the professionals in the student affairs division at each of the two campuses were sent an email that explained the research as well as an invitation to participate in the study. Emails were sent to those individuals not responding to the initial invitation. Of those agreeing to participate, departmental and professional staffs were selected to participate in the study. While an initial effort was made to randomly select participants, the number of individuals agreeing to participate, and were available to be interviewed, reduced the number of eligible candidates. The researcher scheduled and interviewed those individuals who were nominated, interested and available. In addition to those individuals selected based on their positions, the researcher utilized snowballing sampling to identify an additional four individuals from each campus to be interviewed. According to Atkinson and Flint (2001), snowball sampling “…consists of identifying respondents who are then used to refer researchers on to other respondents” (p.1). It is a technique used to identify persons who can contribute to the research findings who otherwise probably might not be identified (Atkinson and Flint, 2001). Of those identified through the snowball sampling technique, the four individuals who were nominated most frequently were interviewed. The total number of subjects
106
interviewed on each campus was 14. Table 3.2 diagrams the research methodology employed. Potential differences between those who have been there for a while versus those who have not will be examined.
107
Table 3.2 - Research Methodology Flow Chart - Overview Utilize a multiple case study design to obtain data regarding restructuring. Data will be generated by collecting documents and using semi-structured interviews. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed.
With the assistance of a panel of expert nominators, identify student affairs divisions at public research institutions that have restructured. The following factors were used to determine who to invite in the study pool: extent of restructuring, time frame, impact of restructuring effort, willingness to participate. Contact the SSAO’s of institutions that were most frequently nominated and within 400 of Albany, NY, to request their participation in the study.
Send cover letter confirming their participation in the study. Request they provide documents related to the restructuring effort (minutes, reports, etc.). Request they nominate ten dept. directors and ten professionals to participate in the study. Ask the VP to nominate people who were employed at the institution during restructuring, include those involved with implementing restructuring as well as those not involved in implementation. Invite members of that pool to participate in the study.
Analyze documents. Randomly select five dept. directors and five professionals to participate. Set-up an interview schedule. Interview and record interviews of VP, five departmental directors and five professionals, plus VP. Ask each respondent to recommend additional people to interview. Interview the top four recommended.
Transcribe interviews. Analyze data. Write up results.
108
Data Collection Merriam (2001) notes that three primary strategies are involved in the data collection process for case studies: interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents. According to Merriam, one or two strategies usually dominate the data collection process. In this case study, document collection and interviewing played the central role in the research. According to Yin (2003) open-ended interviews are most commonly used in case studies. Focused interviews allowed the researcher to utilize a series of questions while keeping the interview open-ended and conversational. This study utilized multiple sources of evidence to strengthen the research. Yin (2003) states: "…the most important advantage presented by using multiple sources of evidence is the development of converging lines of inquiry, a process of triangulation…" (p. 98). This study utilized document collection and a focused interview format with open-ended questions as the primary means of data collection. A letter was sent to SSAO requesting documents related to the restructuring effort. In addition, data was collected from each respondent via a focused interview. The primary purpose of the interviews was to obtain information about the impetus, processes used in restructuring, goals, and the outcomes the effort had on the division. Documents Documents were to serve an important role in helping the researcher understand the case. Stake (1995) states: "Quite often, documents serve as substitutes for records of activity that the researcher could not observe directly" (p. 68). Merriam (2001) identifies public records, personal documents and physical materials as the three major types of documents. According to Merriam (2001), "Documents of all types can help the
109
researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research question" (p. 133). In this study, the researcher sent a request to the campus SSAO to supply documents related to the restructuring effort. These documents could include copies of any formal announcements, memoranda, meeting minutes or a final report. The documents were to be reviewed prior to interviewing any campus-based personnel. In addition, documents regarding the restructuring effort were requested. Interviews According to Yin (2003) "One of the most important sources of case study information is the interview" (p. 89). Merriam (2001) states "Interviewing is necessary when we cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how people interpret the world around them. It is also necessary to interview when we are interested in past events that are impossible to replicate" (p. 72). According to Merriam (2001) there are three different types of interviews, based upon the level of structure. Structured interviews include predetermined questions asked in a predetermined order. Highly structured interviews are often used to collect sociodemographic data such as age, income, and employment history. Unstructured interviews are used to help the researcher explore issues related to the research question. The unstructured interview format "…allows the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic" (Merriam, 2001, p. 74). The third type of interview is the semi-structured interview which was used in this study.
110
Since the purpose of the study was to identify and explore the restructuring process by eliciting responses from the subjects, a semi-structured interview process was utilized. According to Merriam (2001) the semi-structured interview "…is guided by a list of questions or issues to be explored" (p. 74). Further, "This format allows the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging world view of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic." (p. 74). Interview Questions The variables identified in the literature review were used to develop the interview guide for this study. Background or general questions were used to initiate the interview. Subsequent questions focused on each of the research questions. Probing, follow-up questions were used to tease out more comprehensive answers or to explore specific areas. Participants were asked if they had related documents they would like to share. A list of the interview questions and the corresponding research questions can be found in Appendix B. Interview Process The interviews started by thanking the subject for agreeing to participate in the study. A brief overview of the study was provided including the confidential nature of the study. An informed consent form was also reviewed. Interviews took place over the course of a two to three day period and were held on campus. Interviews were conducted in a reserved room in a central location such as the student union. The interviews were tape recorded with the subject’s consent. The tape-recorded data was augmented by notes taken by the researcher during the interview.
111
In addition to those individuals nominated by the Vice President, the researcher utilized the snowball technique to obtain responses from a wider range of individuals. Each respondent was asked to identify other individuals the researcher should talk with regarding restructuring. The responses ranged from no suggestions to four. In nearly every situation, the individuals who were identified using the snowball technique were either already interviewed, were unavailable, or had declined to be interviewed. Two general suggestions were made: to interview “students” and to interview a “faculty member.” When asked for the name of an individual to interview, the respondents could not provide a specific name. Human Subjects The proposed research involved administrators on two different campuses. An application for human subjects approval was submitted. To ensure confidentiality, data collected during interviews were coded to prevent the identification of human subjects participating in the study. Further, the names of respondents as well as the names of the participating institutions were coded and were not utilized in the reporting of results. Data Analysis The process of analyzing data serves to help the researcher better understand and make sense out of the case (Merriam, 2001). Merriam states: "Data analysis is the process of making sense out of the data. And making sense of the data involves consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people said and what the researcher has seen and read - it is the process of making meaning" (p. 178). In educational research, data analysis has been categorized into four strategies: ethnographic analysis, narrative analysis, phenomenological analysis and the constant
112
comparative method (Merriam, 2001). In discussing the constant comparative method, Merriam states: "Because the basic strategy of the constant competitive method is compatible with the inductive, concept-building orientation of all qualitative research, the constant comparative method of data analysis has been adopted by many researchers…" (p. 159). This study utilized constant comparative analysis to establish conceptual links between the data captured in the documents as well as interviews. By constantly comparing data, tentative categories develop resulting in the formation of an emerging theory (Merriam, 2001). The documents provided by each institution were analyzed and coded utilizing the research variables. In addition, the data from the one-on-one interviews were transcribed and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. The data were then individually coded, based upon the research variables. These codes and corresponding date were then sorted and analyzed to identify relationships between the key factors and to identify patterns or themes (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Following the sorting process, individual responses were color coded and re-coded, if appropriate, to fit within a particular theme. To assist in establishing relationships between the data, the researcher used memoing to "…tie together different pieces of data into recognizable clusters…" (p. 72). According to Yin (2003) a cross-case analysis was used as a means of "…aggregating findings across a series of individual studies" (p. 134).
113
Methodological Rigor This study used a case approach to understand the process of restructuring. According to Merriam (2001), "Qualitative research is a form of inquiry that helps understand and explore the meaning of social phenomena…" (p. 5). One of the central components in qualitative research is the confidence in the study and in its results. Producing valid and reliable knowledge is a concern of qualitative research (Merriam, 2001). In order to establish construct validity and reliability, Yin (2003) offers three guiding principles. According to Yin, qualitative research can strengthen validity and reliability by using multiple sources of evidence, creating a case study database, and maintaining a chain of evidence. This study used documents, one-on-one interviews, and the researcher’s notes as multiple sources of evidence. Using multiple sources of evidence, the researcher can use triangulation to corroborate facts of phenomena (Merriam, 2001). A case study database was used to organize and document the data collected through document analysis, interviews, and notes taken by the researcher. All data, including interview notes and memos were components of the database (Yin, 2003). The chain of evidence allows readers "…to follow the derivation of any evidence, ranging from initial research questions to ultimate case study conclusions" (p. 105). To maintain a chain of evidence, the report contains references and citations from the database. Information regarding the dates and locations of interviews as well as the circumstances in which they occurred were captured. Lastly, the specific procedures and research questions were consistently applied in each case. According to Yin these steps allow an
114
external observer "…to move from one part of the case study process to another…" (p. 105). Limitations of the Study This study was limited to two public research universities and, therefore, conclusions drawn from this study may not pertain to other institutions. A panel of experts developed a pool of potential student affairs divisions that had restructured. The two institutions that were nominated the most frequently were selected to participate in the study. Although an effort has been made to select two broadly representative public research institutions, the two campuses selected for this study may not fairly represent all research universities. Further, a case study approach seeks a deep understanding of the restructuring effort, which limits generalizability of the experience and hence transferability to other institutions. Further, the sample population included 14 people from each campus. The potential exists for other individuals to have different views or experiences than those interviewed. The rationale given for restructuring at the two institutions studied may differ from the rationale given at other institutions. Since qualitative data is included in this study, the potential exists for researcher bias. Further, the researcher may capture only a limited point of view at one moment in time.
115
CHAPTER IV Research Findings
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Charles Dickens A good deal of time, people have been playing musical chairs. Student affairs professional at Northern Restructuring wasn't a surprise. It wasn't the wrong decision, it needed to happen. There was too much duplication… Student affairs professional at Southern
Implementing change within organizations can be a very complex undertaking. The purpose of this research was to investigate restructuring in the student affairs divisions at two different public research institutions. The study explored restructuring with a particular focus on the impetus, goals, processes and outcomes of the effort. The study involved in-depth campus interviews with individuals who were employed at the institution when restructuring took place. The Vice President for Student Affairs at each institution was asked to nominate individuals to participate in the study. Nominees were invited to participate and an interview schedule was established. In addition, the snowball technique was utilized, where the researcher asks participants to identify other individuals to interview. The study sought to answer the following research questions: what was the impetus for restructuring; what processes were employed; what were the goals of restructuring; what were the results of restructuring. This chapter provides a detailed examination of each institution using a within-case analysis. This analytic procedure provides a description of each case and the themes within each case. All references to
116
the Vice President refer to the Vice President for Student Affairs unless otherwise noted. A summary appears at the end of the chapter. Conclusions regarding the restructuring efforts at the two institutions appear in Chapter V. This study examined the restructuring efforts at two public research universities identified by a group of student affairs professionals who served as expert nominators. The Vice President at each institution agreed to participate in the study. To protect the identity of the institutions which participated in the study, they were given the following pseudonyms: Northern University (Northern) and Southern University (Southern). To provide context, a brief overview of each institution is provided, together with background information gathered from participants. Northern University Northern University is a large public research university with several hundred employees in the student affairs division. After the retirement of a long-serving Vice President, the President hired a new Vice President who expressed an interest in restructuring the division to make it more student-centered and enhance student engagement. To protect anonymity, more detailed information on the institution is not provided. To support this research study, the Vice President at Northern University nominated 26 individuals to participate. Utilizing this pool of nominees, along with those identified using the snowball technique, a total of 14 of these people were interviewed, including the Vice President. Interviews ranged from about 30 minutes to a little over an hour and took place in a meeting room adjacent to a busy public area.
117
At Northern, the average length of service of those interviewed was nearly 12 years. The length of service for those interviewed seemed to be somewhat bi-modal; their length of service was either relatively short (four years or less) or relatively long (19 years or more). The shortest record of service was one year, the longest over 29 years. Eight of the respondents were female, six were male. The titles for those interviewed ranged from staff assistant to the Vice President, with a majority of the titles at the director level and above. An effort was made to interview the Vice President first to allow the researcher to obtain his/her perspective Vice President prior to interviewing other participants. At Northern, as a result of scheduling conflicts, the Vice President was interviewed on the second day of the two day interview cycle. What Was the Impetus for Restructuring? There was considerable agreement that restructuring at Northern was started by the Vice President. However, a number of people noted that the President may have been looking for a leader that could initiate change within the division. Several people noted that there had been two significant restructuring efforts in a little more than three years. One long time employee noted that restructuring had taken place at Northern approximately every six years, with varying size and scope, especially when a new Vice President came on board. The restructuring process was described very differently among the individuals interviewed. Some described it as very well thought out, others thought it "whimsical." A number of people were supportive in the initial phases of restructuring, noting that it is difficult to argue against the broad philosophical approaches to be more student-centered
118
or efforts to more actively engage students. Some noted they thought they were already performing these functions. One senior level administrator stated: “The rank and file feel like they are doing a fairly good job but the Vice President comes in and says…you're doing a terrible job…we need to restructure to better meet the needs of students of the 21st century.” Participants noted that the Vice President at Northern consistently used the term "change agent" as a self-descriptor. One senior level administrator stated: [The Vice President] had made it known very early on that he/she was a change agent…and he/she still uses that term to describe his/her leadership direction - that he/she has been hired to effect change …not only on the campus but within student affairs. I think when you make that statement there's an implicit expectation that if you are going to be a change agent you are going to change things. One of the things you change is what we're doing, how we are doing it, and who's doing it. There was considerable agreement that making changes was an important component of the Vice President's leadership style. One senior level administrator stated “My sense from [the Vice President] is that he’s/she’s a change agent…” Participants noted that the division had undergone two restructuring efforts that varied in size and scope. The scope of the first restructuring effort, which took place in 2005, was more significant than the second, which focused on realigning resources and personnel. A number of participants noted that restructuring wasn't necessarily common, but that it was not completely unexpected when a new Vice President was hired. One participant stated: First off, I think that it made sense from the beginning. You know it’s been going on a while. The Vice President came in at the first of the year and kind of looked at how things were and I think he/she thought about how he/she wanted things to be. It all made sense that, as a new Vice President, that he/she would change things up.
119
A comprehensive overview of the processes used to restructure will be provided later in this chapter. Major issues. When asked about major issues facing the division, a number of respondents stated that the division needed a clearer sense of direction or that the division needed to become a more visible partner in the educational process. Others stated that after having a long-serving Vice President who directly supervised an extremely large number of subordinates, the division needed to change. One participant noted that having a Vice President serve over 12 years was a major issue, stating “One might argue….about [the number of] years of any administrator suggests that it is time for some revival of interest in other ways of managing the division.” Further, it was noted that communication was a challenge. At least one participant noted that student activitism may have caused the President to initiate change in the division. One participant speculated about a discussion the President might have had, commenting "… there was probably some discussion about how I’d like to see things different from the President so there was probably some discussion from people around the community who interviewed (the Vice President) about how they’d like to see things work…". There was, however, little agreement on any of the issues voiced by the respondents. When asked if the restructuring effort had been completed, there was near unanimity that restructuring was not over. One senior level administrator who had input on the restructuring effort stated “No. Absolutely not.” Another noted “I think it’s evolving.”
120
Change in leadership. The impetus for restructuring came with the selection and hiring of a new Vice President who had experience with restructuring. A number of participants noted that the President, upon the retirement of a long serving Vice President, may have taken the opportunity to address concerns he/she had about the division. One participant stated: I guess it could be said that the President mandated that there be some kind of restructuring but no one has ever heard that from him/her. So it’s hard to gauge where that’s coming from. My sense of him/her is that restructuring things is kind of what (this Vice President) does…you know that when (this Vice President) talks about all the professional experiences it seems to be within the parameters of coming in and stirring things up. Another participant noted that the President inquired about candidates' experience with change during the Vice Presidential selection process. One participant stated "…there have been allusions to the President’s role in this…(the President) may have had some issues or concerns about student affairs that may have been passed on to the Vice President." Another stated: "The President had put forward an agenda that we wanted to become more student-centered…". When interviewed, the Vice President confirmed that the President had articulated some concerns and that he/she was working to address those concerns as well as move the division forward. Reduce workload. A number of participants noted that the Vice President wanted to reduce the number of people reporting directly to him/her and to take "…a little bit of the every day-to-day management of some units off of (the Vice President's) plate…"
121
Student-centered. A few participants surmised that the Vice President wanted to shape the division to better meet his/her philosophy. Overall, there seemed to be general agreement that an effort to be more student-centered was one of the driving forces for restructuring. However, this view was not universally shared. At least four participants said they thought the division was functioning at a fairly high level and that when discussions of restructuring started they were surprised. Other participants noted that they were studentcentered but that it is difficult to argue against being “more” student-centered. A senior level administrator who participated in restructuring stated: I think it was because [the Vice President] felt that we were not as engaged with our students as we should be and I would agree with that actually. I think our relationship with students was good but it was not one that I was as comfortable with from a student affairs professional role. When I think of advising students and partnering with students, I think of having some very active role and involvement in their decision making and helping to guide them and to train them and all that sort of stuff. That was not the history of [Northern]. Another senior employee who was fairly close to the restructuring effort stated: The rationale as I understood it...I always felt the rationale was we were trying to create a more student-centered, engaging environment than… we currently have. A senior level administrator, who was affected by the restructuring effort, offered the following as the rationale to restructure: That we weren't necessarily meeting some of the goals and objectives for a student-centered university and that we weren't actively engaged with our students and our student organizations. I think for me they were the driving parameters or paradigms of what he/she was throwing out…to say this is why …we need to reorganize - we need to be more student-centered…
122
A long serving senior administrator noted that becoming student-centered is a popular idea, stating: I think in general…this is a Vice President that has built a mission around student engagement…it's a fairly popular notion on a lot of campuses… There have been other iterations of something along those lines. A number of participants discussed the previous structure of the division as an impediment to being more student-centered. Noting the fairly flat organizational structure of the past, several participants believed that the purpose of restructuring was to align the co-curricular functions underneath one supervisor. A senior administrator noted: I think it was to more purposely organize the division so that people who were primarily involved with co-curricular programming were reporting to the same person and had the same overarching mission to get those groups together to meet more regularly – you know the same with student engagement – to get those units involved with student engagement to meet more regularly and focus on the work. One relatively new senior administrator outlined the impetus for restructuring in the following way "I would say from where I sit, that the Division was probably a little bit behind the times as far as philosophy and thinking and vision..." Another administrator who was also relatively new to Northern reported that the rationale to restructure was "…relevancy, make it more contemporary, more appropriate, more student-centered." Noting that the Vice President had the support of institutional leaders, one senior administrator who had a role in the restructuring effort stated the division restructured "…because it better met the new group goals and vision and mission that (the Vice President) and others had developed for student affairs."
123
The rationale to restructure was not accepted by all. A number of participants noted that they agreed with the goal of being student-centered, yet believed that they were already student-centered. One long-time employee stated: I think it was initially, to be smarter how we were doing things and what made more sense to be student-centered and I think…I can pretty much say… that a lot of folks ended up feeling like…everything that was done prior to restructuring didn't count for anything. We weren’t doing anything before restructuring…we weren't student-centered before? When asked about the impetus for restructuring one participant stated "To be honest, I think some of it was basically our Vice President just wanting to make the division his/hers." While there was considerable agreement that the rationale to restructure focused on becoming more student-centered, the delivery of better programs and services as well as the co-curriculum were also focal points. One senior level employee stated: I think some of (the Vice President's) plans with the new organizational structure are reflections of his/her notion about how to better deliver programs and services so that we are more aligned to the thinking of the senior administration about what does it mean to be student-centered and how do we enhance the undergraduate out-of-class experience. Financial. Fiscal constraint has been a factor in restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions (Carlson, 2003). In an effort to determine whether fiscal constraint played a role in the restructuring effort at Northern, respondents were asked to describe the financial situation prior to restructuring. Over half of the respondents indicated that finances did not play a role in restructuring. Some respondents noted that money was tight but that the division seemed to be able to function fairly well within its financial circumstances. Some respondents noted that the division hired additional people and
124
perceived that the division was spending more money as a result of the restructuring effort. One participant noted: …(the Vice President) worked hard to advocate to get some funds to support some of his/her initiatives that he/she wanted to see happen and my perception is the president was supportive of that – one that his/her being the new kid on the block and liking his/her ideas, his/her style. …I think some new monies have cropped up. Another senior level administrator who was relatively new to the division stated: I don’t believe so, and in fact I would say the resources committed to staffing and to support the new organizational structure are greater than what was in place prior to the reorganization. So I think money has been invested. This individual further pointed out: This has not been driven primarily by tough financial circumstances that need to be in some ways incorporated into thinking about what services we offer and what staff deliver those services. Quite the contrary, I think we’re spending more to do work differently. Similar comments were made by other senior level administrators: I honestly haven’t noticed – like I said I think our past Vice President did a very good job of advocating for us as a division of Student Affairs… My sense is that the restructure was not driven by financial concerns. One participant commented that there are always financial situations in a public institution but that the senior leadership at Northern "… have given (the Vice President) a lot of latitude to make some of the changes that he/she felt were necessary and as he/she started to design the plan and develop (inaudible) to restructure the division that he/she has been able to acquire some necessary resources."
125
Bottlenecks. One of the follow-up probes focused on possible "bottlenecks" that existed in the organization prior to restructuring. Most of the people who have been at the institution for some time did not perceive bottlenecks under the previous structure. Those who were new to the organization, however, believed that bottlenecks did exist. A senior level administrator who had been at Northern for some time stated "What's interesting is that here, anyway, with maybe an exception or two, and even though it's not necessarily the case, people wouldn't have seen there being lot's of bottlenecks.” In fact, one person who had been employed by Northern prior to restructuring noted that the restructuring created bottlenecks as people are no longer able to meet with the Vice President. This same person pointed out that if there were bottlenecks, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to address them instead of restructuring the division? This senior level administrator noted: “…instead of addressing [the] problem and saying this just isn't working…it's kind of crazy…when you kind of figure a whole new way of being because there's a bottleneck somewhere." Another senior level administrator took a more philosophical approach to the question, stating: I'm going to answer that no - because I don't think we ever had a conversation about where the bottlenecks might be. If you don't have that conversation - how do you know where they are and what you need to make them better. I don't think it was a matter of bottlenecks, I think it was a matter of what's most comfortable for the Vice President how he/she views his/her role, the information he/she needs…and what he/she needs to achieve (them). Personnel. Participants were asked if personnel issues were a factor in the restructuring effort. A majority of those interviewed agreed that personnel issues were a factor in the
126
restructuring effort. Two participants believed that personnel issues weren’t a factor. One of the results was the perception that people were looking to leave Northern. There seemed to be differences between long serving employees and those relatively new to the university. At least three participants, mostly those who had worked at Northern for some time, stated outright support for the personnel in the division. Several participants who were not long serving employees stated that personnel issues were one of the reasons for the restructuring. One participant who had been at the institution a relatively short time stated: I think in some ways the recasting of this organization as an example, is to move it away from some staff who were perceived to be under-performing or ill suited, but also to emphasize this is a high level priority where more resources need to be invested so that student leadership development, service learning and some of the traditions at [Northern] are more supported by the division of student affairs. This perception was advanced by the participant who further stated: Part of it was driven by concerns about individual staff members who were perceived by senior administration to be under-performing or ill suited to do some of the work that was assigned within their portfolio of responsibilities. So part of this was just based upon the players within the organization. Trust and loyalty. Three participants believed that personnel issues were a factor in restructuring, particularly the Vice President’s ability to trust people. One senior level administrator stated: Yeah, I think there were personnel issues in the restructuring, and I’m not sure why to be honest. The two new Vice Presidents that were hired last year both came from outside the institution and I don’t think there would be anybody who works at [Northern] who said that there weren’t some very viable internal candidates in this processes. So I clearly think that [the Vice President] wanted to bring in his/her own team who he/she felt
127
he/she could trust and who had been with him/her from the beginning… The perception that the Vice President may have selected external candidates for loyalty and protection was voiced by another senior level administrator who stated: I think he/she would have gained some value if he/she had picked someone internally. He/she still would have had a person who was loyal - who would have protected him/her - watched his/her back…but I think he/she views it is important to get outside people because those of us who have been here – may not have been on his/her team…that’s unfortunate…because I think [the Vice President] missed out on some talent around the table that certainly could have helped [the Vice President] through some of the issues [the Vice President is] dealing with today. Another senior level administrator acknowledged that personnel issues were a contributing factor. Competence, however, did not seem to be a major factor. Rather, the Vice President chose to select his/her own people from outside the organization. When asked if personnel issues were a factor, this senior level administrator stated: Absolutely. That there were personnel problems and they were the cause of restructuring. I think there was some of that…there are good people here… people who are well respected in our field...in their respective fields…who are what I would say…are key line officers in the organization but my supposition is that [the Vice President] wanted to make sure he/she surrounded himself/herself with individuals whom…he/she chose people that would be for lack of a better term...beholden to him/her. Further, this participant stated it's "…not uncommon when you are in a key leadership role to make sure you are surrounding yourself with people who are your lieutenants who are going to do your will, your bidding and watch your back.” One senior level administrator provided an example where the Vice President lost the trust of other administrators. A long serving senior administrator: …was moved from student affairs to a faculty position in the college student affairs program. It was real clear when that happened…it was a surprise for everyone! The way [the Vice President] framed it was using a line he/she often uses – [Name] is providing mentoring to students in the College Student personnel program. He/she is an international scholar/practitioner
128
and because of that he’s/she’s going to share his/her wisdom…He’ll/she’ll retain his/her Associate Vice President position in the student affairs…But what people knew was that none of that was true. External hires. One outcome of the restructuring effort was the posting of two high level job opportunities within the division. Northern seems to have a history of hiring qualified individuals from within the organization. A number of internal candidates applied for these positions but no internal candidates were hired. Instead, two external individuals were hired. Some viewed this as a figurative slap in the face of the internal applicants who were perceived to be highly qualified. One long serving administrator stated "I think there are enough people in our organization who would have been excellent individuals to help [the Vice President] in that cause, without having to go outside." One senior official, who was concerned about the affects of restructuring on personnel, acknowledged that there may have been concerns with restructuring. This individual stated "I think that in a couple of places where there were difficulties…would have been personnel issues. But again there are ways to say - this isn't working and we need to do something differently. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything changes." Supervisory relationships. When asked if personnel issues were a concern, one participant stated -"Most certainly!" When asked how, the participant asked: "Again -this is all confidential? …there's a piece of it I think that [the Vice President] just didn't also want to deal with some people. Didn't want to be in that relationship…didn't want to be in that supervisory relationship with certain people." Another senior level employee who was relatively new
129
to the division stated: "Oh heck yes and continue to be!" What was interesting was that this participant, when pressed, was not willing to provide any additional details. One senior level administrator, however, didn't think that personnel issues were a driving force to restructure. When asked if personnel issues were a factor in initiating restructuring this administrator stated: That's a little difficult to say. I hesitate to suggest that a driving force behind the organization had to do with removing certain people from power…and disengaging individuals from the central administrative group. I do know that there is at least one…there are probably several individuals who are not particularly happy with the way things evolved. Most found ways to adapt, adjust or profit from the change. But you know - that's kind of anticipated and expected with a new administration ….you either live with it…find a way to work around it…or you leave. Another senior level administrator believed that restructuring was creating some personnel issues. This participant noted that personnel issues weren't a factor in initiating restructuring and that people weren't terminated as a result of restructuring; rather, people were looking to leave Northern because of not being valued. This participant stated: …In my mind…I think we are losing some really good people because of the restructuring…not because necessarily because they are being pushed out, not hired back…but because they have decided to take early retirement or they've decided to try to find jobs elsewhere because they just don't feel valued. Pressure to restructure might not be completely legitimate. To better understand the dynamics in the restructuring effort, participants were asked if the pressures to restructure were completely legitimate. This question generated considerable discussion as well as a range of responses. While there was some agreement on the overarching goal of becoming a student-centered division, participants believed that they were already student-centered. Assessment was considered a strength by a number of participants within the division, yet there was no reference to research
130
data that supported the claim that the division was student-centered or that there was a need to be more student-centered. Without any firm research evidence, many questioned the pressure to restructure. One of the individuals who benefited from restructuring stated: "No. I don’t think so. I think that if you talk to some people in the division they aren’t happy with how things are going right now, and they don’t like the process….that’s kind of been used to undermine some of the restructuring..." One senior level participant stated "I do not believe that [the Vice President] ever actually verbalized that we weren't doing well. Intentionally." Further, this participant stated: ….I think sometimes people will feel… new people coming in will make these statements. And sometimes others who've been here for a while feel What? We haven't served students before? What? What are you kidding me? So yes - some of that happened. I don't think he/she intentionally said "You've never served students…" with the exception of a couple of areas that were identified as problem areas. One senior level participant stated: …Unless and until a leader fully explains Why - it’s very hard for the rank and file to understand what’s going on. And if you keep that information close to your vest - for whatever reason - it creates an atmosphere in the organization not necessarily of mistrust - but lack of understanding. Leaving staff members to ask, Who is really guiding us? Who is really controlling this? How will we know when we get there? Taking a more philosophical approach, one senior level administrator stated I think that those of us that feel secure in our positions…we're not worried that this is going to be a wholesale removal of people or a shifting in ways that were unacceptable. But in a couple of instances…I think it was high time individuals were moved to other parts of the university. And that was good. And I credit him/her for doing that. It might have been unsettling to people but there's never been sense that this is all about out with the old and in with the new.
