Leadership and Change strategies for institutionalizing assessment

1. Leadership and Change strategies for institutionalizing assessment Adrianna Kezar, USC

2. Overview 1. Change paradigm and formula – 20 minutes minutes 2. Case study Discussion – 1 hour 3. Discussion of change strategies –Bolman and Deal, Ramaley– 45 hour 4. Leadership Inventory Discussion and Implications – 30 minutes 5. Assessment as Deep and Transformational change – 20 minutes 6. What we know about institutionalizing assessment– 20 minutes 7. Analyzing your own campus with change formula – homework

3. Part 1: Paradigm and Formula • My background – Kellogg; ACE President’s study; Equity scorecard; PKAL;NSF; ADVANCE; Spencer • Key reflections about change over time • Formula and parts – vision, change phase, institutional culture, leadership skills, change strategies

4. Key reflections • Many good ideas about change, but amount can be overwhelming • As a result, leaders often rely on one simple approach for all situations • If an approach works once, leaders tend to use it again and do not understand why it does not work • Key – become familiar with many tools (Bolman and Deal, for example)

5. Key reflections • Research provides a set of tools, but experience can also provide more tools (Ramaley Model presents this) • Use intentional reflection to gain lessons for your own context • Combine research and experience for best results (often they will overlap greatly) • Match type of change (vision), context/culture, strategy, with your own personal leadership style

6. Change formula • assessment of type of change, vision and phase in implementation+ • assessment of culture/institutional type+ • assessment of leadership team skills (Can use Bolman and Deal inventory) + • =strategy for change/institutionalization

7. Type of change • Agendas for change are political – some more so than others • Assessment encounters more power dynamics than other types of changes • Some changes threaten people’s values and identity • Deep change requires different strategies than tinkering • Assessment is usually a deep change

8. Vision • Kotter – Heart of change advice – distinctiveness, clarity, buy-in – efforts to assessment should not look exactly the same as mission and progress vary • Connect to mission and strengths and values • How are we different? What do students and stakeholders say about assessment? What do faculty and staff say about assessment? • Based on phase in institutionalization…where do we need to go?

9. Phased strategy for institutionalizing assessment • Typical assumption – strategies same throughout change process • Phased leadership strategies – three stages of institutionalization – mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization • Phase one strategies – listening, creating vision, strategic plan and budget/resources

10. Phased strategy for institutionalizing assessment • Phase two strategies – putting rewards and incentives in place, creating structures to support change • Phase three strategies – conflict for learning, showcasing success, measuring progress • So need to chart and recognize where campus is at in change process

11. Assessment of culture • Change strategies work better when they match the cultural context • Changes themselves may challenge culture, but approach should keep context in mind – part of strategy • How do I learn to assess context? What is a cultural or climate audit? Discussion with Amy

12. Strategies in context • Collegial, managerial, developmental, negotiating culture (Berquist) • Environment, mission, socialization, information, strategy, leadership • Strategies linked to culture more successful in studies of transformational change • Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education,73(4), 435-460.

13. Today’s focus • Strategies for change • Leadership • Understanding deep change and institutionalization as a phased approach • Vision (on your own, groups discussions, or with mentor) and Culture assessment (previous session and on-going)

14. Part 2: Olivet case study • Discuss in groups at table – 20 minutes • Type of change needed? Institutional culture? First two briefly. Strategies used (focus on this)? Where at in change process, next steps? • Full group discussion – 40 minutes

15. Part 3: Leadership assessment/strategies • Bolman and Deal • Ramaley

16. Four frames • To understand organizations from a variety of perspectives – summary of major organizational theories • To consider different change strategies • To analyze leadership styles and strategies of yourself and others (part of change formula) • To enhance one’s own set of leadership tools

17. Four frames • Structural frame – organization as factory • Human resource – as extended family • Political – as arenas or contests • Symbolic – as tribes, theaters or carnivals

18. Structural frame • Rationality, formal roles and rules • Key concepts – roles, rules, goals, policies, technology, rationality, differentiation, integration • Key processes – division of labor and coordination of individual activities

19. Structural frame • Organizations exist primarily to accomplish established goals • A structural form can be designed and implemented to fit any particular set of circumstances • Organizations work effectively when environmental turbulence and personal preferences are constrained by norms of rationality

20. Structural frame • Specialization permits higher levels of individual expertise and performance • Coordination and control are essential to effectiveness • Problems originate from inappropriate structures or inadequate systems and can be resolved through restructuring or developing new systems

21. Human Resource/Relations frame • Fit between people and the organization • Key concepts – needs, skills, relationships, interpersonal interactions, fit, satisfaction • Key processes – tailoring the organization to meet individual needs

22. Human Relations frame • Organizations exist to serve human needs • Organizations and people need each other • When the fit is poor, both will suffer, individuals will be exploited, or seek to exploit organizations, or both • Human beings find meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get human talents and energy – a good fit between both!

