Stages of Commitment to Change: Leading Institutional Engagement

1. Stages of Commitment to Change:Leading Institutional Engagement Lorilee R. Sandmann, University of Georgia Jeri Childers, Virginia Tech National Outreach Scholarship Conference Oct. 2, 2012

2. How can we assess lines of commitment and irreversibility?

3. Engagement Academy for University Leadershttp://www2.cota.vt.edu/engagementacademy/ea/index.html • Who: University leaders from around the world responsible for developing institutional capacity for community engagement; as individuals/ teams • For the purpose of: Developing and linking the engagement plan to the university strategic plan • Through: • Substantive curriculum • Peer networking and benchmarking opportunities • Institutional case studies • Coaching sessions with leaders in the field • Action planning tips, tools, and techniques • The latest research, models, and strategies in institutional and community engagement

4. Theoretical Frameworks • Stages of Commitment • Threshold of understanding • Line of commitment • Line of irreversibility • Institutionalization Commitment Curve Managing at the Speed of Change, Conner (2006)

5. Holland Matrix • Mission • Leadership (Presidents, Vice Presidents, Deans, Chairs) • Promotion, Tenure, Hiring • Organization Structure and Funding • Student Involvement & Curriculum • Faculty Involvement • Community Involvement • External Communications and Fundraising Adapted from Holland (2006), Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning

6. Culture Commitment Alignment Integration Impact Develop a Vision, Roles & Plan for Engagement/ Engaged Scholarship Lead Resource Development Customize Change Strategies to Support Engagement Develop & Maintain Strategic Engagement Operations Institutional Competency Model Read the Institutional and Community Context Develop Programs with Impact Communicate Impact Statically

7. Change Model

8. Institutional Change Guide Implementation Activate Commitment Assess Culture & Commitment and Establish Roles & the Team Childers & Sandmann, 2011, adapted from Conner, 2006

9. Level of Institutional Commitment Measured by: • Organizational factors outlined in the Holland Matrix • Action components outlined in the Engagement Academy for University Leaders institutional competency model • Organizational factors related to managing complex change • Assessment of stage of institutionalization adapted from Conner’s (2006) Managing at the Speed of Change

10. Research Design • Participants • 72 participants from the first four cohorts in the Academy • Method • Online survey • A combination of multiple choice and open-ended questions • Research questions: • What are the nature and contextual (or antecedence) factors, characterized by the participants, of institutional changes of engagement that have occurred on their campuses after their attendance of the Academy?

11. Findings • Knowledge is the foundation for change Changes start with individuals first • The survey asked about the participants’ focus on their action plan. • Administrators first (22 out of 54, at 40.74%, rating “4”), followed by faculty/staff (20 out of 55, at 36.36%, rating “4”), then community members (20 out of 53, at 37.74%, rating “3”) and students (18 out of 53, at 33.96%, rating “3”) • University-wide efforts (16 out of 53, at 30.19%, rating “4”), followed by unit-level (18 out of 55, at 32.73%, rating “3”). Across-institutional efforts NOT the focus. • Geographically, local and regional components have some priority in action plan (both at 25% and rating “3”). Nevertheless, they do not reach the same level of focus as those aspects of the institution (personnel, infrastructure, etc.).

12. Results tell us… • Transformation of knowledge into practice tends to occur at a small-scale and situated in an immediate environment where more control/ influence is likely • When learning is problem based, knowledge and skills, networking, and possible solutions facilitate and transform action plan implementation – the indication of “Customize the Change Strategy” and “Guide implementation” in Change Model.

13. Contextual factors play important roles in change initiation and sustainability • In the survey, we asked participants about the type of changes they perceived in their respective institutions: • Programs change: • 35 (yes) vs. 19 (no) • Systems change: • 34 (yes) vs. 21 (no) • Policy change: • 26 (yes) vs. 27 (no) • Organizational change: • 36 (yes) vs. 17 (no)

14. Results tell us… • More changes have taken place in programs, systems, and organizations • The policy aspect appears to be more resistant to change. • Boundaries between programs/units are more amenable to change • Some resistance related to open systems nature of higher education • Broad social, economical and political influence permeate boundaries

15. Change represented by institutional location of Holland Matrix • The organizational factor of promotion, tenure, hiring is the weakest among all the organizational factors in the Holland Matrix. 21 out of 55 (38.18%) respondents rated “promotion, tenure, hiring” at the Level One, the highest within the factor (20 at “Level Two”, 14 at “Level Three”, and 0 at “Level Four”) • Mission, leadership, and student involvement all have the highest percentage at the “Level Three,” respectively with 57.41% (31 out of 54), 50.94% (27 out of 53), and 68.52% (37 out of 54)

16. Mapping Institutional Change • Lowest score of organizational component on “promotion, tenure, hiring” can be seen as a result of “Assess culture & commitment and establish roles & the team”, an assessment that points to a lack of commitment activation when P & T is an essential organizational factor and may well be a conduct for explicitly motivating community engagement • The relative higher score of leadership deserves further investigation as the responses on contextual factors suggested leadership for community engagement is contingent on leadership succession, consequently leadership alignment may be a continuous process

17. Institutional Change Guide Implementation Activate Commitment Assess Culture & Commitment and Establish Roles & the Team Childers & Sandmann, 2011, adapted from Conner, 2006

18. Where is your organization? • Stages of Commitment • Threshold of understanding • Line of commitment • Line of irreversibility • Institutionalization Commitment Curve Managing at the Speed of Change, Conner (2006)

19. For More Information • Lorilee Sandmann University of Georgia sandmann@uga.edu • Jeri Childers Virginia Tech jlc@vt.edu