131
Summary of the impetus for restructuring. The previous Vice President at Northern had served for over 12 years, overseeing a large number of direct reports in a relatively flat organizational structure. The current Vice President sought to focus the division on becoming more student-centered and enhance student engagement by realigning personnel, creating two new centers, and adding two high level administrators, both of whom were external hires. These additions helped reduce the workload of the Vice President and created a more hierarchical organizational structure. Participants noted that the primary impetus for restructuring was the Vice President, with the support of the President, who sought to move the division in a new direction. There were strong differences of opinion regarding the existence of bottlenecks, whether personnel issues were a factor, as well as the hiring of external candidates. Generally, long standing employees at Northern did not see the need to restructure and overall, were not supportive. The three or four employees who were recently hired or those who were involved in the restructuring process were more likely to support the effort. One of the central issues involving the impetus to restructure was the absence of data to guide the restructuring process and the lack of quantifiable goals. The Vice President wanted the division to become more student-centered yet it was unclear if data pointed this area out as a weakness. It was also unclear if quantifiable goals were established or were shared with the division. The Vice President's interest in moving the division in a particular direction without data or quantifiable goals created a sense of
132
inadequacy and mistrust within the division resulting in a majority of the participants questioning the rationale used to restructure. What Were the Goals of Restructuring? Restructuring often involves establishing goals and guiding people towards reaching those goals. Participants were asked about the goals of restructuring, whether the goals were written, if the staff understood the goals, whether restructuring was an effort to work around employees, and if it was an effort to give a higher priority to student learning. Responses from participants were mixed. Did the written goals guide restructuring? In an effort to better understand the role of written goals played in the restructuring process, follow-up probes were utilized regarding written goals and the staffs’ understanding of those goals. Written goals serve to communicate the overall direction of the division as well as remind managers and staff of divisional priorities. The goals of the restructuring were outlined by the participants. Nearly three-quarters of the participants were mid-level managers or senior level administrators who were aware of the goals of restructuring. The role of written goals. When asked if the goals are written anywhere participants offered mixed responses. One perspective was summed up by a senior level administrator who stated "I know they’re in our strategic plan. I’m trying to think about our division’s overarching goals and I think they’re implied in our division’s overarching goals in terms of what we’re trying to do."
133
Another senior level administrator stated "…I think with the first restructuring plan there was something written down on that. So there was something like a restructuring plan. Yeah. The first time around there was a sort of a draft of this is what we’re trying to do and this is what we want to do. I believe there were goals on it." When asked about written goals, another senior level administrator stated: Not that I’ve seen. I know we have a strategic plan for the division – that talks about what our most important mission, vision, goals are…and all of us in our administrative units have aligned our units with our strategic plans with those mission, vision, goals. Further, the participant stated: " ….are they written? The goals for restructuring? No, but I think it’s implied that we restructured to achieve a strategic plan." One respondent noted that a handful of people wrote the strategic plan for the division. The staff’s understanding of the goals. Follow-up questions were asked to see if the staff understood the goals of restructuring. Generally, participants believed that the staff did not understand the goals of restructuring. One senior level administrator stated: "No, I think the directors probably do, but the staff at large no. I actually think for the most part they are largely unaffected by the reorganization." Another senior level administrator stated: "I think the upper level administration in general understood the goals….I’m not sure that initially a lot of the mid-managers or line staff so to speak that weren’t involved in the discussion necessarily understood." A third senior level administrator stated: "No…I don't think the process lent itself to that." Two participants who benefited from the restructuring effort stated that the staff didn't understand the goals of restructuring, especially in the early stages. One administrator stated: "I would say early on no. But I would say generally a vast majority
134
understand the goals of the restructuring at this point. Only because those of us in (senior leadership roles) have been reiterating it, and have been living it and trying to make it an integral part of our work." One administrator who had been involved in the restructuring effort summed up the potential range of responses by stating “We’re a pretty large staff and I’d say some did and some didn’t and probably everything in between.” One administrator believed that the stated goals may be different than the perceived goals. When asked if the staff understood the goals of restructuring, the administrator responded: "….people have an understanding across the division… and that is to get rid of people who have been here a long time and have old ideas." What were the respondents’ perceptions of the goals? The perceptions of goals serve as an indicator of how well the articulated goals correspond to the participants beliefs about the needs of the organization. In an effort to obtain a better understanding of how participants perceived the goals of restructuring, follow-up probes were asked in the areas of efficiency, reducing costs and workload, refocusing the mission of the division, improving communication and coordination. The pursuit of efficiencies and reducing costs. Efficiency can be a goal of restructuring. Participants noted that efficiency was a goal but not necessarily a primary one. One senior level administrator stated: "…I gave the reasons why I think we restructured….more effective use of time and staff energy, free him/her up to do the big picture stuff, which a Vice President should be doing." When asked about goals, another senior level administrator stated: "I continue to believe to make the division more efficient, to make it more student-centered."
135
Participants were asked if one of the goals of restructuring was to reduce costs. There was relative agreement that reducing costs was not a factor in restructuring. Some participants weren't aware of the divisional budget; others who were stated that the budget wasn't a factor. As one senior level administrator clearly stated: "No." Others corroborated this perception. Reducing costs was not used as a rationale nor was reduced costs reported to have occurred. The reduction of the Vice President's workload. A number of participants stated one of the goals of restructuring was to reduce the workload in certain positions. One participant noted: "My impression is…is that the workload is unbelievable and the ability of that person or anybody in that position to manage the multiple demands that come that person’s way, even if you’re the most talented and energetic type person, really it’s overwhelming." The refocus of the division's mission. There was general consensus that restructuring was a means to move the division toward a new mission focused on student engagement. There was some agreement that a new structure was needed to accomplish the goals of restructuring. One senior administrator stated "My sense is the goals were to establish a structure that would be in support of the new mission of Student Affairs, to serve students through helping resources, engaging activities, and develop their out of class experience." This statement was supported by a long serving senior administrator who stated: I think there was a sense that we needed to move Student Affairs in a new direction; that there were new goals to attain and some issues that the Vice President wanted to address and so I think the Vice President felt it important to make some changes in the organizational structure to better suit where we were going to take the division.
136
One senior administrator who was more focused on the student experience stated: The scope and goals were to enable us to provide for students all the things that would help them to thrive and be valuable citizens. A sub goal of that was to make this huge university be a place where students felt that they received individual attention from those who worked in student affairs. When asked about goals, another senior level administrator stated: "I mean the first one is clearly stated it’s to enhance the out-of-class experience; the others are to develop effective student leaders and citizens and I’m trying to think of the third one…." Restructuring can be used to give a higher priority to emerging concerns. There was general consensus that restructuring was used to give a higher priority to student engagement. One senior administrator stated: I do think one of the core goals was to be more responsive to and more progressive in thinking about how we deliver services to students across the division, and in particular, to become more purposeful in our co-curricular experience and to work harder to engage students and truly become a very student friendly organization. This view was echoed by another senior level administrator who stated "… it’s all about student engagement, student learning, responsiveness and I think there was just this overall notion that we were probably too laid back in student affairs staff." A third senior level administrator stated "Yes, I think there is greater emphasis making sure we were more in tune with the educational learning process and to be a partner in that process." One senior level administrator was more skeptical saying “I think the goal was…was to sort of give the appearance that we were picking out a priority. I don’t know that any of our actual programs have really changed; I think it’s just the spin we put on them that has changed a little bit.”
137
The improvement of coordination and communication. Restructuring can be used to improve coordination and communication in the division. Participants were asked if this was a goal of the restructuring effort. Generally, improving communication was perceived to be a goal of restructuring. When asked if improving coordination and communication was a goal, one senior level administrator stated: Well, I think there was an effort to improve communication and I think some of that has to do with who reports to whom.... Improve communication, I think there was an effort to, as I said, to get the structure to better support the new goals for student affairs… One senior level administrator who had a long service record at the institution stated "Yeah, I think that would be…my sense is that would always be viewed as one of the values of restructuring - I'm not sure that we had poor communication to begin with." Another senior level administrator believed that the new structure inhibited communication which was better under the previous structure. This senior level administrator stated: [The Vice President] certainly talks a lot about the silos that existed when he/she came….I didn't perceive any silos…. I kind of feel like we are in silos now. Because things are much more regimented than they were before. I think there has always kind of been…certainly in the time that I've been here…a really broad collaboration among units… [The] flat structure before helped collaboration. Communication is a critical component of organizational change. In an effort to understand if the Vice President communicated throughout the restructuring effort, participants were asked if they thought the communication process was open. As with the responses to other questions, the responses to this question were mixed. Several
138
respondents noted that the process seemed open but that people feared giving feedback, inhibiting the communication process. When asked if the communication process was open, one administrator stated: "My understanding is, and this is secondhand, but my understanding is there was a lot of conversation and there was an invitation to provide feedback and suggestions during the retreat." Another senior level administrator stated: I think it was open, I don’t think it was transparent whereby everybody could see what was going on and what was taking place. But, I also have to be honest, we’re a large division and I don’t know how – I guess there were probably ways to do it a little bit differently to get more people to understand and buy in initially, but once again I’m not sure people would have paid attention to those items. I think the efforts were there, I think the intention was good, I’m just not sure that it played out the way that it could have. A number of participants articulated concerns regarding providing feedback on restructuring. One participant stated: "It’s somewhat open. I don’t think you would want to disagree publicly. I think if you have some feedback you would want to give [it] privately…but I don’t think you would want to criticize the reorganization publicly." Another participant, offering a more philosophical approach, stated: "I think there was the perception that it was open…I think the reality was that it was a very closed, tight knit process." Further, this senior administrator stated: I think change is good provided change is managed and change can be successful if it is managed. In order to manage it, you have to have a strategy and a plan. Not every change can occur overnight and you have to be OK with that and say here's where I want to be… I think you work towards that and you tell staff where you are along the way….keep them involved in that loop and be ready to adjust and adapt because as you walk down that road of change you can't possibly think of everything that comes up so you have to be flexible and adaptable and say Yes - My eye is still on where we need to be and that's where we need to be...but we need to fine tune this a little bit.. You can't go from A to X in a day.
139
The improvement of organizational responsiveness. In an effort to further describe the goals of the restructuring process, participants were asked if a goal might have been to improve the responsiveness of the division. The participants, who focused on responsiveness to students, provided mixed responses to this inquiry. A number of participants noted that the division prided itself on being student friendly and that people prided themselves on being responsive. Three senior level administrators agreed that one of the goals was to improve responsiveness using the word "definitely" and the statement - "Yes, I think that was certainly was one of the goals…" Another senior level administrator stated: "Yes, I think it probably was. I don’t know whether the responsiveness really needed to be improved or whether this really has improved it, but I think that probably was one of the goals." Other participants were not so convinced. One senior level administrator who had benefited from the restructuring effort stated: I’m not sure. I think that we were a pretty kind of student-friendly, studentcentered institution even though we weren’t all that actively engaged with the students at that time, but I think - one of the things that has always impressed me about [Northern] is that even though we’re so large, students have always been the number one priority and its been very apparent in student affairs is committed to that. So I don’t think that one could say we were unresponsive. One senior level administrator who has been critical of the restructuring effort noted: "That actually is something that [the Vice President] talked lots about. And again, I think always to the puzzlement of those doing the work because I think that responding to students is something that people really have always prided themselves in doing…" Another senior level administrator took a more philosophical approach regarding responsiveness stating:
140
Well, I don’t think structure has anything to do with responsiveness. I think responsiveness has something to do with how you train your individuals. Because I expect people at [work location] .….to be responsive. When [an employee] is contacted by a student and there’s a problem, I expect him/her to be responsive to that. And so, I don’t think that’s dependent upon structure…I think that’s dependent upon how well you train your staff and what the expectations are for being responsive. The need to work around people. Restructuring can be used to work around individuals who are difficult to work with or do not fully support the current management approach. Participants were asked if an implicit or explicit goal was to work around employees who were thought to be impeding the progress of the division Participants were evenly divided on this issue. One participant stated: I think one of the other goals, frankly and bluntly, is I think (the Vice President) still has some concerns with performance of some staff at the senior level and doesn’t have a comfortable relationship with at least one of the Assistant Vice President's and so I think one of the variables in play is working around and with that circumstance. One senior level administrator stated: I think that was one of the factors in this reorganization, is that there’s some things shifted to and from people based upon (the Vice President's) priorities at his/her level of confidence and comfort with some of the people in the organization. Another senior level administrator stated: No, I don’t think so - I don’t think there were large groups of individuals who were impeding the work of the Division. My sense is the Division was operating fairly well. There were a couple of individuals frankly who were not managing things well - there were three [people] who...and they aren't here anymore… One participant who served in a number of roles within the division stated: “Yeah, take power away…. I think…we all run into folks who we perceive as threats to
141
us….you know if you can work around it…then yeah. I would hope not …but…(shrug)…" Others stated: "[Impede] the progress of the division? I believe so yes.” This same participant added “I think the unstated goal which may have been: ‘Where do I put things so that I do a "work around" somebody?’ That was one of the drivers with this too, and I think most people are suspect of the reorganization because they think that’s what’s happening." One senior level participant stated: “I would say no. Work with them but not work around them. I think there are those that still aren’t on the bus, but at some point they will either choose to get off the bus or get on another bus.” One senior level administrator who played a role in the restructuring effort stated: There are some of us who are conspiracy theorists and everything is a conspiracy but I can’t tell you that I can think of a time when we said "Oh we got to do X and Y because Susie’s over here. " I didn’t sense that. I did sense that we, I did believe that there were people who were in positions, given how we were restructuring positions and reprioritizing our goals that maybe weren’t the best fits, and that then we tried to figure out whether there was a different set of responsibilities they should take on or did they need some additional training or did we need to do some other kind of coaching mentoring, but I don’t ever recall sitting in a meeting and saying, you know, Ed he’s a dilemma – we got to do something with him. A senior administrator who was relatively new to Northern provided an overview of the perceptions of other participants. In summing up the thoughts of others, this administrator stated: So one of the impressions that some of the staff hold is that [the Vice President’s] plan over time is to move along old [Northern] staff who predated [the Vice President] here and bring in his/her own people. So the reorganization is part of that notion…[the Vice President] is perhaps working around – creating new positions or moving things around so that established staff who were here before him/her will lose part of their portfolio or become discouraged and fall out of favor and move along and then [the Vice President] can bring in his/her own team. And with
142
the reorganization there has been the creation of some new positions, many of which have been filled by people from outside of [Northern]. The need to centralize, decentralize or restructure authority. In an effort to better understand restructuring, participants were asked if the effort was an attempt to centralize, decentralize or restructure authority within the division. Participants did not believe restructuring fell into any one category. One senior level administrator stated “I think it might have been to centralize authority more. I think that's what the end result was…”. Additional support for a centralized approach was found in the comments of another senior level administrator who stated “Yes, I think that goes back to the notion that the Assistant or Associate Vice Presidents should actually have staff reporting directly to them as opposed to sort of through them to the Vice President.” Other senior administrators believed that restructuring was an attempt to decentralize authority within the division. Citing the organizational structure under the previous Vice President, one participant stated: “…I think probably a stated goal would have been to decentralize authority...when I look through the organization chart now…I see kind of levels, before what I saw was a flat organization…a stated goal that feels like the opposite of what had happened.” Another administrator stated “I think the stated goal was to decentralize…[These new groupings] are going to be a powerful force in carrying out these three objectives and I'm going to empower these people to do that and I'm going to hire the right people to do that or promote the right people to do that and this group is going to do it.” Others noted a shift in authority but were unsure how it had changed. One senior administrator stated: “Yeah, authority has definitely shifted and I’m just
143
trying to figure out which way it shifted.” Summary of goals of restructuring. The primary goal of restructuring was to refocus the division on a new mission that included being more student-centered and enhancing student engagement. A secondary goal was to align people to place more emphasis on student engagement and student learning. This generated considerable discussion about personnel and whether restructuring was an effort to work around people. Working around people and shifting responsibilities to those the Vice President could trust was an overarching goal, though not explicitly stated. Those who believed restructuring was an effort to work around employees also believed that the Vice President had concerns about the performance of certain staff and his/her confidence and comfort with certain staff. Subsidiary goals included efforts to reduce the workload on the Vice President by adding staff at the senior administrative level. Restructuring at Northern was not an effort to reduce costs, nor improve communication. Respondents were generally unaware of any effort to use data to guide the restructuring effort. Goals such as improving student satisfaction in any particular area, decreasing wait times for certain services or focusing efforts to obtain external credentials such as accreditation were not existent. The participants involved in this study articulated a new mission for the institution with the goal of improving communication and responsiveness however, most respondents believed they were already doing well and without data, the validity of these goals was unclear. A number of participants believed that restructuring was an effort to encourage existing staff to leave so the Vice President could bring in people from
144
outside the division. Participants did not believe that the goal of restructuring was to reduce costs or centralize or decentralize authority within the division. What Processes Were Used to Restructure? To better understand the processes used to restructure, participants were asked a series of questions involving communications, inclusiveness, processes, strategies, and procedures. Participants were also asked about the use of formal management concepts, whether consultants were used and how employees responded to restructuring. The restructuring process started out with the hiring of a new Vice President, continued with a divisional retreat and meetings with staff. A majority of participants believed that, after the divisional meeting, restructuring was initiated and coordinated by a smaller group of people. While feedback was requested, some participants noted that suggestions weren't valued. For some, change was taking place very quickly and there was some apprehension regarding what was going to take place next. Sequence of events. The restructuring process was described very differently by those interviewed. Three participants described it in positive terms, others thought it "whimsical". A number of people were supportive in the initial phases of restructuring noting that it is difficult to argue against broad philosophical approaches to be more student-centered or efforts to more actively engage students. Some noted that they thought they were already performing these functions but were open to new ways of doing things. Participants noted that the Vice President at Northern has consistently used "change agent" as a self descriptor and that the division had undergone two restructuring efforts. These two restructuring efforts varied in size and scope. The first involved realigning
145
offices, the hiring of two high level administrators, changed reporting structures for a number of employees, and the creation of two new institutes. The second involved minor changes in the reporting structure after the two new senior level administrators were hired. Only four of the people interviewed played a major role in the restructuring effort. A number of people reported that they had minor roles, noting they had participated in a senior officer workshop where they gave input on how the division should be aligned. Some participants backtracked, noting that though they had provided input, their suggestions weren’t valued. When asked if they had a role in restructuring, one senior administrator stated: Well, I had a little bit of role…as far as what we were doing with students... as far as staff piece…no. You were basically contacted one day to say what do you think about this? Then it really didn't matter what you thought about it because it was happening anyway! Many participants noted that, outside the fairly open senior officer workshop where restructuring was discussed, there were few other opportunities to provide input. Participants believed that a small group people directly reporting to the Vice President, including the Assistant Vice Presidents, fashioned the restructuring effort. One participant stated “It was reacting to plans that were formulated….or written by a smaller group.” One participant who has served in a number of capacities at the institution stated: “There was much more dialogue in smaller closed-door sessions versus what the division is used to.” Further, one participant noted that the approach used created uncertainties and suggested an approach that may have been more widely supported:
146
We're all going to get around the table and we're all going to talk this [over] and flesh it out. And maybe from there, together, we can find some places that make sense - that didn't happen. And so, I think when things were proposed from this smaller group…sometimes mistrust develops - (people ask) where did this come from? Participants stated that restructuring began with a retreat sponsored by the Vice President. A senior level administrator provided an overview: There was a leadership forum that occurred, a day long retreat that included folks from student affairs, student leaders, faculty members, and administrators and that would have happened in October/November, two years ago. Out of that comes written mission, vision, goals, and then out of that comes a strategic planning committee, that I was a part of, and that came up with the strategic plan for the next few years. A search of the division's website did turn up a document called a strategic plan that was mainly generated by discussions at two retreats. A drafting committee comprised of four staff members and two students are listed as members. Other than a limited number of references to this document, the strategic plan did not seem to be a document that people used or worked with on a regular basis. Another senior level administrator stated that the Vice President: Did some meeting with line staff just to kind of meet everybody…to really ask for feedback from those pretty immediately and talked about being hired to be a change agent, which kind of surprised everyone he/she talked with because that hadn’t been the perception that anyone working in students affairs had had… A number of participants took issue with the Vice President’s goal of becoming student-centered, resulting in decreased interest in restructuring. It was clear that the process used to restructure was perceived to be problematic. Only one participant, who was involved with the effort, found the process to be positive, even admitting that there were things that could have been improved. A senior level administrator who has been involved with the restructuring effort stated:
147
Well, I think that there were parts of it that went extremely well in terms of gathering people’s input and ideas and trying to have the structure match the function. I think there were some areas we could have done better in terms of, I mean it was an inclusive process in many ways but I think we could have communicated some things a little sooner, a little more directly and maybe gotten some input from, even further down the ranks than we went, to try and give people a better sense of why we were trying to do what we were trying to do. But, overall I would say it went well. Another senior level administrator offered to grade the restructuring process and stated: "I would grade it as ‘poor’ from my own perspective." This participant also stated: "In my opinion, the worst thing you can do is drive a change on a group of individuals and not have them be a part of it." Further this participant stated: To have things happen or have things come out in a document or in an organizational chart no one has ever had a chance to see it - It just appears… here's what it is…People say: ‘How did this get here?’…You have to inform [people] how we're going to do that and why I've done this. ... I don’t think that was done…as a result - you may have had the best plan in the world…and it makes the most sense and it's the best org structure that gets you where you need to go but if you don't carefully plan that process…and work with staff to implement it. You just don't snap your fingers and there it is…It's not going to win - even if it's the best plan in the world and it's the right thing to do. This perception was supported by another long serving administrator who stated: It's pretty much denounced [sic] and people fall in line with it. There is an occasional token effort to bring people on board in advance of an announcement but typically the case is that it is brought up and sort of put on the table and kind a described in rapid fire fashion...it's more like a hit and run rather than here's an opportunity to talk about, criticize, digest what the structure will be. A number of participants were critical of the process. One administrator stated: … But again…it was in the end…how it was done. I’m not sure people were against restructuring. Once it got under way…people couldn’t understand… some people didn’t understand what was going on…all of a sudden...people thought we were doing this and then it ended up …something different.