23. Political or advocacy frame • Organizations are coalitions of various individuals and interest groups • There are enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality • Most important decisions involve the allocation of scarce resources

24. Political or advocacy frame • Allocation of power and scarce resources • Key concepts – power, conflict, competition, positive politics, power base • Key processes – bargaining, negotiation, collation building, agenda setting

25. Political or advocacy frame • Scarce resources and enduring differences give conflict a central role in organizational dynamics and make power the most important resource • Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining and negotiation among different stakeholders

26. Symbolic frame • Organizations as tribe, theater and carnival • Key concepts – culture, symbols, ritual, ceremony, stories, heroes/heroines, myths, charisma • Key processes – common vision, attending to meaning, devising rituals, ceremonies and symbols

27. Symbolic frame • Symbols form a cultural tapestry or secular myths, rituals, ceremonies, and stories that help people find meaning, purpose and passion • Symbols embody and express the organization's culture – the interwoven pattern of beliefs, values, practices and artifacts that define for members who they are and how they are to do things

28. Which frames to use to create change • In postsecondary research – political and symbolic proven most important, often least developed in people • How can the frames, particularly political and human relations, help you understand the difficulty of change? • How can frames be used to create change?

29. One model that uses frames– by Ramaley • Mandate for change – political • Understand support or resistance – political and cultural • Campus ready – human relations • Strategy – structural • Remain accessible – human relations

30. Ramaley • Systems thinking – structural • Become a storyteller – symbolic • Deal with campus reaction – politics • Putting people first and direction will follow- human relations • Theory of change – integration of various strategies that works for you and the institution

31. Part 4: Leadership skills • Overview • Exercise • Questions

32. Matching leadership to context and change strategy • Awareness of strengths and weaknesses key • Important to think about building a leadership team • Once again Bolman and Deal helpful way to examine

33. Bolman & Deal • In terms of leadership -- it is an umbrella for skills that are either structural, human relations, political or symbolic • Key for leaders is to integrate these various frames/practices • These same approaches can be seen in many change models like Ramaley’s change principles

34. Our tendencies • Go to a corner based on your tendency • Ask the following questions: 1) why are we here, do we have something in common; 2) look around the room, as a group, do we have a useful balance; 3) what are the implications of this team and its ability to make change and improvement?; and, 4) what might we do to improve our leadership skills?

35. Questions • What if I am very strong in one frame and not so strong in others? • What if I am pretty even through the 4 frames? • What is the desired profile? Which frames have been found important for leadership? • How might this differ if you think of a leadership team? • Others?

36. Part 5: Transformational change • Olivet case example • Strategies • Not always necessary

37. Principles of Deep/Transformational change • Sensemaking • Organizational self-discovery • Facilitated interaction • Flesh out deeply held values, beliefs and fears • Eckel, P. & Kezar, A. (2003). Key strategies for making new institutional sense. Higher Education Policy, 16(1), 39-53.

38. Part 6: Institutionalizing assessment - research • what we know • How this is limited but helpful

39. Culture • Culture appears more significant than technical issues (appropriate computer systems) or structures (having assessment office) • Key cultural elements: clarity and driving commitment of leadership, developing common vocabulary, fostering collegial, low-risk environment, modeling assessment, creating motivation and incentive for assessment, providing recognition, etc. • Culture of trust – repeated theme

40. Leadership • Longevity of leadership key and turnover impacts implementation • Faculty ownership and involvement • Administrative support for through rewards, support structures, funding, etc. • Some suggest leadership is much more complicated, changes over implementation, different cultures, etc. • Distributed leadership as new direction

41. Organizational structures and policies • Key structures need to broadly involve campus stakeholders – shared governance, teams, inclusive planning processes • Team characteristics and composition as key • Planning process that is incremental, on-going, examines peers, uses a pilot process first, etc. • Central or decentralized structure (e.g., administrative versus departmental level)– mixed results – perhaps related to institutional type

42. Organizational structures and policies • Where office located – student or academic affairs for example – mixed results as well • Many areas not studied enough so inconclusive including – resource allocation, rewards, incentives, professional development, computer systems, statewide or multi-campus systems • Power and politics also largely not examined

43. Institutional differences in implementation • Critical in higher education and impacts all aspects – type of leadership, culture needed to support, structures and polices needed, and politics and power encountered. • Research universities far fewer support for assessment activities • Bachelor’s institutions -- mission, values, professional development and faculty governance to support – much more part of culture as focused on undergraduate education

44. Reason to rely on more foundational change strategies • Minimal empirical research • Single case studies; Descriptive • Overlap between studies of culture, leadership and organizational structures and policies • But a few key areas that might be helpful or resonate • General trend follows factors found important for implementing other innovations

45. Part 7: Homework: case study • your vision for your campus and implementation phase; • your assessment of your context (hierarchical, entrepreneurial, etc.); • your leadership (and team) strengths and weaknesses; • your assessment of strategies needed to meet the vision given the vision, phase and context; • What team do you need to assemble?

46. Summary • No recipe (but there is a formula) • Custom design strategies to fit culture and context; and where institution is at and moving toward • Combined and complex approaches like Bolman and Deal and Ramaley work best

47. Questions • And thanks!