148
Another senior level administrator offered the following: …the stated process was that everyone could have a voice in how the restructuring occurred. But again, I think a lot of what happened took place behind closed doors...very few people very often said, “Here's what we're going to do now.” Lots of feedback asked for and then… “Here's what our committees and feedback said...but here's what I decided to do.” And that “Here's what I decided to do” is the operative piece in that. And so that it was like “trust me in this…” One long serving administrator offered the following: A lot too fast…I think it's been, in my mind, the most disruptive. In the [many] years I've been here, I was in [another area]for many years…and there was a stretch…just about every year the staffing changed…but it wasn't such a drastic change and it wasn't that you didn't know what was going on. Here, right now, I think people feel like they are in sand...because they don't know what's happening next. Inclusive. Participants were asked if they believed that the restructuring process was inclusive. As in other areas, the responses were mixed. One administrator stated the process was inclusive. Others believed that aside from one leadership retreat, the process gave the impression that it was inclusive but it was not. One senior level administrator who directly benefited from restructuring stated: I’ll use one of [the Vice President's] terms that he/she is kind of famous for…that is was an “inclusive” process. That it was one that attempted to engage all stakeholders in the division. I’m not sure that was necessarily accomplished but that was the goal...We started out with really grass roots, basic education, vision, obtaining feedback, buy in and working from there. This perception was balanced by the view of another senior level administrator who stated "I’m not sure I would have done it the same way. I don’t think it was very inclusive." A third senior level administrator stated "I think it was……impression management would be a term I'd use. That it was alleged to be inclusive but I don't think
149
it was." Another senior level administrator stated "Not very inclusive. We had a retreat in the summer of 2004 where groups – it was at the director level—directors were asked to meet in groups at the retreat and talk about how they would reorganize the division if it were up to them." Participants did not identify additional steps of the process after the retreat. Formal management practices. Participants were asked if formal management practices, such at TQM, were used in the restructuring process. While terms like ‘synergy’ and ‘shaping’ were used, participants generally agreed that the restructuring did not attempt to follow a formal management practice. One participant stated the consensus "I think there were a variety of things that were taken into account, but I don’t think we followed any of those fads or trends." Use of consultants. Participants were asked if consultants were used in the restructuring process. Approximately half of those participating had no knowledge of the use of consultants. However, three participants stated that consultants were used in specific functional areas. Two participants believed that consultants were used to support the Vice President's efforts. One senior level administrator stated: …Yes there were consultants that would plan workshops to garner support for the direction we were going in and, once again, it seemed more like a ...plea and that the meetings to garner support were more about cheerleading ….what has already occurred rather than working towards fully engaging the individuals in the process.
150
Employee response. To gain a better understanding of how restructuring affected employees, participants were asked how employees responded. There was general agreement that initially, employees were supportive of restructuring. However over time, support for restructuring decreased. A common theme involved the perception that any work done prior to restructuring was not valued. One senior level administrator who played a role in restructuring stated: …I think it’s one thing to talk about, you know conceptually, where student affairs needed to be and why we needed to be there. I think people pretty much could buy into those things. I think when it came down to getting into the details of it and some of the final decisions, I think that was harder for some people than for others and I think then that caused some people to question why, although they might not have been questioning it earlier, but because it was having a direct impact on their professional experience, I think they began to question it a little bit more. Another senior administrator stated: Well…in the beginning I think there was a group, me being one of them, that felt like we were headed in a really good direction - we needed the change and people were behind [it]. There was another group that was 'wait and see…we're going just see what happens. As the restructuring effort progressed, one senior level administrator stated: While there was some agreement on to be smarter how we were doing things and what made more sense to be student-centered…I can pretty much say… that a lot of folks ended up feeling like…everything that was done prior to restructuring didn't count for anything. We weren’t doing anything before restructuring?…we weren't student-centered before? Further, this participant stated: I think a lot a of people (who were supportive originally) were now taking a step back - students included…saying ‘I'm not so sure about this.’ Again, I go back to the fact that there were good things happening here - I don't think all the good things started in the last two to three years. When people feel like they're not included and the work that they have done - many for 20-30 years - is sort of pushed aside - whether intentionally or not…and
151
you are not brought into the conversation at some level…I think that's really detrimental. Facilitate/impede. Participants were asked about what facilitated or impeded restructuring. Participants provided responses to both. Factors that facilitated restructuring included workshops or retreats. One senior level administrator noted that the division sponsors a: …development day and we have three or four of them a year, where [employees] and some of the people who are on the committee for developing the plan, strategic plan, got up and talked about it and passed it out to us and asked for feedback and input. A number of people noted that the Vice President played a critical role in facilitating restructuring. One senior level administrator stated "Well, what I think
facilitated its implementation was the sheer force of [the Vice President's] personality. His/her perseverance and determination to make it happen…and we have been restructured…which is very different than saying we have restructured." One senior level administrator believed the process was very directed, stating: "I'm not sure implementation was facilitated…I'm really not sure. Because what it was- was people were put in place. People were hired in their positions - and have to create change and told, ‘Go do it.’" Several participants identified factors that impeded restructuring. A lack of involvement, teambuilding, trust, and communication were major factors identified by participants. One senior level administrator who was fairly new to the division stated: I think the thing that has impeded the division in this context, but also generally, is, that there are just some problems with the organizational climate and there’s low level of trust, intense work demands on people throughout the organization and not enough focus on building the organization in the team.
152
One long serving administrator stated: Lack of communication. For me that was probably the single… impediment in the process. That things were sometimes being handed out on paper, in writing and email at the 12th hour without any reason to discuss it in advance or have input into that process. It was just: Here it is!…The first time they are seeing this? Yes. Another senior level administrator stated: I think that I would say when we communicated early on we communicated fully and followed up appropriately. I think the restructuring discussions implementation went fine. I think where we got screwed up or it didn’t go as well is when we didn’t get out there early on with the appropriate people, when we didn’t follow-up and I think there were some rumors that got out there they really weren’t rumors, they were actual things that we had agreed to or disagreed, but somebody said something to somebody… One senior level administrator perceived that restructuring had created change which had been fairly constant. This senior level administrator objected to the approach used stating "I feel like people were saying – ‘here we go again’...you know...you want us to be part of this…you're telling me how to do it...I'm not a graduate student anymore…So people fight that…they'll do it because they want to keep their jobs." Summary of the processes employed. The processes employed to restructure the division did not utilize any formal management practice. There was very little knowledge or awareness about the strategic planning process or a strategic plan. The Vice President initiated a series of meetings with various offices and personnel shortly after his/her arrival. At a divisional leadership retreat, participants were asked for input on ways to reorganize the division. Following this retreat, the general impression of the participants was that a small group of individuals worked on and coordinated the restructuring effort, which was announced
153
by the Vice President. This approach did not engender support for the restructuring effort, or the Vice President, since it was very different from the inclusive approach used by the previous Vice President. In responding to questions about process, the participants outlined two overarching themes restructuring was taking place as a result of the sheer will of the Vice President's personality; and there was a lack of inclusiveness of a broader group in planning and implementing the change. One administrator described the process as a "hit and run rather than here's an opportunity to talk about, criticize, digest what the structure will be." This lack of communication had a negative affect on the organizational climate. The inability to provide input contrasted with the approach used by the previous Vice President and resulted in a general lack of support by a number of those interviewed. The respondents seemed to support the initial effort to restructure but the effort lost support as the process continued. When asked about the process, the participants offered mixed reviews and there was an impression that restructuring at Northern was the Vice President's plan, not the division's plan. Overall, the comments were slightly skewed toward negative. As noted by one participant: "You just don't snap your fingers and there it is…It's not going to win…Even if it is the best plan in the world…." What Were the Results of Restructuring? To gauge the overall success of the restructuring effort, participants were asked about the effectiveness in achieving the stated goals, performance, staffing, employee turnover, employee morale, changes in business, evidence of restructuring, assessment of restructuring results, unintended outcomes.
154
One senior level administrator noted that the restructuring effort was actually returning the division to a structure that had previously existed. The senior level administrator stated: “…when it’s all done it doesn’t look any different than it did two Vice President’s ago.” The same senior level administrator shared that they had accidentally run into a former senior administrator who had retired a number of years ago. The retired senior administrator purportedly made the following comment about the restructuring effort: “I heard that this is happening and this is happening and this is happening. Further, this person stated “When I was here – that’s what we tried so hard to get rid of because it doesn’t work.” Effectiveness in achieving stated goals. To gauge the overall success of restructuring, participants were asked about effectiveness in achieving goals. Nearly three-quarters of those interviewed believed that it was too soon to determine the effectiveness of restructuring. At least two believed that restructuring was not working. One senior level administrator stated "Well, I think the jury is still out on this…in some of the areas…like the [functional area] effort - we've done a very good job to move in a direction we wanted to achieve." Further, this participant stated: I think it's still too new soon for me to tell by creating these two new cognitive areas, one for purposeful programming, one for engagement, whether or not we've yet achieved those. Outside the things in [functional area], I'm not sure I can point to anything…" Another senior level administrator stated: "I would say it’s a work in progress or a work in process; I would say that it’s not complete so I would say there is still more work to be done…"
155
Several participants believed that restructuring did not improve performance. One senior level administrator shared that his functional cluster hadn't even met yet. Further this administrator stated: No - I don't think it's working. Well, again, if it is...I'm not sure we would have heard of it. I think…the clusters aren't really [working]…what was stated as the process…[We were told] the clusters are going to go, they are going to do their thing, they are going to develop the vision. They are going to come back and the three clusters are all going to connect...with each other to enhance each others' cluster. [we were told]…all of that communication is going to heightened …..it hasn't. So I'm not sure...I know my cluster [hasn't met]. I not sure about the others. Another senior level administrator stated "No not at all. I think we are in a transition time right now. It may be that we come out of it, being able to do things that are more effective, perhaps a better way. But I’m not optimistic about that. I think we’ve spent lots of time moving pieces around on a chessboard…" One senior administrator offered what might be considered an unintended outcome. When asked about the effectiveness of restructuring this participant stated: Somewhat. I think one of the goals was to bring people out of their silos and I think a lot of the directors have better relationships now than they did [before] because they were like banding together …against the new regime, which I don’t think is exactly how its was intended. But in terms of working together, no, I don’t think they are actually working together any better or collaborating. Improve performance. Restructuring often involves efforts to improve performance. Participants were asked if restructuring improved performance. As with other areas of inquiry, the responses were mixed. There was some agreement that the division had improved in engaging students, however, many believed that it was too early to tell if performance had improved. One senior level administrator stated: "Yes, we’re definitely engaging
156
students a lot more; we’re able to reach more students and just provide better service to them as a whole division." Another senior level administrator stated: "Well, it depends upon what you’re measuring. I think in terms of our responsiveness, our engagement with students, I think we’ve improved tremendously." Others thought that performance had not improved or had declined. One senior level administrator stated: “No, I think our performance was between adequate and good and I think it’s about the same." One senior level administrator thought that performance had decreased, stating: "I think it's gotten worse…… I'll tell you what I think is the worst part…we're not talking…we're really not talking about issues." Affect staffing. To better understand how restructuring affected staffing, participants were asked questions in this area. There was general agreement that the number of professionals increased. One senior level administrator stated: "I think we’ve added many professionals. We’ve had at least one that was moved around a little bit and then we added probably eight to ten professionals I would think." Another senior level administrator stated: "Yes, some people are in different jobs, we have some different kinds of positions, clustered differently in terms of who reports with whom, to whom. So yeah, it did impact the staffing, plus there are a few more people" One participant helped paint a very comprehensive overview of the structural changes made at Northern. These changes and the numerical designations for various positions can be found in Appendix A. When the current Vice President arrived at Northern in 2003, there were three Assistant Vice Presidents. Assistant Vice President
157
#1 supervised two areas, Assistant Vice President #2 supervised seven areas, and Assistant Vice President #3 supervised four areas. The Vice President met with various offices in 2003 and 2004 and held a divisional retreat in 2004. In 2004, Assistant Vice President #2 moved to an academic post and a director from within the division was promoted to the position of interim Assistant Vice President. In 2004-05, the Vice-President initiated a search for an Associate Vice President and an Assistant Vice President. Assistant Vice President #3 is relocated to an office away from the Vice President and is promoted to Associate Vice President (#1). A new Associate Vice President (#2) is hired from outside the division and given responsibility for five functional areas, including a new institute focused on student engagement. Four areas were transferred to Associate Vice President #1 and two were transferred away. A new Assistant Vice President (#4) was hired from outside the organization and given responsibility for three areas, one of which was new. In 2006, Associate Vice President (#2) picked up two additional areas of responsibility and oversees the cluster focused on community building and student engagement. Associate Vice President #1 oversees the cluster focusing on purposeful education and the co-curriculum. During this time, Associate Vice President #1 also picks up one additional functional area and loses two areas to Assistant Vice President #4. One senior level administrator pointed out that restructuring affected staffing in more ways than employee headcount. This participant stated "It certainly affected staffing patterns and may have affected morale and performance. I mean I think from
158
one week to the next, we don’t know who’s in charge, even when you draw the reporting lines." Lose job/reassigned. To gain a better understanding how restructuring affected the division, participants were asked if anyone had lost their job or had been reassigned. There was general agreement that people were reassigned but that no one lost their job. One senior level administrator stated "Yes, throughout the whole course of the restructuring there were some folks who received other opportunities within Northern to remain here doing different type of things. No one actually lost their job but there were other opportunities created…" This view was supported by another senior level administrator who stated "I don’t know if anyone lost their job, but people were reassigned, given different duties, yep." Employee turnover. Participants were asked if restructuring affected employee turnover. There was general agreement that restructuring had not affected employee turnover. A number of people noted that they knew of people, at the director level and higher, who were searching for employment. There was some agreement that a majority of people were unaffected by restructuring. One senior level administrator stated "I don’t think it has actually. I think the majority of our employees are actually unaffected by this. I think it’s really just the top layer that’s affected." Another stated "I think it will; I don’t know that it has totally yet, but I think that there’s more to come." Three participants noted that one outcome of restructuring was that people were searching for jobs that normally wouldn’t be looking. One senior level administrator
159
stated: "I will say that I know that there are lots of people searching for jobs that would not be leaving if things were different." Another stated: "Yes I do…folks who have been here less than ten years…they are looking at other opportunities….Which is different than it had been here at [Northern]…it's not uncommon to find staff who intend to be here two-three-four years - making it a career. I don't think that's as prevalent now." Affect employee morale. When asked if restructuring affected employee morale, participants agreed that morale, especially at the director level and above, was negatively affected. One senior level administrator stated: "It certainly affected staffing patterns and may have affected morale and performance. More morale than performance because I think people are committed to meet the needs of students in spite of the difficulties that are taking place in front of them..." Also: "I watched them staring at that [divisional overview] and [they were] underlining things – with the job descriptions on the back. I watched them circling blocks …and I watched them be really puzzled." Another stated: "Yes…it is one of the variables and its part of the dynamic of the organization, so it’s contributed to morale certainly and most recently I don’t think in a positive way." Another senior level administrator stated: I mentioned earlier that I do think morale is a concern here. I think one of the ways that the reorganization has made a hit on morale is I’ve heard comments and been part of conversations where part of what is discussed or suggested is that the reorganization reinforces this notion that the plan is to have out with the old and in with the new. So one of the impressions that some of the staff hold is that [the Vice President’s] plan over time is to move along old [Northern] staff who predated him/her here and bring in his/her own people. The perception that morale was negatively affected was supported by another senior level administrator who stated: “I do think that some aspects of the reorganization
160
have negatively affected the morale…of the division." Another stated: “It’s probably the lowest in student affairs that I’ve seen it." While a majority of participants acknowledged that morale was negatively affected, less than a quarter of those interviewed stated that morale had been affected early on but that things were improving. When asked if restructuring had affected morale, one senior level administrator stated "Yes, maybe not so positive at first, but I think everyone’s very excited now." Another senior level administrator stated "I think some people were very excited as I said, I think there were some people who were scared, I think there were people who were frustrated both in terms of what was going on but also the process, how they were being communicated with, etc." Changes in business. Participants were asked if restructuring changed the way the division goes about its business. The responses from participants were mixed. One senior level administrator stated "Yeah, I think so. I think all of us have had to raise our performance, I think we’ve all had to find ways to reach out to students in a much more intentional way.” Further, this participant stated “Yeah, I think we’re much more out there, we’re much more present; we’re much more focused on students and their experiences here." This perception was supported by another senior level administrator who stated: “Yes, particularly when it comes to financial considerations. But also I think primarily in the way that we deliver services to our students….. I would say on the sort of delivery side but also on the internal financial side as well. It’s increased the budget in some areas but decreased the budget in others."
161
A senior level administrator believed that the division did not change the way it goes about its business, stating Not really and to use more of a broader context to the question it’s not as though the restructuring has meant a part of the student affairs division moving to another area or something coming in. It’s a recasting of what was already here, so pieces have been moved around the board so I think that we will still being doing business in much of the same way. Another senior level administrator offered a different view, stating: Well, there’s a different money process in terms of student activities monies and how those monies are being used and not used. There’s a different way in terms of give backs and how salary savings and those kinds of things are used. So I think it’s changed that function. I guess that’s it. We talked about other changes along the way, who reports to whom, so the communication process has changed, I think there’s a desire to have people meet around topics of mutual interest in some different kinds ways than in the past, and I think that’s a good thing – like this healthy campus notion thing – its not just the [functional area] services thing, it’s a wider, broader group of people meeting and talking about those issues, yeah, so there were changes as a result of it. Evidence of the effects of restructuring. Restructuring may lead to changes in structure or function. Participants were asked about evidence that shows the effects of restructuring. Participants identified a number of structural changes including the creation of new offices. What was somewhat disconcerting was a lack of reference to any data identified as evidence. One senior administrator noted that new reporting structures were evidence of restructuring, stating "Yes. As I said moving from a more lateral organizational structure to a more vertical [one]…” Changes in structure were also outlined by another senior level administrator who stated: Again, not in the current circumstances; now, two of the offices that [the Vice President] has created and found resources to fund - the [functional
162
group] within [functional area] and [functional] area, and the center for [functional area] which have received ramped up resources in the last year. A third senior level administrator noted that an important student group has been recast, noting "The new student [group]; although it’s not in place yet, they’re working on it right now, the constitution’s in progress...We’re going to implement this new student [functional area]." Other senior level administrators pointed out that the activity level on the campus had increased. One stated "A lot more programs out there…a lot more efforts to get with students…More student leadership activity...” Another stated "More students involved in safe activities; yeah, definitely more student involvement, reduced numbers of citations or alcohol incidents." In summing up a positive outcome of restructuring, a fourth senor level administrator stated “…I don't think there's [any] question that there have been some things that have changed and I think changed for the better.” Not everyone, however, believed that the evidence of restructuring was positive. When asked about evidence of restructuring one senior level administrator stated “Well, I think a demoralized student affairs group…confusion. I hope there will some positive evidence in the next little while. But I’m not so sure I believe that it will." Assessment of the restructuring results. Participants were asked if there was an effort to analyze the results of restructuring. Generally, participants thought restructuring was being analyzed yet no one could confirm that to be the case. One senior level administrator stated "I would say yes, because with our research and assessment unit, you are looking at student satisfaction surveys, you’re looking at all of the assessment that we do so I think that is
163
definitely going to reflect upon how we’re doing and what we’re doing." Another stated "I’m sure that there are some measures that we’re using, we have a pretty long history of assessment efforts within student affairs at [Northern]…” However, over half of those who responded did not think any analysis was taking place. One stated "I’ve been here for [a time frame] and I’ve not been part of a conversation where we have discussed in any detail what the plan was intended to do and how well we’ve matched up against those intended outcomes. I’m not aware of any assessment on that." Another stated “...in terms of evaluation or assessment…not that I'm recalling anyway." Unintended outcomes. Participants were asked if they could identify any unintended outcomes from restructuring. There was general agreement that one of the unintended outcomes was lower morale. One participant stated a “negative impact on morale is an unintended outcome." Another referencing less communication and dialogue added “Less productivity...less collective thinking, less critical thinking, less growth as professionals." Another stated "Well, I think one of the unintended efforts was this sort of divisive dynamic at the director level." One senior level administrator agreed that morale had been negatively affected stating “…one of the unintended outcomes I think is some very good staff becoming demoralized and discouraged and wondering about their place at the university.” This participant also stated:
One of the other unintended outcomes is I think some of the staff no longer trust [the Vice President], they feel like that he/she doesn’t deal straight with them, that he/she invites their feedback on what [Northern] should look like but that’s a process only on the surface and then he/she makes the decisions that he/she was planning to all along.
164
Overall, restructuring at Northern was perceived very differently by those interviewed. There seemed to be two divided camps at Northern; one supportive of restructuring, the other not. Generally, those supporting restructuring are either newer employees or were involved in the restructuring effort. Generally, those not supportive of restructuring had been at the institution longer. Participants who were not supportive of restructuring expressed a sense of being closed out of the process, of not being valued, and a sense of not knowing what was coming next. They were critical of restructuring and found fault with the process. An informal communication network seemed to have developed to share the latest information and keep each other up to date about the activities of the Vice President and the two external hires. Participants pointed to decreased morale and a lack of trust. As evidence of the working environment, one participant noted that the student leaders on campus had set-up a website that was critical of the Vice President. Those who were supportive of restructuring believe the Vice President is moving the division toward being more engaging and more student-centered. Participants in this group thought that restructuring was re-aligning priorities for the division and addressing issues related to under-performing personnel. Summary of the results of restructuring. The results of restructuring can be summed up by the hiring of an Associate Vice President, an Assistant Vice President, the creation of two new centers and multiple changes in reporting lines. Overall, there was general agreement that it was too soon to tell if restructuring achieved the goals of becoming more student-centered or enhanced student engagement.
165
An unintended outcome was a strengthening of informal communication against what was described by one person as the "new regime." A "we" versus "them" mentality was evident and there was general agreement that employee morale was negatively affected. Generally, those interviewed did not trust the Vice President and some participants seemed to focus on their jobs, resigned to fact that their input was neither requested nor welcome. While structures and reporting lines were changed there was no data to indicate if the effort achieved the stated goals. As noted earlier, participants noted that it is too early to tell if restructuring was successful. Southern University Southern University is a large public research university with approximately 900 employees in the student affairs division. After the retirement of a long serving Vice President, the president hired a new vice president who expressed an interest in moving the division forward by enhancing services to students while increasing efficiency and effectiveness. To protect anonymity, more detailed information on the institution is not provided. To support this research study, the Vice President at Southern nominated 26 individuals to participate. Of those nominated, 11 were interviewed. The snowball technique identified four additional individuals who were also interviewed. Interviews ranged from about 40 minutes to a little over an hour and took place in a meeting room adjacent to a busy public area in the student union. At Southern, the average length of service of those interviewed was nearly ten years. The length of service for those interviewed was also somewhat bi-modal; the length of service for respondents was either relatively short (three years or less) or
166
relatively long (13 years or more). The shortest record of service was one year; the longest over 20 years. Seven of the respondents were female, seven were male. The titles for those interviewed ranged from manager to Vice President with a majority in titles that were director level and above. An effort was made to interview the Vice President first to allow the researcher to obtain the perspective of the Vice President prior to interviewing other participants. At Southern, the Vice President was interviewed prior to other interviews The restructuring process was described in fairly uniform terms by those interviewed. Driven to some degree by the division’s strategic planning effort, a number of people were supportive in the initial phases of restructuring noting that it was difficult to argue against efforts to provide better student services. Others agreed that there was some overlap in the services provided and that restructuring was a way to eliminate duplication. One person provided a number of questions to help outline the discussion regarding restructuring, stating "A lot of it is what provides the best service for students at the institution. Are we set up in a way to take advantage of our staff, to take advantage of the resources in order to provide the services for the students based on what it is that they currently need?" What Was the Impetus for Restructuring? There was considerable agreement that restructuring at Southern was started by the Vice President. The Vice President came to Southern in another capacity and was elevated to the current position. A number of people noted that the previous Vice President had started a restructuring effort that slowed down or stopped when he/she
167
abruptly left. The current Vice President who has served at Southern for about six years, three as Vice President, sought to enhance student services and reduce duplication. To gain a better understanding of the rationale used to initiate restructuring, participants were asked a series of questions including: who initiated restructuring, were financial issues a factor, was it an attempt to remove bottlenecks, were personnel issues a factor, and were the concerns within the division that the pressures to restructure might not be completely legitimate? There was general agreement that, especially after a long serving Vice President, change was needed. The rationale offered by several participants ranged from the need for change, the need to reduce duplication, the need to improve student services, the need for accountability, efficiency, and growth. One participant noted "A lot of it had to do with just the fact that [a previous Vice President] had been here for so long and had always done business in such a way and that the institution was changing. It was time to take a fresh view." Another participant noted "We need to do it different, we need to do it better, we need to be more accountable for the way we’re spending the money…our stewardship of the money and the resources." According to one participant, the institution had grown into a large public research university in a short period of time. This participant noted: I believe a lot of it is from the quick growth of the university. With the university operating for a long time on the idea of-not the idea-but on the fact that it was a small school, so there were certain factors-you know you had your own formal connections within the university-it was easy enough to make the contacts. Once the student body grew exponentially in a very short amount of time those kinds of pieces I think started to crumble because the numbers were too large.
168
Restructuring at Southern had involved the consolidation of several separate offices into one larger office. One senior level participant involved in this consolidation noted "It’s more efficient to combine those, use the same number of staff to do the core services and give you more staff to do the expansion..." Another senior level administrator stated “…I think it was just getting to that point where some things that were going on that it was kind of a necessary move to clarify everyone’s role and different departments, just reorganize the way that was set up.” One senior level administrator noted that the Vice President was trying to create a new vision stating “[The Vice President] has, through the strategic planning committee, tried to create a new vision for the division." One senior level administrator believed that restructuring was an effort that allowed the division to "demonstrate our worth in an era of shrinking resources." What was a bit unusual is that nearly everyone interviewed viewed restructuring as "positive." Major issues. When asked about major issues facing the division, respondents stated that the inefficient use of resources, duplication, outdated services, a lack of a budget office, and resistance to change were concerns. Inefficient use of resources/duplication. There was considerable agreement that the division needed to utilize resources more efficiently. Three participants noted that duplication of services was an issue at Southern. One participant stated that the goals of restructuring were "…to reorganize the division to achieve greater efficiencies, to better meet the students needs, to create enhanced services as well as …I don’t want to say cut – but address the duplication of
169
services…" This perception was supported by another participant who stated "I think resources being, resources that were historically placed in an operation that were not being effectively utilized. I think that was the major problem." Another stated a major challenge was "…to reorganize the division to achieve greater efficiencies." participant stated: In some cases, inefficiencies of offices or duplication of office efforts where you had two or three offices doing similar things; in other cases, well, that’s probably the main and then realigning the departments or the divisions resources so we’re kind of restructuring so we’re offering services in a more efficient and productive way to our constituents. Outdated services. At least three participants pointed to the counseling center as an area of concern. This focused on the lack of comprehensive services provided by this office. One participant stated: "That’s an area that came out of an era - it's like a [functional area] museum - there are some really good people but they just don't look like a college counseling center. We are a college counseling center without any skilled [role] specialists?" Resistance to change. Several respondents noted that the division had a long serving Vice President who had retired approximately five years prior. There was some acknowledgement that the division had become less responsive to change and more accustomed to going about its business in practiced and familiar ways. One respondent who had recently taken a position at Southern believed the organization was not used to change. This person stated: Another
170
I also think that the news that [Southern] has been entrenched in the way of doing things for a long time and I think that what the current Vice President who came in and took a fresh look at things and really started to make some systemic changes, so I think that the major issue was that history had taken over or the way of doing things was there and set and looking at current trends and ways of reorganizing that hadn’t happened in a long time-not in an effective way. Adequate financial resources. As noted earlier, fiscal constraint has been a factor in restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions (Carlson, 2003). In an effort to determine whether fiscal constraint played a role in the restructuring effort at Southern, respondents were asked to describe the financial situation prior to restructuring. Participants stated that finances were an issue but not a major factor. One senior level administrator stated finances were an issue “To some degree within the division itself not as an overwhelming thing." Another stated “…a lot of money gets wasted or a lot of potential revenue doesn't get captured because you don't have the infrastructure in place and I think that’s what drives a lot of restructuring, is just the waste.” Lack of a budget office. One senior administrator stated finances had improved after restructuring because the Vice President assigned that responsibility to a specific person. This person stated: …[The Vice President] created an office for budgeting with an individual that was responsible for that. Before…we always had a financial budgeting piece, but it just was more a global, …not specific to the department but more of a division perspective. Remove bottlenecks. One of the follow-up probes focused on possible "bottlenecks" within the organization. Only two participants referenced bottlenecks at Southern. One senior level
171
administrator stated “There were certainly some people who seemed to be walking bottlenecks and many of those people have departed…” Another stated: Sure. I think in the past this is a very different institution than when I came to work here. Back in the day there were very few collaborations with academic affairs. Collaboration just was talked about but didn’t really occur. It is just a totally different atmosphere. Personnel issues. A majority of those interviewed agreed that personnel issues were a factor in the restructuring effort. Vacant positions played a role in addressing personnel issues. One participant stated "There were people [here] who were…resistant to change. Higher education is an area where it is most resistant…There were many people who were very territorial about the work that they do in student affairs." This sentiment was supported by two senior level administrators who stated "Absolutely. Its probably, I know it’s the number one factor. It takes up a lot of our time." The second administrator simply stated: "Oh yes, in my opinion." One senior administrator noted that vacant positions played a role in restructuring stating: Originally, when [the Vice President] came there were three [positions] and the two other positions were vacant. So he/she was trying to determine what to do with those other positions. Whether to get two more [positions] or move into specialization. Down the road there were changes in personnel in [one functional area]; that person left. That position was associate dean; that position was changed to director. Another senior level administrator stated: To some extent yes. There was a person who was leading the [functional area] group in the largest department and he/she was not doing a real good job and didn’t get along with folks…….they arranged for an early retirement for him/her – kind of a buy out…That’s been the roughest personnel issue to deal with as part of this.
172
Pressures to restructure not legitimate. To better understand the dynamics in the restructuring effort, participants were asked if the pressures to restructure were completely legitimate. This question generated considerable discussion. Generally those interviewed believed that the pressure to restructure was legitimate. A couple of participants suggested that others in the division who were more affected might have felt differently. One senior level administrator stated "Not that I’ve been aware of. My impression all along is that people have felt the changes that are going to happen are a necessary component of the restructuring." Another stated "No, it was extreme credibility." A third participant stated "Personally, I don’t feel that way; but I am sure there are folks…This is not a place that embraces change." Presenting a different view, one senior level administrator stated "My response is that a good deal of time people are playing musical chairs. I don’t know what was or was not legitimate." Another stated: Some of the people who were affected by the restructuring, absolutely. I think that the majority of people in the division did think that the changes were long overdue, but I think there are some individuals, and again, particularly those whose departments were out of touch; they felt that it was not necessary – didn’t need to happen. Summary of the impetus to restructure. The impetus for restructuring at Southern was an effort to reduce duplication and enhance student services. The effective use of resources, in an increasingly competitive environment, was seen as an issue. A number of offices within the division provided the same or similar services. Restructuring allowed the division to centralize this one service and provide greater assistance to employees and students. In addition, restructuring was focused on improving services in general and addressing the student service needs in a
173
particular office. Generally, personnel issues were not believed to be a factor in initiating restructuring. Since restructuring more directly affected this newly centralized functional area, personnel issues resulted. Overall, participants believed that the rationale to restructure was legitimate and that efforts to initiate change were long overdue. What Were the Goals of Restructuring? Restructuring often involves establishing goals and guiding people towards reaching those goals. Participants were asked about the goals of restructuring, whether the staff understood the goals, whether restructuring was an effort to work around employees, and if it was an effort to give a higher priority to an emerging concern like student learning. Overall, there was some general agreement that improving student services was a primary goal. Participants stated that several offices provided similar services and restructuring was viewed as a way to clarify roles and functions. Another view focused on the effective utilization of resources in providing services to the current student population. One senior level participant stated: I think the goals were to create better services for students; our ultimate goal to be responsive students; to be responsive to the university; to understand our role in supporting the academic mission of the institution. To be a more responsive division. To provide what services students need more. And what services our university administration and faculty need. But students certainly first. A second senior level administrator stated: I think that one of the main goals…was - there was just a lot of areas on campus that seemed to be providing the same services for students and it was - everyone’s role just felt very unclear, I mean I’m honestly just focusing on this one particular office at the moment, but it just kind of, all of a sudden it was like why is that office there and what are they doing and how is that different from what this other office is doing, so I think it was to clarify everyone’s roles as well as eliminate that duplication of services, so that students had one place to go rather than scattered all over.
174
Another senior level administrator stated: …I’m going to go again with the better utilization of resources, becoming more in touch with the times or contemporary in terms of addressing the needs of students as they present today, not as they presented 15 or 20 years ago, and to get more bang for a buck, I mean to just really to do better with what we have. One senior level administrator stated "Ultimately, I think it is to better serve the students, to be a state-of-the-art, forefront in the field, university, a flagship university and to be an example that others would want to follow in our footsteps." Written goals. The goals of the restructuring were outlined by the participants. Most of the participants were mid-level managers or senior level administrators who were very aware of the goals of restructuring. When asked about written goals, many participants noted that the goals were printed out and had a copy on their desk or had a standup display that listed the goals. One senior level administrator stated “There are foam boards that we all have in our offices with our motto, one division, multiple services, students first.” When asked about the location of written goals another senior level administrator stated “On my desk, on most department heads desks, I distributed them to my staff.” Staff understood. Senior level managers, especially those involved in a restructuring effort may be aware of the goals of restructuring. Other administrators may be aware of the goals through discussions with other managers. Consequently, participants were asked if the staff understood the goals of restructuring. Generally, participants believed that the staff understood the goals of restructuring, even if they did not like the outcome.
175
One senior level administrator noted that staff in areas that were affected by restructuring were probably more aware of restructuring than areas that were unaffected. Another senior level administrator stated "I think overall the majority of the staff understood it, but there was definitely a lot of staff members that were upset by it and made that very clear and were very vocal about it …but I think overall people definitely felt that [restructuring] was the way to go." When asked if the staff understood the goals of restructuring, one participant noted: "It’s hard to say. The Division’s doing a lot better job in communicating things like this now - I would probably say no and I’m not quite sure why.” This participant wasn’t sure if the staff understood the goals of restructuring stating: In some cases it’s not for lack of the division trying to get word out there, but sometimes with all the noise out there – I can qualify that statement by saying that I think all the staff in the departments that were affected …were a little bit more in tune with what was happening or why, but the division as a whole I’m not quite sure. Improve communication/coordination. Restructuring can be used to improve communication and coordination in the division. Participants were asked if this was a goal of the restructuring effort. Generally, improving communication was perceived to be a goal of restructuring. One senior level administrator stated "Absolutely and still is." One senior level administrator stated communication was a focal point in restructuring. Noting that communication was one of the five critical elements that came out of the planning process, this participant stated: "Yes…[the Vice President] made the point to put our motto all over everything and again we have our critical elements…at least five areas that we are always focusing on assessment, collaboration, technology, diversity and communication."
176
One senior level administrator identified one functional area as central to efforts to improve communication. When asked about efforts to improve communication and coordination, this participant pointed to the information technology area stating "Yeah, that would be the case, because I think they see information technology as a tool for improving communication in the division, between departments and the whole idea of sharing services reeks of coordination." Improve responsiveness. In an effort to further describe the goals of the restructuring process, participants were asked if a goal might have been to improve the responsiveness of the division. There was general agreement that improving responsiveness was a goal of restructuring. One senior level administrator stated "I think…our ultimate goal to be responsive to students; to be responsive to the university…To be a more responsive division." Another participant supported this view stating "Yes, definitely, I think that’s a good way to put it." Centralize, decentralize, restructure authority. In an effort to better understand restructuring, participants were asked if the effort was an attempt to centralize, decentralize or restructure authority within the division. Participants offered mixed responses to this question. In one functional area, there was a clear effort to centralize. There was also an effort to decentralize in the division by placing more responsibility and accountability at the departmental level. One participant stated "In some instances it was both – that’s a hard question to answer. In that process there was some decentralization as being empowered or services being put closer to the
177
customer base, whereas, such as [functional area] it was to centralize." Another senior level administrator stated: The way [the Vice President] has described it I would say it is working that way. To keep the authority within the departments. And Central office is really available as [the Vice President] describes as the pit crew. The place where you can go to get what you need in order to get the job done. There have been lots of things that have become so much easier. Work around employees. Restructuring has been used to work around individuals who are difficult to work with or do not fully support the current management approach. Participants were asked if an implicit or explicit goal was to work around employees who were thought to be impeding the progress of the division. The responses to this question were fairly consistent. Most of the respondents believed that restructuring was not an effort to work around employees. One senior level administrator stated "No. I think the motives were and have been very good. There may have been people along the way who were unhappy; but I don’t think it was necessarily a malicious attempt." Another senior level administrator stated: You know, I’d have to say no because I think that the goal of the restructuring was to stop that working around the process. I think that has and I mean certainly that still has to go on in some pockets, but the goal was to decide where are those pockets that we’ve been trying to work around, let’s blast them out of there, let’s make the channels of communication, the channels of operation, let’s try to get as close to ideal as we can, so I’d say that the goal was to try to eliminate that kind of operating. One senior level administrator stated: I don’t know if I’d say work around them. I think it was more of a goal [of] getting people on board, that if they were impeding it, to try to get them to see the viewpoint, the task, the direction that we were all headed in and
178
wanting them to join with us. I think underlying that is always the case of if somebody just cannot align themselves with that vision then maybe they should question whether or not they should be here. But I think the goal was to try and bring everybody on board... One senior level administrator succinctly stated "I mean those things usually stick out like a sore thumb - no." Reduce costs. Participants were asked if one of the goals of restructuring was to reduce costs. There was relative agreement that reducing costs was not a factor in restructuring. A number of participants stated that costs have gone up as a result of restructuring. One senior level administrator commented on one functional area stating "No, cost has gone up because now they really have the big picture view of what it costs, of what we need…" to be effective. Higher priority to emerging concerns. Restructuring can be used to give a higher priority to emerging concerns. Generally, participants agreed that one of the goals of restructuring was to provide better services to students. Service seemed to be an overarching focus. As one participant stated "…one of the primary goals…in student affairs is to make things manageable or environmentally conducive to students’ learning ability. Whether you are talking about food, cleanliness or whatever. The primary goal is always to make the learning environment workable for students." Another participant stated “I can definitely say yes one of the goals was to meet, better meet, unequivocally saying better meet student needs. I don’t believe, at least from my perspective that what the needs were defined as, they were more in general terms.”
179
One senior level participant believed that one of the emerging concerns was to incorporate assessment efforts in fulfilling the University’s mission. This participant stated "Definitely, yes. Assessment, to work harder…incorporating assessment into what we do so that we’re connecting with University mission and so definitely student learning would be a part of that." Only one participant thought that restructuring was not used to give higher priority to emerging concerns, stating "Not that I’m aware of, not explicitly." Summary of the goals of restructuring. The overall goals of restructuring were to improve student services and more effectively utilize resources. Improving communication and responsiveness were goals that might best be described and secondary. These goals were regularly communicated and the staff generally understood the goals of restructuring. Restructuring was not viewed as an effort to work around employees but to get more employees to "get on board." Reducing costs was not a goal of restructuring; in fact, costs went up as a result of restructuring. When asked about emerging concerns such as student learning, the participants at Southern seemed to focus on improving service and meeting the needs of students. The divisional goals even refer to service. Participants did not use the term "student learning" nor the similar term "student development." At Southern, the higher priority was student service. What Processes Were Used to Restructure? To better understand the processes used to restructure, participants were asked a series of questions involving communication, inclusiveness, processes, strategies, and
180
procedures. Participants were also asked about formal management concepts, whether consultants were used and how employees responded to restructuring. A number of people referenced the restructuring process initiated by the previous Vice President, which focused on a common agenda. These references, while distant, were neutral at best. The current restructuring process, implemented by the current Vice President, was described in fairly positive terms. One senior level administrator stated: I think the process has been very good particularly - currently this year… and because we have a division-wide management group that meets every two weeks and we just came off of a retreat, a lot of communication is shared at these meetings and issues aren’t necessarily discussed but they are laid out - this is what we’re doing today and then we may discuss that or then maybe a plan that is - we’re given a plan and there’s always opportunities to ask questions about what may be going on… Another senior level administrator stated: Yes, there was a structure, timelines were given and ample room for discussion and adjustment to various movements within personnel being moved or to major programs moving around-opportunities for that, and a lot of the stuff that happens too because the timing in the division’s been lengthy, you can foresee it and so when it comes there’s no surprises there. The Vice President was viewed as a good listener with good ideas and also seen as an effective leader who puts ideas into motion instead of talking about things and putting them on a shelf. One aspect of the process that was well received by employees was the deliberative process used by the Vice President. In providing an overview, one senior level administrator stated:
…there was a lot of information gathering, either with one on ones, there was information gathering via administrators - they’d meet on an advisory board so there was an advisory board that consisted in a way of community, faculty, students, etc. I think that combined with our own Division of Student Affairs department heads - all of that was the basic provider of the feedback that created the entity of the plan of what the restructuring would look like.
181
A more comprehensive overview of the planning process was found in documents related to the strategic planning process. The current Vice President at Southern named a 17 member Student Affairs Strategic Planning Task Force in November 2004. The charge to this Task Force included three key items: to develop a new mission/vision for the division which will guide the division/department’s goals and standards for guidance and the evaluation process; to engage departments and constituents in the discussion and process; and to focus on the process as well as each step in the process. The co-chairs of the taskforce noted that “Trust amongst committee members is as important as content.” The Task Force has been extremely active, scheduling retreats and meetings that total over 20 times a year over the past two years. The Task Force brought in facilitators that helped members deal on how to work in a changing environment, how to work collaboratively, how to identify core beliefs and core values, and how to manage change. The co-chairs of the Task Force focused on interpersonal skills and motivation, managing cultures, getting buy-in, timing, and measuring success. In addition, the Task Force focused on keeping staff informed, selling ideas along the way, and working to create enthusiasm, and excitement to minimize cynicism. The Task Force outlined a multi-stage process that included information gathering, identifying key issues, values and priorities, developing committee charges, plan rollout and action items. Listserv’s and newsletters were created and information was solicited from division staff. Receptions were held to thank people for their service on the taskforce. While the Vice President initiated the Strategic Planning process and occasionally made presentations to the Task Force, the group had considerable latitude to address issues they saw fit. The Task Force identified key areas for improvement and shared
182
their findings with the Vice President. The Vice President determined the appropriate course of action. Open communication. Communication is a critical component of organizational change. Participants were asked if they thought the communication process was open. As with responses to other questions, the responses to this question were fairly positive. The Vice President is known for having an open door policy and participants felt comfortable approaching the Vice President if they had a question, concern, or comment. Some participants noted that while they thought the process was fairly open, some decisions regarding restructuring had already been made. One senior level participant stated: I think it was inclusive to an extent in a sense that everyone was able to voice their opinion but honestly I think it was a done deal and no one was really going to have a say in that either way. But definitely the department heads were able to voice their opinions to the restructuring and their thoughts on it but I don’t necessarily think that would have had an impact on it either way. Another senior level participant stated: I would say that it was somewhere in the middle, if I’m going on a continuum of completely closed to completely open I’d probably give a “six” saying that its on a scale of going toward open -- that’s really hard because I guess I’m just struggling with the fact that there’s a grand plan but you just can’t tell everybody everything that you need to do to get there and so I’d say that it was somewhat inclusive, because definitely feedback was sought from different places in the division. One senior level administrator thought "The division’s doing a lot better job in communicating things like this now…" Although staff may not understand the goals of restructuring, this participant stated: In some cases it’s not for lack of the division trying to get word out there, but sometimes with all the noise out there – I can qualify that statement by
183
saying that I think all the staff in the departments that were affected were I think were a little bit more in tune with what was happening or why, but the division as a whole I’m not quite sure. One participant stated that perceptions about openness depended on how restructuring affected people. This participant stated: “Well, the winners did, but not everybody came out ahead.” Inclusive process. Participants were asked if they believed that the restructuring process was inclusive. As in other areas, the responses were fairly positive. Participants stated that they were included in the discussions and that they were able to offer feedback. One senior level administrator stated: …for example, departments that were going to be the most affected, their directors were asked and called in – this is what we need to do to be more responsive to the campus community, this is what we need to do to perhaps to kind of ramp up the services that we are doing and some folks got on board and were able to see those changes coming and they needed to be a part of it, so I guess I would have to say that attempts were made to be very, very inclusive and then if that didn’t work it was “okay we’re going ahead—the ship’s going out without you.” One participant believed the process was inclusive at times but not all the time. This senior level administrator stated “… At times it’s very open and I can walk right into [the Vice President’s] office and have discussions and concerns and other times that decisions are made and then disseminated to me where I didn’t necessarily feel I had any input." Formal management practices. Participants were asked if formal management practices, such TQM, were used in the restructuring process. Although one participant referenced earlier efforts that
184
involved formal management practices, participants generally agreed that formal management practices were not used. One participant stated "You mean the flavor of the week? Actually, no. No, I didn’t see that." A second senior level participant stated "No, the only language in that degree would be the strategic plan, the committee that put together the strategic plan and then trying to apply that plan to all the different denominations of student affairs." One participant thought that the basis of a formal management practice was being used but didn’t think the actual process was being used. This participant stated “I think TQM, without actually using TQM, is always what we’re striving for and I think kind of with the latest change…” Consultants used. Participants were asked if consultants were used in the restructuring process. Generally, the responses to this question were mixed. A number of participants were not sure or stated that consultants were not used, others pointed to specific areas where consultants were used. One senior level participant stated "You know I’m not sure. They could have been – to my knowledge no, but again I’m not a department head so it could have just been that my boss was asked to be a part of that team and meet with the consultants, but I’m honestly not sure on that one." One senior level participant stated "At certain points yes...they had a presidential task force that was put together with key people across the campus, but they did have consultants come in for [functional area], they had consultants come in for [a second functional area]." Another senior level participant noted that consultants were brought in
185
to examine another functional area. This participant noted that the recommendations from the consultants report helped guide the restructuring process stating: …well actually two maybe three [situations] we did call in an outside consultant group…they did give us clear recommendations…some of those recommendations really did guide us, like we have the report that looked at [functional area] within the division and as a result of that we now have a Student Affairs [functional area] department in the division …we had a consultant group that came in and looked at the way [functional area] services are delivered and as a result one department’s gone and another one’s expanding... Employee response. To gain a better understanding of how restructuring affected employees, participants were asked how employees responded. The participants offered responses that ranged from "very positive" and "favorable" to "downright resistance and rebellion." One senior level administrator stated "Depends on the section that you were restructuring. For [functional area] people were very excited, because there was going to be more money and commitment put towards that area that had not had that kind of attention in a while." Another senior level administrator stated "I think it depended on the particular effort that we talked about." One senior level administrator stated: "I think there were varying degrees of response. I think from wholehearted support to outright, downright resistance and rebellion, so I think we had the whole gamut." According to several administrators, resistance seemed to be centered in one functional area. One senior level administrator stated "For divisions such as [functional area]… there were a lot of people crying foul. One functional area seemed to be the most resistant." One participant noted that he had unwittingly benefited from the restructuring of one area. This participant stated "…there were people feeling that I was part of all of
186
this…this conspiracy theory of getting rid of them because of wanting the [resource], whereas I did not know I was getting the [resource] until later." The employee response may be best summed up by a participant who stated: I think for a lot of people it did make sense, but there was definitely that handful of very vocal people that were incredibly unhappy and did not agree with it and saw it as an effort to downsize and kind of take control of something by the upper administration; but those are a handful of people, I don’t think that was overall the general consensus. Facilitated/impeded. Participants were asked about what facilitated or impeded restructuring. Restructuring was facilitated by a number of factors ranging from personal interest and support from the Provost to communication and positive, trusting relationships. Restructuring was impeded a by union environment and a lack of funding. One senior level administrator stated: In restructuring, some of what facilitated was our motivation, that my particular office; we wanted a change and some clarity of what was expected of us and that the campus community to be more conscious about the role we were playing and how we were assisting others doing their jobs. Another senior level administrator stated: I think what facilitated it was the fact that we had a Provost who supported the Vice President in terms of the changes that he/she was making, so I think the lead out was the bottom line in terms of “If I’ve got to make hard decisions, does someone have my back…when things are going to get rough” as they inevitably did. Another senior level administrator said that communication facilitated restructuring stating "Facilitated – communication—very transparent." Another senior level administrator pointed out that relationship building played a role in facilitating restructuring stating:
187
I would say…the fact that we did do so much one on one with employees and got so much feedback for us or against us. It was good because people felt they had a say in the outcome, but it was bad because it took a longer time. This view was supported by another participant who stated "The other factor is trust and building those relationships of trust amongst all the personnel…." Restructuring was impeded by a number of factors including unionized employees. One participant stated: I think what inhibited change to the degree that we really could have made better and bigger changes – the union structure here on campus – its very limiting because you’ve got people that you cannot get rid of. You have processes and procedures that are in place that stifle excellence and that just make it really hard to introduce new thinking and to get people on board sometimes. So the unions, while they’re great for the staff in many ways and protect people, I think that they really can be stifling in terms of trying to reinvent an organization. This view was supported by another senior level administrator who stated "We’re a union environment here, so that was always the thing – looking over our shoulders to make sure we didn’t step wrong because they would have come in and slapped us down real quick.” One participant thought that a lack of funding impeded restructuring, stating: "As I said before money always plays a role in things. When they tried to replace people, there wasn’t money to do that stuff." Summary of the processes used to restructure. Restructuring at Southern did not utilize a formal management practice. The process was inclusive with established structures, timelines, and ample time for feedback. The Vice President established a strategic planning committee and a divisional management team that played a central role in the restructuring process.
188
Nearly every participant was supportive of the process used to restructure. Participants in the study believed the process was very inclusive and believed they had an opportunity to provide input and feedback and that adjustments were made that reflected their comments. Several participants noted that one office was more directly affected by restructuring and that a handful of people in that office resisted and rebelled against restructuring. A number of factors facilitated restructuring, most notably open communication and positive, trusting relationships with the Vice President. In addition, an established structure with timelines resulted in "no surprises." The unionized working environment at Southern was viewed as a factor that impeded the restructuring. What Were the Results of Restructuring? To gauge the overall success of the restructuring effort, participants were asked about the effectiveness in achieving the stated goals. Preliminary results included positive perceptions regarding responsiveness, new services, increased services, some reassignments, and the phasing out of a functional area. Generally, however, participants believed that it was too soon to determine the effectiveness of restructuring. One senior level administrator stated: Well, in a way that’s kind of hard to answer because you know we’re still in the process so it’s not over. I think some results - perceptions on campus of us being more responsive would be one. I think that some staff leaving would be another outcome, it’s kind of a small one but it’s a very real one. I think another result might be a perception that this administration isn’t settling for the status quo, that change is going to be the norm around here as we try to respond to our environment. Another senior level administrator stated: I think greater accessibility, what I mean by that or how I would define that is that before when you had one person to go to for some information and
189
they were the only person with the information and you had limited access to them because of their availability or the fact that they were just stretched too thin…you now had that position defined a little greater or more delegated so you now had…greater availability, greater accessibility… This view was supported by another senior level administrator who stated “I think the division is more streamlined. I think we have eliminated or merged areas that weren't very efficient or necessary and have enhanced some areas that needed to be.” One senior level administrator referred to the creation of a new office stating “Well they have a centralized [functional area] department that is established, we have a budget and we have an organizational structure with lots of internal procedures that we developed on how we deal with things." Improve performance. Restructuring often involves efforts to improve performance. Participants were asked if restructuring improved performance. Generally, participants believed that the roles and responsibilities had been clarified and that people were able to be proactive versus reactive. One senior level administrator stated: I think when you create a structure or an entity that is as transparent, that is very successful – although in the ability to communicate what’s going on within the department, what’s going on in the future – it’s in a very proactive mode versus a reactive mode, it is very well respected within the organization, I mean the whole university is looked up to not only within the university but also outside the university as a model for student affairs… This view was supported by another senior level administrator who believed that the division was now better able to deal with crises. In contrasting current and previous performance this senior administrator thought performance had improved, stating: I think there’s a lot happening because of the nature of the beast when it comes to student affairs and you’re trying to deal with in a lot of ways different crisis; you move from one to the next so you tend to forget the
190
ones that we have overcome – I should say I tend to forget those I’ve overcome - because you don’t really have the time to stand and ponder the last year or so and where you were versus where you are now because you’re always looking at the next fire to deal with or predict a fire. One senior level administrator stated that the performance in one functional area had improved and that people had more trust in the services being provided. This participant stated “I think there’s a more equitable sharing of [functional area] support among the whole division... Numerous critical [services] are much more stable now and …there’s more faith in them by the folks that use them. So those core things that‘s making things work right have occurred.” Further, this participant stated “We’re bringing in new [things] all the time, bringing in new services so I think bit by bit we’ve had advances made, some departments more than others, but I could probably cite five or six good concrete examples of how we’re doing better in serving students." Affect staffing. To better understand how restructuring affected staffing, participants were asked questions about how restructuring affected this area. There was general agreement that the number of professionals increased, primarily in one functional area. One senior level administrator stated: "It has because there have been additional titles, there’s been changing of staffing, there’s been retirements, there’s been jockeying of monies to fund different priorities – so yeah, without a doubt. I think it’s also the question of where’s the next staffing needed – priority of staffing." One functional area expanded, adding a number of functional areas under an umbrella office. Another area added a number of new employees and one participant noted that “If you have this service expectation and you want things done like this, this
191
fast, then the staff that we have are not enough. So, it’s increased staff and I’ll grab any employee I can get my hands on." Lose job/reassigned. To gain a better understanding how restructuring affected the division, participants were asked if anyone had lost their job or had been reassigned. There was general agreement that people were reassigned. Participants agreed that some people had been reassigned but there was a lack of agreement if anyone had been fired. One senior level administrator stated "No, no one lost their job. There were a couple retirements, there were several reassignments, but there were some grudging retirements, people whose universe changed around them so they opted to retire." Another senior level administrator supported this view stating "No, in just the kind of voluntary early retirement of the one guy, who was not happy to begin with…” Another senior level participant stated that some people were reassigned and that one person was asked to leave. This person stated “People have lost their jobs and people have been reassigned. One person left; in the process of restructuring people have left. One person was asked to leave." This view was contradicted by another senior level participant who stated "Yes, I think they did, well not in the employment sense but in position sense.” When asked if this person was reassigned the participant responded “Yeah, I think so." Employee turnover. Participants were asked if restructuring affected employee turnover. There was general agreement that restructuring had not affected employee turnover. A number of people noted that there seemed to be some turnover with newer employees. One senior
192
level participant stated “No, it doesn’t seem to have – we’ve had a couple of retirements but that’s about it." Another stated "Not that I'm aware of." One senior level participant noted "There is a core group of us that have been around a lot. Then there are younger people who come in and go. I don’t know if it has anything to do with restructuring…, young people; they are trying to move up professionally." Another stated “I’d say we’re maybe still in a bit of a flux and maybe we’re just beginning to enter an era of stability; there have been four or five people in my job in the last eight or nine years.” Affect employee morale. When asked if restructuring affected employee morale, participants agreed that morale had improved as a result of restructuring. This improvement was relative to the morale level prior to restructuring. However, restructuring had a negative impact on morale in one of the functional areas that underwent restructuring. One participant noted that morale was a concern with different leadership. This person stated: "Our office morale was real bad when we had our last dean of students. There were some things that were unpredictable about this person. Across the board this person was having a negative impact in all of student affairs.” Others gave a positive assessment of morale stating “It had a very positive impact.” Another senior level participant stated: I think for the most part it was positive, because they saw…pockets of inactivity and lethargic-just existence were kind of being swept away. So I think it helped employee morale. I think the other thing it did is that it put people on notice-you need to sit up and pay attention and start to be a part of your environment.
193
In describing the effects of restructuring on the morale in functional areas, one senior level administrator stated “To a degree I think initially, especially with [functional area] there was a definitely an affect on morale and there were two different camps set up with people that understood why [it] happening and other people that just felt they were being dissed.” In commenting on another area, a senior level participant stated “I think in the [functional area] staff it’s been very good; we have people who really care about what they’re doing and I have a lot of different areas of expertise in my office and a lot of links are being made between those areas of expertise, so I think its really improved staff morale.” In providing an overview of how restructuring affected morale, one senior level administrator stated: I don’t know if it affected the rest of the division-I don’t think it was really that big of a deal. I think there was some discontent that things had changed, but I think people are starting to see…that we really are trying to do a good job and we’re starting to make headway toward achieving our goals, so it like “oh yeah, this was a good idea.” Changes in business procedures. Participants were asked if restructuring changed the way the division goes about its business. The responses from participants were fairly positive. When asked how restructuring had affected the way the division goes about its business, one person provided a stream of examples, stating: Yes, specifically, restructured the meeting structure that we have within the division for the department heads, restructured the way that we communicate to the full-time employees – the front-line individuals, increased the areas for, or opportunities for recognition, have focused on expenditures at a divisional level versus an independent, as we were before, a departmental level, utilized a greater degree of resources that are generated within the division for the benefit of other departments within the division, more specifically, revenue
194
that I generate may be shifted over to a department that is a non-revenue generator with a certain need they might have. Another senior level administrator stated “Yes. I think there was an emphasis on communication, although we didn’t do it very well at first. We need to get better at it. There is an attempt to share leadership, let people do their jobs. [The Vice President’s] not really a micro-manager….I think [the previous Vice President] was…” One senior level participant noted that effectiveness had been enhanced at the managerial level stating: I would say so - I think one of the ongoing pieces that is constantly being brought to the table is better utilization of management, student affairs management team is one of the pieces that came up at the retreat we just had and again with communication, effectiveness of communication, getting the word out, how much information does everybody really know, do we all need to know exactly what kind of foods dining services is serving for students versus do we need to know if there is some kind of a crisis that occurred through [functional area] that is going to affect all the students or a change in billing that will affect all of them that might ricochet into other offices. One senior level administrator agreed that significant changes had been made to one particular area. This participant stated: Business meaning like money in purchasing or [functional area]? Yeah, lots of changes. We instituted a central [approach] with an email or phone number to call if you need help; did an extensive analysis on purchasing and established pretty far reaching rules as to who buys what and so forth. Funding this…by doing budget transfers from like four or five of the departments who have independent sources of funds - non-tuition sources of funds. So, yeah a lot has changed. Evidence of affects. Participants were asked about evidence that shows the effects of restructuring. Participants were not able to identify quantifiable evidence of how restructuring had affected the division. Data is often presented as evidence; none was referenced by any of
195
the participants. One senior level participant stated “I’m not sure how to answer that. I’ve seen from year to year things become more streamlined; less reinventing the wheel. I guess that would be evidence now that the way things are set up now seem to be working.” Others stated “I'm not aware” or “Not yet, no hard evidence.” One senior level administrator shared some “soft” evidence – increased communication about critical issues in one area. This person stated: Well, I know with my own department some of the evidence is just the people talking on campus and what topics they’re talking about. When it comes to [functional area], nobody really spoke about it much prior to the office being in place. Now you have students talking about issues…there’s committees on policy development so there’s a lot more buzz…a lot more buzz… about the [functional area] issues which to me says there has been success because there is noise being made so therefore changes will be made. Analyze restructuring. Participants were asked if there was an effort to analyze the results of restructuring. Generally, participants thought restructuring was being analyzed yet no one could confirm any significant activity in this area. A number of participants noted that assessment was not a strength of the division. One senior level participant noted: Most of that at this point is anecdotal. So much is new; assessment is an issue we have struggled with. Even student satisfaction. How do students articulate how they have been treated when they come into our office looking for information; did they get what they were looking for; were they treated well? Another senior level participant stated "I don’t think we’ve done that yet, I think we’re again still doing a lot, still in the midst of everything.” This perception was supported by two additional participants who stated "Specifically? I’m not aware of any” and “Not yet, we’re still in progress.”
196
Unintended outcomes. Restructuring can have intended and unintended outcomes. Participants were asked if they could identify any unintended outcomes. There was general agreement that one of the unintended outcomes was the addition of different services. One senior level administrator stated "We’ve added some things, focusing on academic things. I don’t think they were initially a part of restructuring but…[wanting] to be part of the academic environment…created some things." Another stated “I can say anecdotally that there has been; we’ve taken on services that we’ve never done before. If I look back in retrospect five years ago, I couldn’t project that that was a way that we were going to go.” One senior level administrator thought that restructuring was going to improve the image of the institution and increase the number of applications for open employee positions, stating: I think the clarity of vision has attracted better people than we might have gotten in the past. Student affairs at [Southern] is not-like when I went to [another institution]-that was a great place, they had a great student affairs. They advertised for a position and they got great people applying. [Southern] advertises and you’re not getting the greatest pool because nobody would come from across the country to work at [Southern] but at [another institution] you’d get people from come across the country or international – it’s a Mecca. We are not a Mecca but I think we’re getting better people now so we tell ourselves we’re getting better. Another senior level administrator stated “There’s always unintended outcomes… Personnel shifts, probably the most obvious [unintended] outcome. I wouldn't say that we realized any monetary savings because we’ve grown as a division.” Summary of the results of restructuring. The participants in the study believed that it was too early to comment on the results of restructuring. However, restructuring at Southern resulted in the clarification of
197
the roles and responsibilities of various offices and personnel. This action was perceived to enhance student services as well as increase the faith in those services by those who used them. As with the study of Northern, there was no data to support this claim. Staffing at Southern was relatively stable with some shifting of responsibilities and the addition of some employees in certain areas. With the exception of one office, overall morale was perceived to have improved as a result of restructuring. The addition of a budget office and the resulting changes in purchasing and transfer protocols were perceived to be the only change in how the division goes about its business. Unintended outcomes involved the addition of different services.
198
CHAPTER V Discussion and Recommendations This study investigated restructuring in the student affairs divisions at two public research universities. The study sought to better understand restructuring using the responses to the following research questions: 1) What was the impetus to restructure? 2) What were the goals of restructuring? 3) What processes were employed? 4) What were the results of restructuring? This chapter, which concludes the study, includes a summary of the main findings, interpretation of the findings, conclusions drawn from this research, suggestions for future research, and limitations of the study The Impetus for Restructuring The impetus to restructure can be internal or external. The following section focuses on the location of the impetus. The Location of the Impetus The major findings of this research reveal that the location for the impetuses to restructure were internal and that newly hired Vice Presidents initiated restructuring. Previous research on restructuring in student affairs also indicated that the source of the impetus to restructure is often internal (Carlson, 2003). Carlson found that: Contrary to the impression of some student affairs professionals, the determination of the need for change, whether restructuring, budget, or personnel, came not from an outside consultant…but rather, by an almost two to one margin, from a suggestion within the institution. (p. 9)
199
Carlson found that efforts to restructure the student affairs division were initiated by the President 35 percent of the time. The Vice President was responsible for initiating restructuring 17 percent of the time. In this study the Vice President, with the support of the President, initiated restructuring at Northern. The Vice President, with the support of the Provost, initiated restructuring at Southern. The results of this study, that the source for the impetus was internal, are consistent with research conducted by Carlson. The location of the impetus, however, could have come from another internal source such as the President or the Board of Trustees. If the President or Board had directed the Vice President to restructure, the role played by the Vice President would have been perceived differently. In the case of restructuring at Northern, the perception of the Vice President’s role may have been more positive. The Motivations for the Impetus The motivation for the impetus to restructure involved efforts to become more student-centered and enhance student engagement, to improve efficiency and remove bottlenecks, to improve communication within the organization, and to put a personal stamp on the organization. A number of potential motivations were not apparent including fiscal constraint, external political pressures, utilization of new technologies, to meet accreditation requirements, or the implementation of a current management fad. Become more student-centered. The rationales used to restructure involved efforts to become more studentcentered and enhance student engagement (Northern) and to improve student services (Southern). This study found that in both institutions, restructuring was initiated to refocus the division to become more student-centered and be more engaging, or create
200
educationally purposeful activities for students (Northern) or to reduce duplication and improve services (Southern). The rationales used to restructure at Northern were consistent with the research and work of Novak (1996) who found that restructuring can be an effort to reorder institutional priorities with a focus on consumers, in this case, students. The rationale of improving services at Southern was consistent with the work of Davies (1996) who stated that restructuring was an effort to reach a new level of excellence. Lastly, the results were also consistent with the work of Novak who stated restructuring involved a reordering of administrative priorities. While both institutions focused on students, there were subtle differences between the two approaches. At Northern, the focus was on becoming student-centered, an educational approach to student affairs outlined by Blimling (2001). At Southern, the focus was on student services, which falls into the student affairs management approach (Blimling, 2001). In discussing this observation with a respondent from Southern, it became apparent that while there were some educational considerations in Southern’s restructuring plan, the effort focused on student services and not student learning. The Vice President at Southern may have wanted to focus improving student services, a more tangible outcome with a larger influence on student satisfaction. Such an effort may have been more widely accepted and understood by the respondents. Improve efficiency and remove bottlenecks. In the corporate world, businesses seek to improve efficiency to fulfill, in part, expectations that profitability will increase. While profitability is not necessarily a goal of higher education, Birnbaum (2000) contends that institutions of higher education are always under pressure to become more efficient and effective. Horn and Jerome (1996)
201
stated that restructuring efforts usually include announced plans to increase efficiency. In this study increasing efficiency was an impetus at Southern, which sought to reduce the duplication of services. This focus on efficiency coincides with Southern’s philosophical approach to student affairs which has an emphasis on a student services orientation (Blimling, 2001). Efficiency was not a focus of restructuring at Northern, which had a more educational orientation. Restructuring may be an attempt to reduce bottlenecks which might exist in the organization. At both institutions, bottlenecks were perceived to be people, not processes. At Southern, only a few people believed that bottlenecks existed. In one situation, the person thought to be a bottleneck, was no longer at the institution. In discussing bottlenecks at Northern there was a distinct difference of opinion between those who had been at the institution for some time, and those new to the institution. Those new to the institution believed that bottlenecks existed; those who had been at the institution longer believed none existed. Since those relatively new to the organization would have had little time to formulate an opinion on bottlenecks, this perception may have resulted from conversations with other new employees in the division. It was clear that the Vice President at Northern wanted to make a number of changes in a short period of time. Efforts to move quickly may have been slowed down by questions asked or issues raised by a longstanding employee. This longstanding employee, who was viewed by one new employee as “under-performing” was actually more highly respected and valued by those who had been at the institution for some time. The longstanding employee may have been perceived as a bottleneck by proponents of restructuring in the sense that he/she
202
impeded progress on restructuring. This person may have been perceived as impeding the new employee’s ability to be seen as a leader and change agent within the division. Improve communication within the organization. Improved communication, especially the ability to share information, is often a goal of restructuring. At Northern, there was a perception that efforts to change reporting structures was an attempt to improve communication but others did not believe that communication was poor to start with. According to respondents, the Vice President stated that silos existed in the division which impeded communication. One respondent stated the move to a more hierarchical structure impeded communication, especially direct communication with the Vice President. What was clear from the respondents at Northern was that long serving employees didn’t see silos and didn’t see communication as an issue. Long serving employees were communicating with each other but might have been limiting their conversations with newer staff, giving the impression that communication was poor. It may also have been that the long serving employees weren’t talking about the new goals being promoted by the Vice President. At Southern, improving communication was a major factor in the restructuring effort, making the top five critical elements of the planning process cited in the literature. To address communication efforts, the planning committee sponsored educational sessions related to this topic. To address additional communication needs, technology was used to share information. The efforts to improve communication at Southern were not unique or extraordinary. Yet respondents reported general satisfaction with improved communication. Perhaps communication at Southern was relatively poor to begin with
203
and any improvements were seen as positive. Conversely, communication may have been adequate to begin with at Northern and any efforts to improve it were not seen as valid improvements. Put personal stamp on organization. In studying restructuring and redesign in the corporate world, Nadler and Tushman (1997) state that some managers initiate restructuring efforts because "…it offers managers - particularly those just starting out in a new position - a clear opportunity to put their personal stamp on an operation" (p. 11). In reviewing each institution, both had a relatively long serving Vice President who had retired. At Southern, the previous Vice President served for five years before the current Vice President was hired. At Northern, the current Vice President replaced the long serving Vice President. At both institutions, the Vice President initiated restructuring shortly after assuming the position. The restructuring efforts at both institutions appear to agree with the work of Nadler and Tushman (1997) regarding an opportunity for the new manager to shape the division in to a structure that more accurately reflects his/her personal view of student affairs. At Northern the perception that restructuring was an effort for the Vice President to put his/her stamp on the operation was much stronger than that perception at Southern. The Vice President at Northern was seen as a “change agent” and the main proponent of and the force behind restructuring. One respondent noted the Vice President’s sheer will and personality facilitated or forced restructuring. In fact, one respondent stated that restructuring was the Vice President’s plan, not the division’s plan. This is contrasted by the perception at Southern, where the Vice President’s finger prints could be seen only
204
faintly on the restructuring effort. The Vice President at Southern clearly played a role in starting the process and giving it direction. However, the restructuring effort evolved into more of a divisional effort and became the division’s plan. It seemed that at Northern, discussions regarding restructuring centered on the Vice President. At Southern, discussions about restructuring focused on the goals and processes. Potential Motivations That Were Not Apparent The literature defines a number of motivations for restructuring including fiscal constraint, external political pressure, utilization of new technologies, accreditation requirements, and implementing a new management fad. Fiscal constraint. Gaylord and Rogers (1988) examined the role fiscal constraint played in initiating restructuring higher education. Chavez (1998) examined the role fiscal constraint played in initiating restructuring in student affairs divisions. While fiscal constraint has been identified as a motivation to restructure in the literature, it was not a factor in the restructuring efforts at either institution. Funding levels at both institutions were similar to previous levels. There were staffing realignments and a limited number of retirements at both institutions but no linkage was evident between fiscal constraint and restructuring. A number of respondents noted the addition of staff and thought the budgets for student affairs had actually increased. If fiscal constraint were identified as a motivation, the rationale to restructure at Northern would have been different. The Vice President could have been viewed as carrying out the directives from the President to reduce expenditures. One motivation could have been to save resources by eliminating offices that are not central to the
205
mission, thereby freeing up some resources. A second motivation of either becoming student-centered or enhancing student engagement could have been part of the restructuring effort. Any resources “saved” by eliminating offices could be used to support enhancements in either student-centeredness or student engagement activities. Such a move to eliminate offices may not have been necessary if the Vice President was able to obtain additional resources from the President, which seemed to be the case. External political pressures. The literature identifies political pressure as an impetus to restructure. Marcus (1997) examined the role elected officials played in restructuring efforts. Political pressure from elected officials, however, was not viewed as an impetus to restructure at either institution. Therefore the results of this study are not consistent with the findings of Marcus. Utilization of new technologies. Marks (1994) identified new technologies as one of the major reasons for restructuring in the corporate world. Hammer and Champy (1993) note that many processes are designed to operate in a paper world and that new technology allows leaders to examine and reengineer processes. However, technology was not a factor in the restructuring efforts at Northern or Southern and, therefore, did not conform with the observations of Marks or Hammer and Champy. One area where technology has been used to advance the student affairs agenda is in the area of providing students with services. It was interesting to note that technology was not mentioned as means of improving services at Southern. Perhaps the division’s focus included technology but it was not the driving force behind restructuring.
206
Accreditation requirements. Chavez (1998) noted that restructuring could be used by institutions to respond to new opportunities. Accrediting bodies are now requiring the assessment of student outcomes and student learning. In this study, the restructuring efforts focused on student engagement (Northern) and student services (Southern). Neither effort specifically focused on student learning or meeting the standards for accreditation. It was unclear if the participants were aware of the accreditation standard or if the Vice Presidents introduced this external impetus as a stimulus for improvement. Clearly, the Vice President, who had been at Northern for at least three years, would have had a copy of the most recent review by the accrediting body or prepare for an upcoming review. If the Vice President were aware of the contents of a recent review letter, and if the contents of that review letter supported the Vice President’s goals, the Vice President could have used the review letter to support the restructuring effort. This approach may have been more useful in Northern, where the Vice President used a hierarchical approach to restructuring. The issue of the accrediting standards related to student learning did not surface at Southern and the goals of restructuring were not closely related to the standards associated with student learning. If the Vice President at Southern was required to implement student learning outcomes into the division, the focus and workload of the planning committee would most likely have increased. Implement a current management fad. Birnbaum (2000) noted that higher education adopts management techniques from other sectors. In this study, an effort to adopt or implement a management fad or
207
technique was not a motivation to restructure at either institution. In fact, when this researcher asked about management innovations or fads, the term had to be explained to nearly every respondent. According to Birnbaum, management fads are often introduced to new areas by “intersector carriers.” It is possible that no one at the institutional level served in the role of a carrier. It is also possible that the Vice Presidents or others in both institutions were concerned about how the employees would respond to using a fad to restructure. It may also be possible that there has been a slow-down in the development of the next fad and that the institutions may not have wanted to use an “outdated” fad. The Goals of Restructuring Restructuring often involves the establishment of goals and supporting employees as they strive to reach those goals. The following section focuses on the role of goals and a vision when restructuring, and the stated goals of restructuring. The Role of Goals and Having a Vision When Restructuring Cascio (2002) makes a number of recommendations for those considering restructuring. He also identifies a number of mistakes to avoid when restructuring. Failing to be clear about short-term and long-term goals is a common mistake. Participants at both institutions, a majority of who were directors and above, were able to articulate the major goals of their respective restructuring effort. However, clear, measurable goals were not articulated. Instead, broad, conceptual goals were articulated but their accomplishment was difficult to measure. Kotter (1996) notes that developing a vision and a strategy to implement that vision are critical components of the change process. According to Kotter vision plays a
208
critical role in initiating change by aligning and directing actions and inspiring activity throughout the workforce. In addition, the vision must be desirable, feasible, and focused. At Southern, the Vice President communicated his/her vision to the division and there was general agreement with that vision. Respondents at Southern seemed to be receptive to and supportive of the vision communicated by the Vice President. At Northern, the first part of the vision, to be student-centered, was consistently communicated by the Vice President. While consistent, the vision was not well received by most respondents. The vision to become student-centered, or more student-centered, may not have been viewed as desirable or respondents believed that they already were student-centered and, perhaps, weren’t inspired to become more student-centered. The second part of the vision, to enhance student engagement, may not have been as focused as it could have been. It is interesting to note that nearly all of the respondents at Northern used the term student engagement in responding to questions during the interview. While not specifically asked to define student engagement, few respondents were able to express more than a cursory understanding of the term. Therefore, it may have been difficult to align or inspire activity if the respondents didn’t fully understand the term student engagement or its implications. The Stated Goals of the Restructuring Written goals serve to communicate the overall direction of the division as well as remind managers and staff of divisional priorities. This section focuses on the following goals: create a structure that promotes a student-centered vision, decrease duplication, improve communications, and reduce costs.
209
Create a structure that promotes a student centered vision. In the previous organizational structure at Northern, the Vice President directly supervised over 14 different functional areas or offices. The Associate or Assistant Vice Presidents did not have direct supervisory responsibility but served primarily in an advisory capacity. The new Vice President changed the flat organizational structure to a more hierarchical one. Under this new structure, similar functional areas were organized under an Associate or Assistant Vice President. The intent of this new structure was to enhance the division’s ability to deliver enhanced programs and services. According to some respondents, the new organizational structure better met the new mission and vision of the Vice President. Not all respondents agreed with the Vice President’s effort to make the division more student-centered or to enhance student engagement. Since a number of respondents believed the division was student-centered, the “new” goals of the Vice President may not have been supported. Several respondents believed that since the Vice President focused on becoming student-centered, that he/she didn’t value efforts completed before his/her arrival. It is unclear if the Vice President actually said that the division was not doing well. However, respondents with some longevity believed the Vice President didn’t value their work. As a result, the respondents questioned the leadership of the Vice President and his/her efforts to change the division. The above is a clear example of the differences between change and transition described by Bridges (1991). The Vice President initiated change in the organization. However, the respondents did not effectively transition to the new organizational structure. In hindsight, the Vice President may have taken additional opportunities to
210
compliment the employees on their accomplishments, asked them to do more, and created a reward structure. The Vice President could have used base-line data to identify the current level of activity and then identify new, higher goals for the division. Decrease duplication. Decreasing duplication can be one component of increasing efficiency. Often, it is an attempt to reduce the workforce (Cameron, 1994). This was not a goal at Northern but was a goal at Southern. At Southern, decreasing duplication did not focus on reducing the workforce. In fact, one functional area was removed from each office and centralized. While this decreased duplication, the overall result was an increase in the number of employees working in this area. At Southern, several respondents noted duplication in office responsibilities existed prior to restructuring. Respondents noted there were two or three offices performing similar functions. Others agreed that there was some overlap in the services provided and that restructuring was a way to eliminate duplication. The Vice President sought to clarify roles and responsibilities of employees as well as offices. In addition, the Vice President moved to eliminate a function found in most offices in the division and to centralize that function into one office. Improve communication. Improving communication is often a goal of restructuring. In this study, improving communication was a goal in both restructuring efforts. At Southern, improving communication within departments and across the division was identified as one of the division’s top five critical elements. To achieve this goal, respondents noted that technology would play an integral part. List serves would be used to exchange
211
information, newsletters would be created and shared via list serves, and websites would be enhanced to post information. While improving communication at Southern seemed to be a relatively important goal, it did not seem to be as much of a priority at Northern although respondents acknowledged that improving communication was an underlying goal of realigning offices. The goal of improving communication seemed to be primarily one way. One respondent noted that the Vice President asked for feedback but that you wouldn’t want to provide that feedback in public. Others noted that when they did provide feedback, it wasn’t valued or incorporated into the final product or decision. Respondents noted that when the Vice President communicated, it was often in the form of an announcement. There may have been a different set of expectations regarding improving communication. Respondents may have been accustomed to more two way communication and were interested in more opportunities to dialogue with the Vice President. The Vice President may have sought to increase the number of opportunities to present his/her decisions to the division. Reduce costs. Carlson (2003) examined the role fiscal constraint played in restructuring. Carlson found that a majority of those responding to his survey reported that their budgets had increased over the 1996-1999 time frame. Engelbride and Goodale (1998) also found that in 79 percent of the institutions in their study, budgets remained the same or increased. In this study, the participants noted that cost reduction was not a factor in deciding to restructure nor was it an outcome. In fact, the student affairs budgets at both institutions increased as a result of restructuring. These findings generally agree with
212
those of Carlson, Engelbride and Goodale who found that student affairs budgets increased as a result of restructuring. State appropriations to higher education had stabilized in recent years and enrollment at these two institutions did not seem to be an issue. Given that student fees pay to support various services and programs, it is unlikely that reducing costs would be a goal. Processes Used to Restructure Kotter (1996) outlines a number of critical factors related to implementing a change process such as restructuring. His model will be used in this section to help form conclusions about the processes the institutions employed. The following stages from Kotter’s model will be used in this section: 1) creating a sense of urgency, 2) creating the guiding coalition, 3) communicating the change vision, 4) empowering broad-based action, 5) generating short-term wins, 6) consolidating gains and producing more change, and 7) anchor new approaches in the culture. In addition, this section will address employing formal management practices and assess the success of the program. Creating a Sense of Urgency In discussing transformational change efforts and why they aren’t successful, Kotter (1996) notes that change efforts often fail because leaders do not provide a sense of urgency to motivate employees. At Northern, the Vice President may have had a sense of urgency but this sense was not shared by the majority of participants in this study. It was unclear if the Vice President at Northern identified a crises or major opportunity to make the case that restructuring was necessary. While some respondents initially supported restructuring, support waned over time. At Southern, the Vice President outlined some basic parameters regarding restructuring, yet it was unclear if a sense of
213
urgency was created. While no crisis seemed evident, the respondents at Southern were more willing to initiate and accept change. If establishing a sense of urgency is critical in initiating major change, as noted by Kotter, both Vice President’s might have done so by asking the President to serve as the impetus for restructuring. Since some regional accrediting bodies complete varying levels of review on a five-year cycle, creating a sense of urgency also could have been accomplished in order to prepare for the next review or respond to recommendations from the last review. Creating a Guiding Coalition Kotter (1996) notes that, for changes to be successful, it is essential to pull together people to serve on a guiding coalition. Identifying people with enough power to lead the change is a critical factor. In addition, the coalition must have the right composition, the right level of trust, and a shared objective in order to work as a team. Trust is a critical factor for teamwork and must be built before proceeding. Kotter notes that the executive who acts in isolation and makes decisions on his/her own is not likely to succeed. At Northern the only semblance of a coalition was the Vice President and the three Assistant or Associate Vice Presidents that reported directly to the Vice President. Clearly this four person group did not have the broad composition needed to serve as a guiding coalition. Given that three of the four people in the group had been at the institution less than three years, it had not built the appropriate level of trust. Lastly, there was some question whether the Vice President trusted the one long serving administrator in this group and whether this person trusted the Vice President. The Vice
214
President at Northern would have been better served if a larger coalition was formed that involved other individuals. However, the outcomes from such a group might have differed from the Vice Presidents expectations. At Southern, the planning committee served as the guiding coalition. Its make-up included a range of individuals from across the division. Most were directors, but not all. The planning committee sponsored workshops and other experiences that helped develop a sense of trust and fostered teamwork. It formed smaller working groups focused on planning events or researching topics. The planning group also developed list-serves to share information and it met on a regular basis, over 16 times a year. Communicate the Change Process Communication is an important component in Kotter’s change model. Insufficient communication of the vision is often a stumbling block to major change (Kotter, 1996). Understanding that people will not accept change unless the potential benefits are attractive and that people really need to believe that the vision is a real possibility, Kotter notes that frequent, credible communication is needed to capture the hearts and minds of employees. Cascio (2002) identified communication as a critical factor in restructuring, encouraging those interested in restructuring to "…communicate regularly and in a variety of ways to keep everyone abreast of new developments and information, regularly and in a variety of ways to keep everyone abreast of new developments and information" (p.89). At Southern, the planning committee posted agendas and minutes, created the aforementioned list-serves, and sponsored division-wide activities to share information. The Vice President had an open door policy, was visible on campus, and focused on
215
listening to employees. Each of these behaviors enhanced two-way communication. At Northern, communication seemed to be more limited and when it did occur, it was primarily one-way. Respondents noted that offering feedback in public would not be well received. In addition, when feedback was provided it was perceived as not being valued and not taken into account. A number of respondents reported hearing information second-hand, indicating that communication was limited. These perceptions greatly limited the communication process at Northern. Empowering Broad-Based Action A number of researchers note that involving employees in the restructuring effort and utilizing a collaborative approach facilitates change instead of resistance (Carlson, 2003; Cascio, 2002; Kotter, 1996). Carlson concluded that successful efforts appeared to depend on the use of the collegial management style. Kotter notes that structure, skills, systems and supervision can be obstacles to broad-based action. While the Vice President at Northern started the restructuring process in a participatory manner, after the initial retreat the process was directed by a much smaller group of people led by the Vice President. A majority of the participants at Northern believed the process was not inclusive and that opportunities to provide input were limited. Decisions regarding restructuring were announced and the staff was expected to follow. A majority of the participants seemed cautious and skeptical of the Vice President in particular and restructuring in general. The process at Northern generally supported the observations of Nadler and Tushman (1997) who stated: All too often, managers develop a new design behind closed doors, either alone or with the assistance of one or two trusted consultants or trusted advisors, and then present their executive teams and the organization with
216
a complete, finalized package. The predictable responses are skepticism, resentment, and resistance. (p. 188) The process used to restructure at Northern contrasted with the approach used at Southern, which was considered inclusive by nearly every participant. The Vice President at Southern utilized an inclusive and deliberative process that provided opportunities for people to provide feedback. Participants believed that, to a degree, they were in charge of the process. The approach used at Southern generally supported the findings of Horn and Jerome (1996) who stated "While in some cases the decision to restructure was a command decision from above, the successful process involved workers at all levels taking an active role in changing their work environment into something much like the traditional academic model" (p. 36). Carlson (2003) also stated successful restructuring in student affairs divisions appeared to depend more on a "collegial" management rather than a strong hierarchical management style. Open, honest communication is central to successful restructuring. At Southern, open communication played an important role in getting employees to understand, accept, and support restructuring. It was clear that the participants at Southern were much more supportive of restructuring and were more engaged in the process. As noted on one of the Southern web pages, change is exciting when done by us. The overall view of restructuring at Northern was that it was something the Vice President wanted to do. There wasn’t the same level of support for the Vice President and the work he/she was doing. The staff wasn't as supportive of the goals of restructuring and seemed to be taking a wait and see
217
approach. Participants gave the impression that this too shall pass. As one person stated, “…we’ll do it because we want to keep our jobs.” At Northern, the sheer will and personality of the Vice President marginally facilitated restructuring but left unclear whether the changes would persist in the face of so much skepticism. The Vice President was viewed as the main supporter and champion of restructuring. Several participants noted that when the Vice President asked for input on a restructuring idea, their feedback was not taken into consideration. At Southern the restructuring effort was facilitated by open communication, an inclusive process, and positive and trusting relationships. The findings that open communication, an inclusive process, and positive and trusting relationships facilitated restructuring generally agree with the findings of Carlson (2003) and Cascio (2003). These attributes were not evident at Northern and were not articulated by participants. The approach used at Northern seemed to agree with the observations of Nadler and Tushman (1997); when a small group of people plan and announce a restructuring plan, the responses are resistance, resentment, and skepticism. The top-down approach to restructuring at Northern does not seem likely to achieve its goals. A majority of employees were skeptical about restructuring and, to a degree, paying attention to it only when it affected them directly or affected a close colleague. An informal network exists at Northern and individuals share information or speculate about the Vice President’s next move. In broad terms the restructuring effort at Southern seemed to work. The open and inclusive process engendered the support of employees who agreed with the goals of restructuring and actively sought to implement the recommendations. As noted earlier,
218
the lack of data about restructuring at both institutions was a factor in any effort to determine the overall success of restructuring. Generating Short-term Wins Kotter (1996) notes that leaders should plan for visible improvements or shortterm wins. According to Kotter, visible improvements help employees justify the costs associated with the change process and reduce cynicism and resistance. Short-term wins also provides data to support the change process and continued change. Kotter encourages leaders to recognize and reward those playing an important role in the change process. Such efforts increase morale and motivation and may build momentum within the change process. The respondents from neither institution utilized the terminology of short-term wins. Short-term wins were limited at Northern, where changes in the structure and reporting lines served as evidence of accomplishment. Unfortunately, some of the changes were not well received and would not necessarily correspond with the description of a short-term win. These changes were visible but were not seen as improvements. At Southern, however, the activities of the planning committee may fit into Kotter’s change model. The formation of a planning committee and the activities of the committee, which included bringing in speakers, organizing divisional retreats, and setting up communication networks served as some short-term wins. These wins helped build the guiding coalition, engaged employees in the process, and enhanced a sense of community. Such activities increased understanding and receptiveness, potentially
219
reducing fear of the unknown. In addition, the clarification of job responsibilities and streamlining of the budgeting process served as evidence of positive accomplishment. Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change Noting that change often takes a long time, Kotter (1996) explains many forces can stall the change process. Losing momentum can result in a regression toward previous structures and behaviors. Kotter suggests that a component of consolidating gains and producing more change rests with changing systems, structures, and policies that don’t fit the new vision. It is also important to hire, promote, and develop those who can successfully implement the “change vision.” Using Kotter’s stage to evaluate the restructuring effort at Northern, it is clear that reporting structures were changed. In addition, the Vice President hired several individuals from outside the institution to serve as senior leaders. What was also clear was that any momentum generated in the early stages of restructuring had waned. As noted by Kotter, resistance seems to have reasserted itself. A majority of those interviewed seemed to passively listen to the directives of the Vice President and the recently hired senior leaders. Gains that might have served to build momentum and support more change were thwarted by individuals who were not involved in the restructuring process and quietly resisted the changes. The restructuring effort at Northern appeared to have stalled and any progress is a result of the Vice President’s directives, not the full acceptance by those who will have to implement the changes. At Southern, it was clear that the planning committee had achieved some success in producing small-wins and that there was some momentum behind the changes. The centralization of a functional area, addition of the budget function, new policies regarding
220
purchasing, clarification of roles and responsibilities, and the merging of functions helped build momentum. The development of staff, mainly via the efforts of the planning committee, helped enable people to accept the “change vision” as predicted by Kotter. Anchor New Approaches in the Culture Kotter (1996) notes that organizational culture is an important aspect of the change process since it influences human behavior. Further, Kotter contends that culture is difficult to address directly since it is somewhat invisible. For those reasons, Kotter contends that change must be anchored in the culture, either by grafting new practices on to the existing culture or instituting new practices to replace the existing culture. A second component of this stage of Kotter’s change model involves focusing on customer or productivity oriented behavior. One critical aspect of this stage involves the results of the change effort. If the new approach is superior to the old methods, the new approach will be incorporated into the culture. At Northern, the Vice President initiated restructuring by focusing on the student or consumer. Efforts to enhance student-centeredness and student engagement clearly focus on the consumer. The formation of two new institutes, and the resulting formation of clusters around those topics, could be characterized as more than grafting new practices into the existing culture. Such action would be more closely aligned with instituting new practices to replace the existing culture. In terms of incorporating the new approaches into the culture of the organization, there appeared to be issues associated with the outcomes or results. It was unclear if the new approaches were superior to the old methods. Therefore the new approaches or change may not be anchored in the culture at Northern.
221
At Southern, the restructuring effort also focused on a consumer or student orientation. The centralization of a functional area, the devolution and merging of a functional area, and the clarification of responsibilities more closely aligns with the grafting of new practices into the existing culture. Respondents noted that a number of the changes initiated as a result of restructuring already resulted in improvements. Because of the successful nature of these changes, the new approaches are more likely to be anchored in the culture at Southern. Employ Formal Management Practices Carlson (2003) examined the role formal management practices played in restructured student affairs divisions. Carlson found that 25 percent used re-engineering, 17 percent used TQM, and 15 percent used “other methods.” The results of this study indicate that neither institution used a formal management technique. Both utilized an individualized approach. Therefore, the process used to restructure would most likely fall into Carlson’s category identified as “other methods.” The restructuring process at Northern did not use any formal management practice. The respondents indicated that hardly any process was utilized at all. The planning process used at Southern was a bit more formalized but didn’t use a management fad. This may result from the fact that the Vice Presidents had a limited awareness of management fads or experience in using them to restructure. Assess the Success of the Program A comprehensive assessment program could provide important information regarding the need to restructure, the specific areas in need of improvement, as well as evaluate the success of the effort. Carlson (2003) found that restructuring in student
222
affairs was not being measured in a systematic manner. Further, only six percent of those responding to his survey collected, analyzed and shared findings. The participants in this study did not describe any efforts to assess restructuring, corroborating the work of Carlson. Without the presence of data, employees were unable to substantiate the rationale used to justify restructuring. Generally, this disenfranchised a majority of the respondents, especially at Northern where leadership credibility was an issue. It is unclear why two large research universities seemed to have undertaken a large change process without developing a formal assessment program. One employee from Southern openly acknowledged that assessment wasn’t a strength of the division. Still, the institutional research office at the university, upon request, could have provided some assistance in either developing an assessment plan or providing data that the respondents could have reviewed to guide the process. Perhaps even more disconcerting was the lack of assessment at Northern, where assessment is perceived to be a strength. Respondents at Northern were unaware of any assessment efforts directed at collecting baseline data or analyzing the results of restructuring. In trying to surmise why assessment efforts of restructuring may be limited or nonexistent, it must be acknowledged that assessment efforts can be time consuming and expensive. Undertaking a comprehensive assessment effort could be viewed as slowing down the restructuring process. Further, assessment could provide data that supports areas the Vice President wants to change or identify areas in need of change that the Vice President was not interested in changing.
223
Since the goals at both institutions were broad and conceptual and neither institution established more finite measurable goals, it may have been difficult to assess the results. Since restructuring represents a mixed bag of results (Hass, 1997), the Vice Presidents may not have wanted to have data that could potentially undermine the restructuring effort. Results of the Restructuring The results of a restructuring effort can be divided into intended and unintended outcomes. The following section focuses on the nature of structural changes, the affect on functions, clarification of roles and responsibilities, management of human resources, streamlining the budget process, and formal assessment of results. Nature of the Structural Changes The major results of the restructuring at Northern included an overall move from a flat or lateral organizational structure to a more hierarchical one. The addition of two high level administrators created an administrative layer between the directors and the Vice President. In addition to this new layer, significant changes were made in reporting lines, the grouping of offices around a common theme, and staff was added. Over a two year period the portfolios of the three senior administrators shifted considerably. It was not uncommon for one administrator to supervise an area, have the Vice President transfer that area to another administrator, only to have that area return the following year. These changes created considerable anxiety for those interviewed. At Northern, an effort was made to have people with meet around a common theme. These clusters generally focused on the goals of the restructuring process. A number of people noted that they were a member of a cluster. Several noted that their
224
clusters had never met. If true, it seems unlikely that the Vice President wouldn’t have known about the lack of progress in these key areas. If so, this makes one question the reasoning behind forming the clusters. Was it important to show that action had been taken, even though the group only existed on paper and did not actually meet? At Southern, one functional area that was dispersed throughout the division was consolidated into one central office. In addition, reporting lines were clarified in several situations. The structural changes at Southern were not as extensive as those at Northern. Affect on Functions Restructuring can result in the addition or elimination of administrative layers, the consolidation or merging of functions, and the centralization of student services. Addition or elimination of administrative layers. Chavez (1998) analyzed the types of strategies student affairs leaders utilized in restructuring. In her study Chavez identified a series of outcomes from restructuring, including elimination of administrative layers. According to Carlson (2003), 42.9 percent of the respondents to his 1999 survey reported that they had eliminated positions as a result of restructuring. The percentage of research universities eliminating positions was higher, 56.3 percent. In this study, administrative layers were added at Northern. Individuals who had previously reported to the Vice President, now reported to an Assistant or Associate Vice President. In addition, reporting lines were changed and clusters were formed. At Northern, the addition of professionals in the Vice President’s office created a new administrative layer in contrast to the findings of Chavez who concluded that restructuring resulted in the elimination of administrative layers.
225
Consolidation or merging of functions. Research on restructuring by Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that mergers and consolidations occurred in 46 percent of divisional restructuring efforts across all institutional types with higher rates at research institutions. Carlson (2003) studied the consolidation or merging of offices in student affairs. Financial aid and counseling were most often merged with other areas or transferred. Student activities and student unions were merged with other areas. At Northern, areas were merged together around a cluster, adding an administrative layer. At Southern, one functional area that had been spread out throughout the division was centralized into one office. The results of this research on both institutions also generally are consistent with the findings of Chavez (1998) who found that consolidation or merging was one outcome of restructuring. This occurred at both Northern and Southern. Carlson (2003) found that restructuring resulted in the elimination of the student activities at some institutions and that the responsibility for student unions was transferred to another area such as business affairs. At Northern, student activities and student unions were transferred internally to different supervising areas, first from one Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, to an Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, and most recently to the Assistant Vice President for Campus Services. Centralization of student services. Chavez (1996) identified the centralization of student services as one strategy used by Vice Presidents to restructure. This strategy can be employed as a response to fiscal restraint since staffing patterns in the centralized office can be reduced from previous levels. Chavez notes that one of the popular outcomes of centralization involves
226
the combination of payment and service functions into a “one stop shop.” Of the two institutions, a different form of centralization occurred at Southern. At Southern, one functional area was embedded in a number of offices within the division. Restructuring removed this functional area and formed one centralized office that performed this function for the entire division. Unlike the findings of Chavez, this study found that the number of employees in the centralized office actually increased. Clarification of roles and responsibilities. Restructuring can alter the work needed to be accomplished as well as the working relationships that exist in organizations. Clarifying roles and responsibilities was not a focus at Northern. At Southern, the need to clarify roles and responsibilities was important and may have been an outcome of institutional growth. Once a “small” institution where everyone knew everybody, Southern has grown into a regional university. According to respondents, the practices and informal networks that operated prior to growth began to breakdown as the size and complexity of the institution increased. The experience at Southern appears consistent with Ikenberry’s (1970) assessment regarding growth and duplication in higher education. Ikenberry stated “The familiar models worked reasonably well in an earlier day, in less complex institutions in which most faculty knew each other personally…” Respondents at Southern noted that a number of offices within the division provided the same or similar services. These overlaps created confusion for students and to a degree, a lack of clarity in the role of each office. Restructuring was seen as a way to reduce or eliminate overlap and duplication. It was also an effort to improve services to students. At Southern, as part of the planning process individual offices established goals
227
and objectives for the coming year. The goals and objectives of each office were clarified to reduce overlap. Each office then established goals and objectives that aligned with the strategic planning effort. The end result was a much tighter alignment with the planning effort as well as clarification of the roles and responsibilities of each office. Management of Human Resources In commenting on the human impacts of restructuring, MacTaggart (1996) observed that managing the human side of a restructuring effort requires knowledge in a number of areas including “…how humans behave in the midst of change that affects their lives and careers” (p. 135). Bridges (1991) points out that change is different than transition and that efforts often focus on change while transition is perhaps more important in helping people adjust to the new environment. The following section focuses on maintaining morale; personnel hires, reassignments, promotions; personnel resignations; role of the union; resistance to change; and leadership credibility. Maintain morale. In researching how restructuring affected employees, MacTaggart (1996) notes that "The human response to restructuring included a grieving process that progressed overtime through the now familiar stages from denial to anger to some form of acceptance" (p. 134). Cameron et al. (1987) found that low morale was an outcome of organizational change. Carlson (2003) identified the most common responses to restructuring which included morale problems. In this study, participants at Northern clearly believed that morale was negatively affected by restructuring, especially at the director level and above. This belief was consistent with the findings of Carlson (2003) and Cameron (1987) regarding the
228
responses to restructuring. At Southern, there was general agreement that morale had improved as a result of restructuring, unlike the findings of previous research that indicated morale was negatively affected by restructuring. The process used to restructure may have a very dramatic impact on employee morale. A Northern, a top-down approach with limited opportunity for involvement may have led to lower morale. This approach was contrasted with the inclusive and participatory process at used at Southern. At Southern, the employees seemed to have a degree of autonomy and latitude in determining the restructuring process. The employee driven planning committee played an integral role in preparing staff for change and for creating methods to communicate information. The employees believed they were a part of restructuring, noting that change is more effective when done with others – not done to others. Using Bridges’ (1991) framework regarding change and transition as a lens to examine restructuring at Southern, the planning committee played an important role in helping employees through the transition process. At Northern, little or no attention was given to the transition process. Consequently, employee morale at Southern was high and the employees looked forward to restructuring. At Northern, the employees never transitioned and employee morale was low. People were biding their time, keeping their heads low, providing lip service when necessary, and waiting for the Vice President to leave. The unfortunate outcome of restructuring at Northern is that employees were less inclined to work toward achieving the admirable goals of becoming student-centered and enhancing student engagement.
229
Personnel hires, reassignments, promotions and development. Cascio (2002) and Cameron (1994) note that employees should be viewed as valuable assets not liabilities. Noting that change often takes a long time, Kotter (1996) explains many forces can stall the change process. Kotter encourages leaders to hire, promote, and develop individuals who can successfully implement the “change vision.” At Northern, the Vice President created two new senior level positions and filled those positions with external candidates. A number of respondents believed that qualified internal candidates who applied for those positions were erroneously overlooked. While the candidates who eventually filled the new positions may be capable administrators, the respondents perceived the external hires as a figurative slap in the face of those currently employed within the division. A majority of those interviewed expressed a lack of trust and a sense of wariness in talking about the newly hired administrators. Efforts to produce more change instituted by the new hires were viewed skeptically, limiting the opportunity to implement more change. At Southern, the Vice President hired a limited number of new people in the division. The respondents talked positively about the changes the Vice President made and were neutral to positive when referring to the new hires. The planning committee played a critical role in developing people who led the change effort. The planning committee spent a considerable amount of time preparing people for change and providing opportunities that promote development. This approach may have prepared the division for additional change as noted by Kotter (1996). Previous research by Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that 43 percent of all student affairs divisions had eliminated positions compared to 56 percent of student
230
affairs divisions at research institutions. Restructuring at Northern did not result in anyone losing his or her job. One individual was reassigned. At Southern, the restructuring effort did not result in anyone losing his or her job; however, one person did retire shortly after restructuring was initiated. At Southern, there was a general agreement that reassigning employees was an approach utilized to manage human resources. Reassigning versus firing employees may have been a more humane approach or it may have been an acknowledgement that responsibilities were not matched with skills and abilities. Reassignments may also have been one of the limited options available to management in a union environment. Personnel resignations. As noted above, Cascio (2002) and Cameron (1994) believe that employees should be viewed as valuable assets. Kotter (1996) recommends getting rid of obstacles, barriers, and structures that undermine the change vision. At least one individual at each institution either resigned or “retired” under pressure as a result of restructuring. In the case of Northern, an upper level administrator, who retained his/her title, was given the opportunity to move over to a position in the education department. After a short period of time, this person resigned. Once restructuring started at Southern, a director level administrator was given the opportunity to retire “early.” His/her “retirement” created an opportunity to bring in a new hire and complete the centralization of that function. These subtle changes at both Northern and Southern were efforts to remove obstacles or barriers to the change vision. The changes also created an opportunity for each Vice President to hire new people who could implement the change vision outlined by Kotter.
231
Employee turnover is a potential unintended outcome of restructuring. A number of respondents at Northern stated that the workforce was fairly stable. Respondents with longevity noted that Northern had been a place that attracted and kept high quality staff. Citing discussions with other staff, respondents indicated that several people who had only been at the institution about three or four years were looking to leave. Participants perceived that employees in general were not being valued and newer employees with less invested in the institution were more likely to resign and leave. Employees with some longevity at the institution, planned to stick it out, keep their heads down, do their work, and try to outlast the Vice President. Employee turnover was not an issue at Southern. In fact, one respondent believed that restructuring was going to improve the ability of the division to attract and possibly retain high quality staff. It was unclear whether employee turnover increased as a result of the restructuring process. A followup study would be needed to determine if employee turnover did increase. Role of the union. The workforce at Southern was unionized and a number of respondents noted that while the union environment help protect and support employees, the union was viewed as an impediment to restructuring. The union limited the ability of management to make significant or “better and bigger changes.” Management had to be very careful changing responsibilities and duties to work within the aspects of job titles and the union contract. The ability to motivate individuals to introduce new concepts or approaches was also a limitation in a union environment. In addition, incentives in terms of job titles or salary increases were limited. It was unclear if the union environment greatly limited the Vice President’s ability to restructure the division. The Vice President at Southern seemed to
232
have been able to work with union leaders and negotiate appropriate resolutions to any challenging situations. Resistance to change. Cameron et al. (1987) found that employees of organizations undergoing restructuring were resistant to change. In his study of restructuring in student affairs, Carlson (2003) identified resistance to change as one of the most common responses to restructuring. One of the findings of this study was the disparity of employee attitude between the two institutions. At Southern, the employees generally were supportive of restructuring and had an optimistic outlook. They accepted change and anticipated continued improvement. At Northern, the employees were skeptical and not supportive of restructuring. A number of employees noted that they would do what was asked of them in order to keep their jobs but gave the impression that they would not volunteer to assist in any way. Nearly every respondent at Northern talked about restructuring in less than positive terms. A number of respondents at Northern seemed to communicate with each other on a fairly regular basis, often talking about a recent comment or decision made by the Vice President or one of the external hires. The conversations didn’t seem to be an effort of sabotage by those not included in the new regime, as noted by MacTaggart (1996), but more of an effort to keep each other informed about recent developments. A number of the respondents seemed to band together in an informal network that supported each other, while giving lip service to, or resisting, the change efforts of the Vice President.
233
It is clear that the respondents at Northern either believed that their roles had diminished or did not feel part of the new structure. As noted in MacTaggart, these individuals were skeptical about the chances for success and had a much darker view of the Vice President and the external hires. Employees at Northern took a wait and see approach about the chances of success and were cautiously hopeful. Leadership credibility. Cameron et al. (1987) identified a series of common negative attributes associated with restructuring. One of those attributes was the loss of creditability of the leader. At Northern, a majority of the respondents did not respect the Vice President and questioned his/her leadership abilities. Two decisions seemed to have served as the primary factors for the loss of creditability. The Vice President tried to shape the reassignment of a long serving, senior leader using positive and glowing terms. Respondents were told that the reassigned person, was an “international scholar/practitioner” who was going to provide his/her “wisdom” and “mentor” others. The terminology used in this reassignment was apparently used often by the Vice President. People knew the reassigned person wasn’t an international scholar/practitioner and believed that the Vice President was being disingenuous. The Vice President’s repeated use of positive and glowing terms in other settings resulted in a perception that he/she could not be trusted. The Vice President also created two new high level positions within the division. A number of highly qualified internal candidates applied for those positions but both positions were given to candidates that were brought in from the outside. Several respondents questioned the Vice President’s judgment, noting that the hiring of a
234
qualified internal candidate might have been able to more effectively communicate the Vice President’s thoughts and ideas to others in the division. Further, an internal candidate could have helped bridge the gap that existed between the Vice President and the staff. Respondents perceived the rejection of internal candidates as a statement about the value of the work they were currently doing. The apparent consistent use of overly positive language that was incongruent with the setting, and not hiring at least one internal candidate were tactical errors that, from the perspective of most respondents, resulted in a loss of credibility in the Vice President. At Southern, the credibility of the Vice President seemed to have actually increased as a result of restructuring. The Vice President was known as an honest, fair, and thoughtful leader who had an open door policy and listened to the concerns of employees. The Vice President also worked collaboratively and was action oriented. These attributes strengthened the credibility of the Vice President. Stream Line Budget Process and Obtain Budget Increases Carlson (2003) found that a majority of those responding to his survey reported that their budgets had increased over the 1996-1999 time frame. Sixty-five percent reported increases in their budget, with the balance either reporting no change or budget decreases. Engelbride and Goodale (1998) found that 79 percent of the institutions studied reported budget increases or no change. The percentage of research institutions reporting budget decreases was approximately 68 percent. This study found that restructuring resulted in an increase in the student affairs budget in both institutions. Therefore, the results corroborate the work of Carlson and others that found that budgets increased as a result of restructuring. The Vice President at Northern noted that
235
restructuring may require additional resources, but it is unknown if a request for an increased budget was placed within the context of restructuring. Short-term Wins Kotter (1996) notes that short-term wins are often visible signs of change and institutional improvement. As noted earlier, short-term wins also provides data to support the change process and continued change. Kotter encourages leaders to recognize and reward those playing an important role in the change process. Such efforts increase morale and motivation and may build momentum within the change process. At Southern, the formation of a planning committee and the activities of that committee, which included bringing in speakers, organizing divisional retreats, and setting up communication networks served as some short-term wins. In addition, the clarification of job responsibilities and streamlining the budgeting process served as evidence of positive accomplishment. As noted earlier in this chapter, at Northern, the changes in the structure and reporting lines served as evidence of accomplishment. Unfortunately, some of the changes were not well received and would not necessarily correspond with the description of a short-term win. These changes were visible but were not seen as improvements. Formal Assessment of Results A comprehensive assessment program could provide important information regarding the need to restructure as well as specific areas in need of improvement. An assessment program could provide baseline data which could be used in a pre/post study, to evaluate the success of the effort.
236
Cascio (2002) pointed out that one mistake that should be avoided when restructuring was the failure to evaluate the results of restructuring and if appropriate, to learn from the mistakes that were made. In a study of restructuring in student affairs, Carlson (2003) found that the majority of institutions did not report objective or quantifiable assessment efforts to measure the success or failure of restructuring efforts. At Northern, there was general agreement that it was too early to tell if restructuring had improved performance. At Southern, there was agreement that some of the duplication had been reduced but that it was too early to tell if restructuring had improved performance. The lack of established baseline data on performance prior to restructuring hindered any effort to measure performance post-restructuring. Advice For Those Contemplating Restructuring The lessons learned from the restructuring of the two divisions examined in this study provide valuable insights to individuals interested in restructuring and reinforce many observations found in the literature. These lessons are described below. 1. Prior to initiating restructuring, an effort should be made to become familiar with the literature on organizational change. Many lessons could be learned, and perhaps pitfalls avoided, if leaders read the works of Bridges, Cameron, Cascio, Kotter, MacTaggart, and others. 2. Establish a comprehensive assessment program to develop baseline data regarding the performance of each unit within the division. This data should be utilized to determine if restructuring is necessary as well as identify areas in need of improvement, areas which may need additional resources, new areas that need to be added or existing areas that should be eliminated. It would be helpful if a future
237
assessment effort provided quantitative data on use, satisfaction, and student outcomes. Such a study would give greater insights into how often a service or office is used, how satisfied users were with the service provided, and give a general idea of whether the service or function was contributing to the educational mission of the institution. 3. Attending to the human side of restructuring is critical for a successful change strategy. In both of these institutions, restructuring was initiated after the arrival of a new Vice President. Extensive efforts should be made to build relationships within the division and the institution to develop trust and understanding. Developing effective processes to restructure is critical and must be a priority for the person initiating change. The process should be grounded in change theory and utilize data to guide the decision making process. The process should be well thought out and take the culture of the division into account. 4. At each of these institutions, long serving Vice Presidents had created stability within the organizational culture. Prior to restructuring, efforts should be made to build an atmosphere and culture receptive to anticipated changes. It must be noted that all change is not necessarily positive and that some decisions will produce negative outcomes. At Northern, the goals of the restructuring effort were laudable, yet the process used to restructure was not. An ineffective process limited the success of the effort. 5. Restructuring is more likely to be successful if undertaken using an inclusive participatory approach. This lessens the power of the Vice President to direct and control the process but if people understand the general goals of restructuring, the ensuing
238
recommendations are more likely to be implemented and supported. As noted earlier, change is best accomplished with others, not done to others. 6. Communication is a critical factor in restructuring. Individuals who are contemplating restructuring must make concerted efforts to communicate openly, honestly, in a timely fashion, and fully with all employees. 7. Success should be defined in advance. Individuals interested in restructuring should establish short-term and long-term goals that are acceptable and achievable. The Vice President should publicly acknowledge the attainment of those goals and publicly congratulate those involved in the achievement. 8. With the exception of incompetent staff, those contemplating restructuring should seek the reassignment of staff rather than the termination of staff. To accomplish this it is imperative to have the support of the President and other senior leaders at the institution. 9. Restructuring may identify the need for new or expanded services. Individuals interested in restructuring need to gain commitment for additional resources required to implement the outcomes of restructuring or staff expectations will be dashed, leading to cynicism and a lack of commitment. 10. In working with employees, leaders should understand the difference between change and transition. Restructuring should be accompanied by training and transition support for employees who may be assuming new responsibilities, otherwise, changes will not result in lasting improvements. 11. If the working environment is unionized, those interested in restructuring must work very closely with their human resources office to make sure they address
239
employee issues appropriately. An effort should be made, when possible, to work with union leaders in a collaborative fashion instead of an adversarial one. 12. Lastly, once restructuring is initiated it can take on a life of its own. Leaders should establish criteria that will determine when restructuring has been completed. Once completed, they should publicly announce the conclusion of restructuring, report the successes, and thank those who helped in the process. These suggestions generally agree with the work of Kotter (1996) regarding effective change strategies. Suggestions for Future Research The following section outlines suggestions for future research on restructuring student affairs divisions: 1. This study provided information on two institutions that had recently restructured. A follow-up study of these two divisions utilizing case study methodology and related research questions would provide insights into the longer-term effects of restructuring. 2. Carlson (2003) noted that management practices such as TQM were used in restructuring processes. A study of the effectiveness of a restructuring effort that utilized a formal management practice might provide insight into how a more formalized practice might affect the results of restructuring. Birnbaum (2000) notes that many formal management practices lack supporting data that indicate they are successful. Such a study might provide information to confirm or reject Birnbaum’s findings that the success of management innovations is limited. 3. Since serving students is the primary purpose of restructuring, it would be useful to conduct a pre/post study that identified how restructuring affected student
240
services. Such a study could help researchers better understand how and if students respond to the restructuring effort. 4. Individuals interested in studying restructuring may want to interview senior leaders outside of student affairs to gain a better understanding of the role restructuring played in a larger institutional context. 5. Future researchers should make every effort to examine institutions where they can obtain access to documents related to restructuring, including email correspondence, internal communications, data reports, and annual reports, if available. It would also be helpful to interview the Vice President both prior to commencing the study and at its conclusion. 6. Lastly, it might be advantageous to interview a larger sample size and to include in that larger sample a broad range of employees. Such a sample might include lower level employees affected by restructuring who could provide additional views on its nature and effects. Limitations of the Study The findings in this study may be limited by having utilized respondents who were nominated by the Vice Presidents for Student Affairs. Even though the snowball sampling technique was employed, the possibility exists that participants in the study did not provide a fully representative set of views on restructuring. Furthermore, some people did not wish to be interviewed even after repeated invitations to participate in the study. In one situation, an individual did not want to participate out of fear of reprisal. This created a situation that was less than ideal as it limited access to potentially important source of information.
241
The study may have been influenced by the lack of anonymity within the sample at Northern. While the researcher did not divulge who was participating in the study, a number of participants knew, in advance of their interview, who had already been interviewed or was scheduled for an interview. There was a possibility that information regarding the interview questions was shared prior to the actual interview. If this happened, it may have affected the responses of the participants. Lastly, while a request was made for documents related to restructuring, little documentation was provided. One campus directed the researcher to a website which provided an overview of the institution’s planning process; the other campus provided copies of organization charts. It is unknown if written memoranda and/or email exchanges were used during the initiation or conduct of the restructuring effort. If relevant documents existed, the inability to obtain them may have limited the researcher’s ability to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the restructuring effort prior to the interview process. The lack of documents may also have limited the use of triangulation. This study also may have limitations because follow-up interviews with the Vice President were not conducted.
242
December, 2003
Presicled
Vice President
for Student
EIeGtsd ~ l8adars (ESt)
Affaln
~C i=$ ~
N +:>. Academic ReIaIIonB 'ProgrBrmIhg CouOOI ~EWcaIIoo
w
~
CdIegB Uaisan 'Housing (Repct1s IDAudlary and Buslnen Servioes)
.
Human Resources
r-=l
InfoonaIion TecI1nalogy
P' -< > Nn oP'" 8~
Fi1amiaI
Officer
L:J
Cere
H
Affalls SeNIces
1#2
J#2
#2
fo(Women
Center
University
Religious -oooe ..... 11..=.1
II
:..-
Students
'-'IA" 12 "'.,-
rEl r=l
SII.Ident:s Activities Services
......
IB
PsychoIogIcaJ Services
""""""1
HaaItI1 Services
2006
Vice President for ---------------- Student Affairs
- - - -- - - - - ---'Division
Affairs Council
Cabinet of Student Leaders
Administrative Asst. Staff Asst. VIII Staff Asst. VI
ofStudeht
~(/) ::\..> Assistant Vice President
Associate Associate Vice Presi,deI)t for Student Affairs -
Vice President
g'Q
gOQ
10 .j::.. .j::..
~ ~. :2' ~
([)
Senior Director, Counseling &, Psych. St.,-vices
Jointly '"P~" '" "n~oo ~d ',..inm
Senior Director, Judicial Affairs
Assistant Vice President for Housing, Food Services and Residenco Life
Senior Director, Career Services
Senior Director, Unions and Student Activities SA Development
Senior Director, UniVersity Health Services
«10(")
Ctr for Student Activities & Programming
'"' 0 rJJ. ~ ~
.......
aD"'
g~
Center for Women Students
Fraiernity & Sorority Lit;'
Senior Director, Residence Life
,
,
~
Center It" Student Engagemen' SA Research and Assessment LGBTA Student Resource Ctr
Human Resources
f-
New Student
Programs
Infonnation Technology
L-
Special Populations
onCCal11pl1$ Livin" Cultural Center
Appendix B
Dear
:
My name is Ed Engelbride and I'm a doctoral student in the higher education, policy and leadership program at the University of Maryland at College Park. My dissertation focuses on restructuring in student affairs. I am writing to request your assistance with my research. Your Vice President has agreed to assist me with my research project and has nominated a number of individuals to participate in the study. Individuals who agree to participate will be asked a series of questions regarding the restructuring effort. Interviews will take place on campus and will last approximately 40-45 minutes. While your Vice President has nominated individuals for this study, the identity of the actual participants will be strictly confidential. Further, the identity of the institution will not be disclosed in my dissertation. I would like to include you in my research project. If you are willing to participate, I would appreciate your response by August 11th. If you would like additional information about this study, please reply back to this message or contact me via telephone at 518-443-5116. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely,
Ed Engelbride Doctoral Student University of Maryland, College Park
245
Appendix C Interview Guide My name is Ed Engelbride and I am a doctoral student at the University of Maryland. I am studying restructuring in student affairs, specifically the impetus, goals and processes and outcomes. The names of the individuals participating in this study as well as their institutions will be confidential. I have an Informed Consent Form that I'd like to review with you and ask that you sign it. Do you have any questions before we start? Background How long have you worked at this institution? How would you describe the restructuring process that took place in your division? When did the restructuring effort start? What were some of the major issues facing student affairs at that time? How would you describe your financial situation prior to restructuring? When was the restructuring completed? Did you have a role in the restructuring effort? If so, what was your role?
Question #1 - What was the impetus for restructuring? Who initiated restructuring efforts for student affairs? Did it primarily come from within the University or an external source? What rationale was given to initiate restructuring in student affairs? In your opinion was the “public” rationale for the restructuring the real or complete reason it was initiated? Follow up probes on factors not covered in initial response: - Were financial issues a factor? - Was it an attempt to remove “bottle necks” in the previous structure? - Was a concern about using technology more effectively a factor? - Were personnel issues a factor? - Was restructuring a convenient way to respond to more general concern about the effectiveness of the division or to ward off other worse alternatives? - Were there concerns within the division that the pressures to restructure might not be completely legitimate? Question #2 - What were the goals of restructuring? What were the goals of the restructuring effort? Are they written anywhere?
246
Do you think staff in the division generally understood the goals of restructuring? Do you think there was general agreement on them? Follow up probes on factors not covered in initial response: - Was one of the stated goals to improve coordination and/or communication? - Was a goal to improve the responsiveness of units in the division? - Was an implicit or explicit goal an effort to work around particular employees thought to be impeding the progress of the division? - Was a goal to reduce costs? - Was a goal to centralize, decentralize, or restructure authority within the division? - Was an implicit goal to give the appearance of acting to resolve an issue that was intractable or was not considered a legitimate issue within the division? - Was a goal to give higher priority to emerging concerns such as the division’s role in facilitating student learning? Question #3 - What processes were employed? How would you describe the process employed to implement the restructuring? Follow up probes on factors not covered in initial response: - How open was communication about the process to division staff? - How inclusive was participation in the process? - How was the process structured? - What processes, procedures and strategies were employed in the restructuring process? - Did the process draw on concepts of formal management practices described in the literature such as “right sizing”, etc. - Who had the principal role in the restructuring effort? - Were consultants used to help design or assist with the process? - How did employees respond to the restructuring effort? Was there a high level of acceptance or was there some degree of resistance? If so, what was the nature of this resistance? Was it ignored or were they attempt to block or disrupt it? - How would your VP/supervisor describe the process? What appears to account for any differing perceptions? In reviewing your campuses restructuring effort, what processes facilitated its implementation? Were there aspects of the process that impeded its implementation? Follow up questions on factors not covered in initial response: - What was the most helpful feature of the restructuring process? What was the least helpful?
247
-
If you had the option of going through the restructuring effort again, what things would you do the same? What things would you do differently?
Question #4 - What were the results/outcomes of restructuring? How effective was the restructuring effort in achieving the stated goals? Was it not effective in some respects? Follow up questions on factors not covered in initial response: - Has the division’s performance improved since the restructuring effort? If so, how? - Did the restructuring effort affect staffing? - Did anyone lose their job or be reassigned in the process? - Did employee turnover increase as a result of the restructuring? - Did the restructuring effort affected employee morale? Perceptions of leadership? Employee relationships? - Was there a positive or negative affect on the division as a result of the restructuring process? In what ways? - Did restructuring affect your financial situation? Were there any changes in the way the division goes about it’s business as a result of the restructuring? Earlier, I asked about major issues facing student affairs when restructuring was initiated. What, if any affect did restructuring have on resolving any of those issues? What evidence is there to show the affects of restructuring? Were efforts made to analyze the success of restructuring? If so, what was the nature of these efforts? Have there been any unintended outcomes of the restructuring effort either positive or negative? If so, what were they? Closing If I wanted to talk to someone else about the restructuring effort, could you suggest who that might be? Are there aspects of the restructuring that I have not asked about that I should? Are there any documents about the restructuring effort that I might be able to obtain? Would you like to add anything? Thank you for your time.
248
Appendix D Carlson’s 1999 NASPA Survey “A Survey of the Restructuring of Student Affairs Administration” (17 Questions) Please identify the Carnegie Code Classification that comes closest to identifying your institution: __ Research University __ Comprehensive University __ Two-Year College I. DEMOGRAPHICS: The purpose of this section is to determine the background of those people serving as their institution’s Senior Student Affairs Officer. 1. Please indicate the number of years you have served as your institution’s Senior Student Affairs Officer. __ 2. What is the staff size (number of people) in your institution’s student affairs office/ department? __ 3. Please select the best description of the position you held prior to accepting your current appointment? __ Student Affairs Administration __ At this institution __ At another institution __ Other: (Please specify below) __ Professor of: ________________ __ At this institution __ At another institution __ Other: (Please specify below) __ Business Person __ Management __ Finance __ Administration __ Marketing/Sales __ Doctoral Institution __ Liberal Arts College
249
__ Other: (Please specify below) ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 4. Please indicate the number of years you were in your previous position: ___ 5. Please select your highest education level and indicate your program: __ BS/BA __ MS/MA __ Doctorate
Program: ____________________________________________________ II. RESTRUCTURING AT YOUR INSTITUTION The purpose of this section is to assess the restructuring occurring at your institution. 6. Has the office of student affairs at your institution been restructured in the past three years? __ Yes __ No (Please skip to question #9. Answers to questions 7-8 will be ignored) 7. What areas are NOW the responsibility of your institution’s student affairs office? __ Financial Aid __ Counseling __ Registrar __ Health Services __ Student Union __ Athletics __ Book Store __ Student Activities __ Food Services __ Housing & Residential Life __ Physical Plant __ Career Planning __ Greek Life __ Alumni Services __ Campus Security __ Dean of Students __ Other (s) (Please list below and separate with a semi-colon)
250
__ Admissions __ Other (s) (Please list other areas separating each with a semi-colon): ___________ _____________________________________________________________________ 8. What student affairs areas of responsibility were impacted (i.e., added, eliminated, combined, transferred) as a result of your institution’s restructuring, and what happened to these areas of responsibility? __ Financial Aid __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________ __ Student Union __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Counseling __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Athletics __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Registrar __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________ __ Health Services __ Added
__ Book Store __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________ __ Student Activities __ Added
251
__ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Food Services __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Career Planning __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Admissions __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Greek Life __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Housing & Residential Life __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________ __ Physical Plant __ Added __ Eliminated
__ Alumni Services __ Added __ Eliminated __ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________ __ Campus Security __ Added __ Eliminated
252
__ Combined with: __________ __ Transferred to: ___________
__ Combined with: ________ __ Transferred to: _________
__ Dean of Students __ Added __ Eliminated
__ Other (s) (Please list below)
__ Combined with: _______________________ __ Transferred to: _______________________
__ Other (s) (Please list other areas of responsibility that were impacted by the restructuring of student affairs AND what happened to them, (e.g., added, eliminated, combined with, transferred to). Please separate each entry with a semi-colon.): _______________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 9. Please indicate the amount and direction that your student affairs budget has changed over the past three years: Directions: __ No Change __ Increased __ Decreased __ $51K to $250K __ $251K to $500K __ 501K to $1M __ 1.01M to $2M
Amount: __ None __ Less than $5K __ $5K to $50K
__ $2.01M to $5M __ $5.01M to $10M __ $10.01M to $20M __ Greater than $20M
253
10. Please indicate the number and direction that student affairs personnel positions have changed in the last three years: Directions: __ No Change __ Increased __ Decreased Number: __ None __ 1 __ 2 __ 3-5 __ 6-10 __ 11-20 __ 21-30 __ 31-50 __ More than 50
11. Please indicate the institutional management level that decided to implement the restructuring, budgetary and/or personnel changes at your institution: Restructuring Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Board of Governors/Trustees __ President/Chancellor __ Senior Student Affairs Officer __ Other: (Please Specify) _____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
__ Budget Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Board of Governors/Trustees __ President/Chancellor __ Senior Student Affairs Officer __ Other: (Please Specify) _____________________________________________
254
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
Personnel Position Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Board of Governors/Trustees __ President/Chancellor __ Senior Student Affairs Officer __ Other: (Please Specify) _____________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 12. Please select the description that best fits the way the need for the following changes was determined: Restructuring Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Study Commissioned __ Expert/Consultant Engaged __ Suggestion provided/solicited from within the Institution __ Decision Maker Reach Decision Independently without External Input __ Other (Please Specify): __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Budget Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Study Commissioned
255
__ Expert/Consultant Engaged __ Suggestion provided/solicited from within the Institution __ Decision Maker Reach Decision Independently without External Input __ Other (Please Specify): __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Personnel Position Changes: __ No Changes Made __ Study Commissioned __ Expert/Consultant Engaged __ Suggestion provided/solicited from within the Institution __ Decision Maker Reach Decision Independently without External Input __ Other (Please Specify): __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
13. Please select the method (s) or technique (s) that most closely describes those used to implement the restructuring of student affairs (multiple choices permitted): __ N/A (No Changes)
__ Total Quality Management (TQM): Involves strategic planning, focus on quality, continuous (incremental) improvement, ongoing training __ Outsourcing: Involves hiring contractors to manage processes such as food services, payroll, etc., allows institution to focus on ‘core’ competencies __ Reengineering: Involves radical changes to all or part of existing processes for dramatic improvement to areas central to customer satisfaction. Cost, scope and schedule are key considerations __ Employee Empowerment: Involves pushing responsibility and authority for decisions to the lowest competent level
256
__ Horizontal Management Shift: Involves eliminating management ‘layers’ __ Decentralization of Support Functions: Involves returning key functions to customer control to avoid duplication and bureaucracy __ Other Methods/Techniques: (Please separate methods with a semi-colon): __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
14. What evaluation process is being used to measure the effectiveness of the student affairs restructuring? __ N/A (No Changes) __ Specific Metrics Collected, Analyzed and Disseminated __ Senior Management Discusses Effectiveness of Changes __ Decision Maker (s) Requests Reports/Briefings __ The Success or Failure of the Changes is NOT being measured
__ Other (Please Identify): __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
257
III. TRENDS AND LESSONS LEARNED: The purpose of this selection is to determine if there is any consensus about what national Trends may have a major impact on the future of student affairs, and to gather restructuring lessons learned. 15. Please list three trends that may have a major impact on the future of student affairs: (In Order of Importance) 1. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 3. _________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
16. What would you like your colleagues to know about what went well when your institution’s student affairs office was being restructured? (In Order of Importance) 1. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
258
2. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 3. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
17. What would you like your colleagues to know about what did not go well when your institution’s student affairs office was being restructured? (In Order of Importance) 1. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 3. _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
259
That’s it!! If you have any questions or comments about the survey please send Carl Carlson an email at the following address: Please mail or fax your completed survey to: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators 1875 Connecticut Avenue , N.W., Suite 418 Washington, D.C. 20009-5728 Fax number: (202) 797-1157 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey! Sincerely, Carl G. Carlson
260
Appendix E Engelbride’s 1996 NASPA Survey “Survey on the State of Student Affairs” Name: _______________________________ Institution: __________________________________ Your Title: __________________________________ Years in that Position: ______________________________ I. Organizational Structure 1. Current Institutional Appointment: __ One year contract. (year to year rollover) __ Multi-year contract. Duration: Years ____ __ No formal agreement, serve at the pleasure of : ___________________ (Title) 2. Are you considered a member of the President’s Council? ___ Yes ___ No 3. To whom do you report directly? President ___ Chancellor ___ Provost ___
Executive V. P. ____
Board of Trustees ___
___ Other (Please Specify) _____________________________________ 4. Has this reporting structure changed over the past five years? ___ Yes ___ No ___ N/A (less than 5 years in the position) If “Yes” please describe: ______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
261
5. Please place a check mark next to the area reporting to you: __ Admissions __ Conference Srv. __ Registration and Records __ Residence Life/Housing __ Center for Academic Advising __ Commuter Student Services __ Counseling/Psychological __ Dean of Students __ Enrollment Management __ Financial Aid __ Fraternity/Sorority __ Auxiliary Services __ Food Srv. __ Bookstore __ Career Services __ Student Activities __ Student Government __ Orientation __ Student Leadership __ Student Union __ Wellness Education __ Judicial Affairs
__ Fund Raising Efforts for Student Affairs __ International Student Services __ Student Health Center __ Registration and Records __ Multicultural Student Services __ Others – Please Specify
II. Administration Supervision 6. Have the area under your administrative supervision changed in the last five years? ___ Yes ___No ___ N/A (less than 5 years in position)
262
If “Yes,” changes were made to: ________ Reduce budget. ___ Improve delivery of student services. ___ Increase productivity. ___ Maintain parity with other areas. ___ Other-please specify: ____________________________________ 7. Within the past five years, have any of the area reporting to you merged and/or consolidated within student affairs or with other departments outside of student affairs? ___ Yes ___ No ___ N/A (less than 5 years in position) If “Yes,” please describe: ________________________________________ 8. Have you eliminated positions that reported to you as a result of budget changes or institutional restructuring? ___ Yes ___ No If “Yes,” please explain: __________________________________________ 9. Has the institution eliminated non-student affairs positions as a result of budget changes or institutional restructuring? ___ Yes ___ No
III. Budgeting 10. What is the appropriate total annual budget for student affairs? _____________ 11. Do you have complete authority for the divisional budget? ___ Yes ___ No 12. Over the past five years, the budget for the division of student affairs has: ___ increased, approximately _______ percent
263
___ decreased, approximately ________ percent
___ remained the same ___ N/A (less than five years in position) 13. If the budget for the division for student affairs has decreased, how do these cuts compare to budget circumstances for other divisions in the institution? ___ budget cuts to student affairs were more severe than other divisions ___ budget cuts to student affairs were less severe than other divisions ___ budget cuts to student affairs were the same as other division ___ not applicable, budget has not decreased If budget cuts to student affairs were more or less severe than other divisions, please explain: ____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 14. If the divisional budget has decreased, what strategies have been employed to accommodate this decrease? In general, the amount of student fee has increased ___ Yes ___No Number of services areas charging fees for service have increased ___ Yes ___ No Some services have been eliminated ___ Yes ___ No Service area have become privatized ___ Yes ___ No Restructuring has taken place within the division, positions lost ___ Yes ___ No Increased emphasis placed on entrepreneurial opportunities
264
___ Yes ___ No Twelve-month employees shifted to 9 or 10 month contracts ___ Yes ___ No Vacant line “given up” or not filled ___ Yes ___ No Student workers have been hired to replace professional staff ___ Yes ___ No Fund raising initiated for division of student affairs ___ Yes ___ No Other: _____________________________________________________ 15. Please comment on other factors impacting student affairs not covered in this survey. ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
Thank you for completing this survey. Please return this survey by November 1, 1996 to: Dr. Suzanne E. Gordon President, NASPA 1875 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 418 Washington, D. C. 20009-5728 Fax (202) 797-1157
265
REFERENCES
Allen, R., & Chaffee, E. (1981). Management fads in higher education. (Monograph No. 3) National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Boulder, Co. Allen, R. C. (2000, July 21). Why can’t universities be more like businesses? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(46), B4. American Association of Higher Education, American College Personnel Association, and National Association of Student Personnel. (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. Washington, DC: Authors American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: Author. American College Personnel Association and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1997). Principles of good practice for student affairs. Washington, DC: Authors. Arnone, M. (2004, January 16). State spending on colleges drops for first time in 11 years. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(19). Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors. Certified insolvency and restructuring advisor. Retrieved July 20, 2005, fromhttp://www.airacira.org Atiase, R. K., Platt, D. E., & Tse, S. Y. (2004). Operational restructuring charges and post-restructuring performance. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 493522. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33. Retrieved December 27, 2005 fromhttp://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU33.html Balderston, F. E. (1995). Managing today's university, strategies for viability, change, excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D., Ecker, G. P., & Riley, G. L. (1991). Alternative models of governance in higher education. In M. W. Peterson, E. E. Chaffee, & T.H. White (Eds.), Organization and Governance in Higher Education. (ASHE Reader, 4th ed., pp. 30-46). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster. Barrow, C. W. (1996). The new economy and restructuring higher education: Thought and action. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 12, 37-54.
266
Benjamin, R. & Carroll, S. (1993). Restructuring higher education–by design. (RAND issue paper No. 2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED359893) Benjamin, R. & Carroll, S. (1996). Impediments and imperatives in restructuring higher education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 705-719. Berdahl, R. O. (1971). Statewide Coordination of Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Berdahl, R. O. & Schmidtlein, F. S. (1996). Restructuring and its aftermath: Maryland. In T. J. MacTaggart (Ed.), Restructuring higher education: What works and what doesn't in reorganizing governing systems. (pp. 157-199). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1998, November). The life cycle of academic management fads. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting, Miami, FL. Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blimling, G. (2001). Uniting scholarship and communities of practice in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 381-396. Bowen, H. R. (1977). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boyer, E. (1987). The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper and Row. Boyer, E. (1997). Selected speeches 1979-1995. (L. Green, Ed.). Washington, DC: The Carnegie Foundation. Boyle, T. (1995). Good questions for sound decision making. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (New Directions in Student Services No. 70, pp. 51-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Breneman, D. W. (1993). Higher education: On a collision course with new realities. (AGB Occasional Paper. Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities) Harvard University: American Student Assistance Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED379975) Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
267
Briton, D. (1996). Marketspeak: The rhetoric of restructuring and its implications for adult and higher education. Studies in the Education of Adults, 28(1). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ521136) Brookings Institute. Improve government performance. Retrieved July 8, 2005, fromhttp://www.brook.edu/gs/cpa/research/projects/50ge/endeavors Brookings Institute. (2005) Urgent business for America revitalizing the Federal government. Retrieved July 8, 2005, fromhttp://www.brook.edu/gs/cps/volcker Bruegman, D. C. (1995). An organizational model for the 21st century: Adopting the corporate model for higher education. National Association of College and University Business Officers Business Officer, 29(5), 28-31. Burd, S. (2004, March 12). Plan to punish big increases in tuition is dropped. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(27). Burke, R. J. & Nelson, D. (1997). Mergers and acquisitions, downsizing, and privatization: A North American perspective. In M. K. Gowing, J. D. Kraft, & J. Campbell, (Eds.), The New Organizational Reality: Downsizing, restructuring, and revitalization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Byrne, J. A. (1994, May 9). The pain of downsizing. Business Week, 9, 61-69. Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cameron, K. S. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 604-632. Cameron, K. S. (1983). A study of organizational effectiveness and its predictors. Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED232612) Cameron, K. S. (1991). Organizational adaptation and higher education. In M. W. Peterson, E. E. Chaffee, & T. H. White (Eds.), Organization and governance in higher education. (ASHE Reader, 4th ed., pp. 284-299). Needham Heights, MA; Simon and Schuster. Cameron, K. S. (1994). Strategies for successful organizational downsizing. Human Resource Management, 33(2), 189-211. Cameron. K. S., Freeman, S., & Mishra, A. (1991). Best practices in white-collar downsizing: Managing contradictions. The Academy of Management Executives, 5, 57-73.
268
Cameron, K. S., Kim, M. U., & Whetten, D. A. (1987). Organizational effects of decline and turbulence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 222-240. Carlson, C. G. (2000, March). The restructuring of student affairs administration. Presented at the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA. Carlson, C. G. (2003). The restructuring of student affairs administration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Definitions. Retrieved July 2005, fromhttp://www.carengiefoundation.org/CHIE2000/defNotes/ definitions.htm Carnevale, A. P., Johnson, N. C., & Edwards, A. R. (1998, April 10). Performancebased appropriations: Fad or wave of the future? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(31), B6. Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge Publishing. Cascio, W. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? The Academy of Management Executive, 7, 95-104. Cascio, W. (2002). Strategies for restructuring responsibly. The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 80-91. Chabotar, K. J., & Knutel, P. (1996). Reengineering: A view from the frontlines. Planning for Higher Education, 25(Winter), 11-17. Chait, R. P. (1990). The 1990’s: The decade of the trustees. In L. W. Jones & F. A. Nowotny (Eds.), An agenda for the new decade. (New Directions for Higher Education No. 70, pp. 25-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chavez, A. F. (1998). Coping with restructuring and fiscal constraint in student affairs: A critical review. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. Champlin, D. P., & Knoedler, J. T. (1999). Restructuring by design: Government’s complicity in corporate restructuring. Journal of Economic Issues, 33, 41-58. Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac: 1999-2000. (1999, August 27). Vol. 46(1). Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac: 2005-2006. (2005, August 27). Vol. 52(1).
269
Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Clark, B. (1993). The problem of complexity in modern higher education. In Rothblatt & Wittrock (Eds.), The European and American university since 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Commission on National Investment in Education. (1997). Breaking the Social Contract, The Fiscal Crisis in Higher Education. Council for Aid to Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414806) Covin, T. J. (1993). Managing workforce reduction: A survey of employee reactions and implications for management consultants. Organizational Development Journal, 11, 67-76. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1997). Organization development and change. (6th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. DePamphilis, D. (2003). Mergers, acquisitions and other restructuring activities - An integrated approach to process, tools, cases, and solutions. (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dickman, M., Fuqua, D., Coombs, W., & Seals, J. (1996). Downsizing in higher education: Institutional budget reduction priorities and strategies. Journal of College Student Development, 37(4), 457-467. Dill, D. (1997). Effects of competition on diverse institutional contexts. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment. (pp. 88-105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dillon, S. (2005, October 16). At public universities, warnings of privatization. The New York Times. Retrieved on April 11, 2007, fromhttp://www.nytimes.com Dressel, P. (1987). Mission, organization, and leadership. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(1), 101-109. Drucker, P. F. (1994). The age of social transformation. Atlantic Monthly, 274(5), 5380. Dungy, G. J. (2003). Organization and functions of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
270
Eaton, J. S. (1995. January 5). Investing in American higher education: An argument for restructuring. Position paper Council for Aid to Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED378906) Eccles, R. G., & Nohria, N. (1992). Beyond the hype: Rediscovering the essence of management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Education Commission of the States. (1996). Restructuring colleges and universities: The challenges and consequences. Policy Papers on Higher Education presented at the Education Commission of the States National Forum and Annual Meeting in Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397704) El-Khawas, E. (1994). Campus trends 1994: A time of redirection. (Higher Education Policy Report No. 84). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. El-Khawas, E. (1994). Restructuring initiatives in public higher education: Institutional responses to financial constraints. (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. El-Khawas, E., & Knopp, L. (1996). Campus trends 1996: Adjusting to new realities. (Higher Education Policy Report No. 86). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Engelbride, E. P., & Goodale, T. (1998, March). Survey on student affairs: Findings and implications. Presented at the meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Philadelphia, PA. Etzioni, A. (1991). Administrative and professional authority. In M. W. Peterson, E. E. Chaffee, & T. H. White, (Eds.), Organization and governance in Higher Education. (ASHE Reader, 4th ed., pp. 441-448). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster. Fenske, R. H. (1989). Historical Foundations of student services. In U. Delworth, G. R. Hanson, & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession. (2nd ed., pp. 5-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fink, I. (1997). Adapting facilities for new technologies and learners. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment. (pp. 319-339). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gaylord, T. A., & Rodgers, B. (1988). An analysis of the need and process of restructuring the University of Alaska statewide system of higher education. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED301089)
271
Goldenkoff, R. (1997, February 1). Report card on downsizing. Retrieved December 27, 2005, from http:/www.govexec.com/features/0297mgmt.htm Goldsmith, S. S. (1995, November 2-5). Beyond restructuring: Building a university for the 21st century. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Orlando, FL. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED391427) Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054. Gumport, P. (1988). Curricula as signposts of cultural change. The Review of Higher Education, 12(1), 49-61. Gumport, P. (1993). The contested terrain of academic program reduction. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(3), 283-311. Gumport, P., & Pusser, B. (1995). A case of bureaucratic accretion: Context and consequences. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(5), 493-520. Gumport, P., & Pusser, B. (1997). Restructuring the academic environment. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment. (pp.453-478). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guskin, A. (1994). Reducing costs and enhancing student learning: The university challenge of the 1990's Part I - Restructuring the administration. Change Magazine, 27(2), 8-18. Guskin, A. (1994, July/August). Reducing costs and enhancing student learning: The university challenge of the 1990's Part I - Restructuring the administration. Change Magazine, 26(5), 16-25. Guskin, A. (1996, September/October). Facing the future: The change process in Restructuring universities. Change Magazine. 28 (6), 26-37. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1994). Competing for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
272
Hartle, T. W., & Galloway, F. W. (1997). Federal guidance for a changing national agenda. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets, (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. (pp. 30-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Haas, R.M. (1997). Organizing the elements of planning. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets, (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. (pp. 246-263). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Healy, P., Lively, K., Mercer, J., Nicklin, J., & Schmidt, P. (1996, June 14). Both private and public colleges fight for financial health. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 42(40), A15. Hebel, S. (2004, December 17). State spending on higher education up slightly, a reversal from previous year. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(17), A27. Hebel, S., & Selingo, J. (2001, April 20). For public colleges, a decade of generous state budgets is over. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(32), A10. Henkoff, R. (1994, October). Getting beyond downsizing. Fortune. 58-64. Heydinger, R. B. (1997). Principles for redesigning institutions. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. (pp. 106123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hoover, E. (2004, October 29). Public colleges see a 10% rise in tuition for 2004-05. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(10), A1. Horn, R. N., & Jerome, R. T. (1996). When corporate restructuring meets higher education. Academe, 82(3), 34-36. Ikenberry, S. O. (1970). Restructuring the governance of higher education. American Association of University Professors Bulletin, Winter, 371-374. Jaschik, S. (1992, October 21). One per cent decline in state support for colleges, thought to be first 2-year drop ever. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 39(9), A21. Jenkins, C. (1997, Spring). Downsizing or dumbsizing: The restructuring of corporate America. Brigham Young Magazine. Jones, L. W., & Nowotny, F. A. (1990). An agenda for the new decade. New Directions for Higher Education, Summer(70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
273
Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning Reconsidered: A Campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and American College Personnel Association. Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2006). Learning Reconsidered 2: A Practical guide to implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers International, Association of College Unions International, National Academic Advising Association, National Association for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National Intramural Recreational Sports Association. Kennedy, D. (1993). Making choices in the research university. Daedalus, 122(4), 127156. Kennedy, D. (1995, May/June). Another century’s end, another revolution for higher education. Change Magazine, 27(3), 8-15. Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kerr, C. (1990). Higher education cannot escape history: The 1990’s. In L. W. Jones, & F. A. Nowotny (Eds.), An agenda for the new decade. New Directions for Higher Education, Summer(70), (pp. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kettinger, W. J., & Wertz, R. D. (1993). The financial restructuring of higher education: Reengineering or radical reform? The Journal of Higher Education, 9(1), 13-26. Kezar, A. (2003). Enhancing innovative partnerships: Creating a change model for academic and student affairs collaboration. Innovative Higher Education. 28(2), 137-156. Komives, S. R., Woodard, D., & Associates (Eds.). (2003). Student services: A handbook for the profession. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Koskinen, J. (1997). Testimony before the senate governmental affairs subcommittee on oversight of governmental management, restructuring and the District of Columbia regarding "The Freedom from Government Competition Act." (S.314). Retrieved July 8, 2005 fromhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. Kotter, M. (1995). Restructuring student services: A philosophical framework. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (New Directions for Student Services No. 70, pp. 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
274
Lenth, C. S. (1996). What political leaders expect from postsecondary assessment. In National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, The National assessment of college student learning: An inventory of state-level assessment activities. (pp. 157-164). Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Leslie, L., & Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising administrative costs: Seeking explanations. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 187-211. Levy, S. (1995). Sources of current and future funding. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (New Directions for Student Services No. 70, pp. 39-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lively, K. (1992, July 29). New group aims to ‘restructure’ nation’s colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(38), A12. Lively, K. (1992, October 21). First recorded drop in state appropriations to higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 9(39), A21. Lively, K. (1993, February 3). State colleges face tough decisions on ‘downsizing.’ The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22(39), A23. Lively, K. (1993, October 27). State support for public college rose 2% this year. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(10), A29. Lovett, C. (1996). How to start restructuring our colleges. Planning for Higher Education, 24(3), 18-22. MacTaggart, T. J. (Ed.). (1996). Restructuring higher education: What works and what doesn’t in reorganizing governing systems. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Madson, D. (1995). Management strategies as a basis for budgeting and restructuring. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (pp. 8798). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Marcus, L. R. (1997). Restructuring state higher education governance patterns. The Review of Higher Education, 20(4), 399-418. Marks, M. (1994). From Turmoil to triumph: New life after merger, acquisition, and downsizing. New York: Lexington Books. Masland, A. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 8(2), 157-68.
275
Massey, W. E. (1994). The public university for the twenty-first century: Beyond the land grant. David Dodds Henry Lecture (16th) in Chicago, IL. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401837) Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (Applied Social Research Methods Series, 41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McPherson, M., & Shapiro, M. (1993). Changing patterns of college finance and enrollment. In D. Breneman, & L. Leslie (Eds.), ASHE Reader on finance in higher education. (pp. 163-179). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1992). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In J. W. Meyer, & R. W. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. (pp. 21-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing. Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Characteristics of excellence in higher education. Retrieved on December 27, 2005, fromhttp://www.msche.org/ Mielke, P., & Schuh, J. (1995). Ethical issues related to restructuring. In D. Woodard (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (pp 75-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mortenson, T. G. (1994). Restructuring higher education finance: Shifting financial responsibility from government to students. Paper presented at the 11th Annual National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs Conference, San Francisco, CA. Available from Postsecondary Education Opportunity, Iowa City. Nadler, D. A., & Heilpern. (1998). The CEO in the context of discontinuous change. In D. C. Hambrick, D. A. Nadler, & M. L. Tushman, (Eds.), Navigating Change: How CEOs, top teams, and boards steer transformation. (pp. 3-28). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. New York: Oxford University Press. National Association of College and University Business Officers. (2005). Retrieved July 7, 2005, from www.nacubo.org/documents/bookstore/ 2005NACUBOPublications.pdf
276
National Association for Student Personnel Administrators. (1937). The student personnel point of view. Washington, DC: Author. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Percentage of total revenue for public institutions from federal, state, and local appropriations. Retrieved July 7, 2005, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt334.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). State and local appropriations as a percentage of operating costs. Retrieved July 20, 2005, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/ National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Retrieved July 20, 2005, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/ National Organization of Downsized Employees. Retrieved June 12, 2005, fromhttp://pages.prodigy.com/NODE/ Nicklin, J. L. (1995). The hum of corporate buzzwords. The Chronicle of Higher Education. A33-34. 1/795 issue 20 article 41 Novak, R. J. (1996). Methods, objectives, and consequences of restructuring. In T. J. MacTaggart (Ed.), Restructuring higher education: What works and what doesn't in reorganizing governing systems. (pp. 16-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nuss, E. M. (2003). The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession. (4th ed.). (pp. 65-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial Spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Parker, M., & Slaughter, J. (1994). Beware! TQM is coming to your campus. The NEA Education Journal, 10(1), 5-30. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peterson, M.W., & Dill, D. (1997). Understanding the competitive environment of the postsecondary knowledge industry. In M. W. Peterson, D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment. (pp. 3-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peterson, M. W., Dill, D., & Mets, L. A. (Eds.). (1997). Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
277
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organizational theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row. Provan, K., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1-33. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (2001). (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rhoades, G. (1983). Conflicting interests in higher education. American Journal of Education, 91(3), 283-327. Rhoades, G. (1987, Jan/Feb). Higher education in a consumer society. The Journal of Higher Education, 58(1), 1-24. Rhoades, G. (1995). Rethinking restructuring in universities. The Journal for Higher Education Management, 10(2), 17-30. Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising, stratified administrative costs: Student services' place. In D. B. Woodard, (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (pp. 25-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professional: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic labor. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (1997). Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supply-side higher education. Social Text 51, 15(2), 9-38. Rifkin, G. (1994). When is a fad not a fad? Harvard Business Review, 72(5), 11. Rodgers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. (4th Ed.). New York: Free Press. Sandeen, A. (1989). Issues influencing the organization of student affairs. In U. Delworth, G. R., Hanson, & Associate (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession. (2nd ed.). (pp. 445-460). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmidt, P. (1997, November 14). State appropriations for colleges increase at highest rate since 1990. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(12), A23. Schmidt, P. (1998, November 27). State spending on higher education rises 6.7% in 1998-99 to a total of $52.8 billion. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(14).
278
Schmidt, P. (1999, June 25). States make healthy increases in spending on higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(42), A39. Schmidt, P. (2002, January 18). State spending on higher education grows by smallest rate in 5 years. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(10). Schmidtlein, F. A. (1999). Organizations that mislead institutional researchers. Research in Higher Education, 40(5), 571-587. Schmidtlein, F. A., & Glenny, L. A. (1977). State budgeting for higher education: The political economy of the process. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education. Selingo, J. (2000, October 3). One-fifth of states reorganized higher-education governance in 1990's, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on July 7, 2005, fromhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2000/10/ 2000100304n.htm Shirley, R. C. (1994). Strategic and operational reform in public higher education: A Mandate for change. The AGB Occasional Paper Series, #21. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED412848) Shull, R., & Hughes, A. (2005, June 30). White house power grab puts public at risk. Retrieved July 8, 2005, from www.ombwatch.org. Slaughter, S. (1985). From serving students to serving the economy: Changing expectations of faculty role performance. Higher Education, 14(1). 41-56. Slaughter, S. (1993). Retrenchment in the 1980's: The politics of prestige and gender. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(3), 250-282. Slaughter, S. (1994). Academic freedom at the end of the century. In P. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport, (Eds.), Higher education in American society. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books. Slaughter, S. (1995). Criteria for restructuring postsecondary education. Journal of Higher Education Management, 10(2), 31-44. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1993). Changes in intellectual property statutes and policies at a public university: Revising the terms of professional labor. Higher Education, 26, 287-312.
279
Slavin, R. E. (1989). PET and the pendulum: Faddism in education and how to stop it. Phi Delta Kappan, 20(10), 752-758. Smart, J., & Cameron, K. (1998). Maintaining effectiveness amid downsizing and decline in institutions of higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(1), 65-86. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. (2004). Principles of Accreditation. Retrieved December 22, 2005, fromhttp://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/ PrinciplesOfAccreditation.PDF Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. State Appropriations for Higher Education, 1998-99. (1998, November 27). The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(14), A27. Titus, S. E. (1998). The restructuring goals of Minnesota state colleges and universities: Exploring the interpretations of institutional presidents. Dissertation. University of Virginia. Accession number: AAG9916385. Trombley, W. (1995). Ambitious reform agenda: Restructuring Virginia higher education. Cross Talk, 3(3), 1-6. Trow, J. (1995). Budgetary climate. In D. Woodard, (Ed.), Budgeting as a tool for policy in student affairs. (New Directions in Student Services No. 70, pp. 15-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Trow, M. (1970). Reflections on the transition from mass to universal higher education. Daedalus, Winter, 1-42. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Accountability report. Retrieved on March 26, 2007, fromhttp://www.hhs.gov/of/reports/account/ acct99/pdf/acctrpt.pdf U. S. General Accounting Office. (1995, May 17). Government reorganization: Issues and principles. GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166. 2-3. Retrieved on July 8, 2005, fromhttp://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/gao/exec.html Walker, D. M. (2003, July 24). Competitive sourcing: Implementation will be challenging for federal agencies. Testimony before the subcommittee on oversight of government management, the federal workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs. U.S. Senate. U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-03-1022T.
280
Warner, M. E. (n.d.). Government Restructuring. Retrieved March 26, 2007, fromhttp://government.cce.cornell.edu Warner, M. E. (n.d.). Privatization. Retrieved May 6, 2005, fromhttp://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/viewpage_rasp?ID=Privatization Warner, M. E., & Hefetz, A. (2001). Privatization and the market role of government. Briefing paper, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved on December 28, 2005, fromhttp://www.epinet.org Weick K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19. Weick, K. E. (1991). The nontraditional quality of organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 116-124. White, J. B. (1996, November 26). Re-engineering gurus take steps to remodel their stalling vehicles. The Wall Street Journal. p. 1. Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1998). Student learning as student affairs work. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Wildavsky, A. (1992). The new politics of the budgetary process. (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research-design and methods. (3rd ed.). (Applied social research methods series, 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zemsky, R., & Massey, W. F. (1990). Cost containment-Committing to a new economic reality. Change Magazine,22(6), 16-22.
281
doc_232823827.pdf