The Realities of Change in Higher Education

Interventions to Promote Learning and Teaching

Lynne Hunt, Adrian Bromage, Bland Tomkinson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781134171187
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The Realities of Change in Higher Education explores the theory and practice of the everyday reality of change to promote learning and teaching in universities. Drawing on international case studies, it analyses a range of practical strategies to promote change that enhance students' learning.

Structured to flow from analysis of policy level change through to small-scale change at curriculum level, experienced practitioners consider key topics including:

• national policies and strategies
• different leadership styles
• the advancement of teaching and learning through research and scholarship
• how communities of practice may be effective agents for change in higher education
• the relationship between technology and change
• student assessment as a strategic tool for enhancing teaching and learning.

With practical advice to enhance the learning experience of increasing numbers of university students, this book will appeal to all practitioners involved in improving learning and teaching outcomes in higher education.

Chapter 1

---

The management of planned change

An interdisciplinary perspective

Adrian Bromage

---

Introduction

This book on the realities of change in higher education arguably sits within a generic literature on change management that is concerned with the meta-analysis of cumulative case studies to provide practitioner guidelines. Buchanan and Huczynski (2000) describe several such ‘cook-books’ from the world of commerce, while educationalists have over the years also shared their ‘recipes’, for example Miles et al. (1988), Elton (1994) and Jones and Anderson (2001). Some of the literature aims to increase local control over the innovative processes, for example Guba and Lincoln (1989), Elton (1994) and Mabey and Mayon-White (1993). Not all of this summarising literature can claim to be empirically or theoretically grounded, although it is not unreasonable for practitioner theory to take a generous inferential span or reserve the right to be speculative. The present volume seeks to include in this literature a consideration of such guidelines in the context of real-life change management in the significant industry that higher education has become.

The analysis of change in large-scale organisations such as universities can draw on the arguably broadly consistent body of conventional wisdom that exists within the generic change management literature. This book takes a deeper view, adopting a case study approach in order to highlight the realities of change in higher education, a setting with several specific contemporary issues that must be addressed, including varying levels of governmental control and intervention; mergers between institutions which may have differing vaunted purposes and cultures; the uptake of information and communications technologies; globalisation and internationalisation; professional cultures and quality control across a sector; and student priorities including equity and diversity.

The focus is on changes that are intended to promote learning and teaching. Universities have traditionally been called centres of learning; however, their emphasis has for the past two centuries been on research, following the establishment of the University of Berlin by Wilhelm von Humboldt in 1810. Nowadays taken for granted, this was at the time controversial and widely resisted, most prominently by Newman (1959). With the so-called massification of higher education, governments around the world have refocused their attention and policy on initiatives to support student learning. The Dearing Report (1997) in the UK, The Nelson Report (2004) in Australia, and the European ‘Bologna Declaration’ of 1999 (European Ministers of Education 2003) all bear testimony to this trend. This book seeks to explore the space created by such policy initiatives, in order to understand how different higher education organisations have taken up the challenge to promote learning and teaching and the kinds of issues that they have faced in doing so. This particular chapter seeks to set the scene by exploring practical advice for those who would implement planned change, with an emphasis on behaviours associated with success.

The generic literature on managing planned change

The generic practical literature on managing planned change has since the early 1990s arguably developed in parallel with the rise of information and communication technologies, frequently in the context of moves towards flatter and more responsive organisational structures. Paton and McCalman (2000) note that at around this time the literature began to emphasise the importance of communication in the context of volatile operating environments. Parallels will be drawn with educational change management literature, and this convergence will be examined in relation to some established philosophies of change.

There is wide agreement in the generic change management literature that good planning enables the change process to be controlled during its execution. Hopkins and Ainscow (1993) and Fullan (1993) see change as a process that needs to be carefully considered, however accelerated the time-lines, if it is to be assimilated into an institution’s culture. The first step is the establishment of clear objectives (Whittles and Lovell 1994). Many recommend a service-user focus; anticipating clients’ needs in order to design added value into the service in question. In a similar vein, writers addressing change management in higher education argue that it must be driven by educational criteria (Laurillard 1993). Monitoring and evaluation are also held to be important. A detailed plan normally features a timetable of goals and milestones, which the change process must be evaluated against, a process that is crucial for both assessing and reinforcing the success of the change process (Whittles and Lovell 1994).

Another consideration is the change model deployed. Feeny and Ruddle (1997) identify several such models, outlining the circumstances they are suited to. They present these different styles of innovation in a two-times-two, or dichotomous, model that addresses change that is’ incremental’ or ‘step’ in its movement, and either ‘directive’ or ‘organic’ in its orientation. ‘Incremental-directive’ change is centrally driven and does not rely on bottom-up learning or client feedback. It suits successful organisations within stable, operating environments. ‘Incrementalorganic’ change entails ongoing, organisation-wide, client-focused, evolutionary learning, and suits successful organisations within uncertain operating environments. ‘Step-directive’ centrally-driven radical change works best in clearly identifiable units within an organisation, although it is unlikely to carry stakeholders’ hearts and minds with it. ‘Step-organic’ transformation entails centrally initiated projects that are intended to facilitate ‘transformational change’, the development of new working practices involving many stakeholders across the organisation. It suits the most challenging circumstance – a poorly performing organisation within an uncertain operating environment.

There is a strand in the literature that analyses the change process itself, exploring its various stages and their attributed characteristics. Change is typically seen as long and discontinuous, made up of very small changes in stakeholders’ behaviour and attitudes. Consequently, change agents are advised to prepare plans and strategies to ‘un-stick’ the process if it stalls. Duck (2001) describes, in somewhat emotive terms, a predominant pattern of change comprising five broad stages. The unattractive sounding ‘Stagnation’ phase describes the organisation performing poorly and lacking a clear focus. During ‘Preparation’ it is realised that things must change, perhaps triggered by client feedback or external scrutiny, and a plan is devised. ‘Implementation’ tends to be characterised by hard work for little immediate gain. ‘Determination’, the next in sequence, is seen as the crucial stage, in which change agents must counter stakeholders’ resistance to change arising from doubts raised by the difficulties of implementation. Finally, ‘Fruition’ sees the process gradually begin to deliver positive results, and step-change begins to turn into continuous improvement as stakeholders use their developing capability and confidence.

It is no surprise, then, that human factors feature strongly in the generic literature. It is generally acknowledged that defensible changes and strategies should be ethical and fair, and set within a context characterised by high levels of trust between all stakeholders (Lovell 1994; Paton and McCalman 2000). Similarly Hopkins and Ainscow (1993), writing on change in higher education, offer the generalisation that change is typically facilitated by organisational cultures that are characterised by a consensus of values, willing collaboration and an orderly, secure environment where stakeholders are encouraged to take on leadership roles. However, consensus can never be assumed; it has long been recognised that a certain amount of resistance is to be expected; for example, Bennis et al. (1969) hold that the potential for conflict between stakeholders holding different views is a critical issue for planned change. Others suggest that conflict and resistance is in some cases justifiable, and can be a positive force in the context of open discussion (Paton and McCalman 2000: 49).

There are clear implications for the role attributed to change agents. Many authors implicitly adopt a top-down view, albeit asserting that senior managers should act as the ‘champions’ of change, developing and maintaining an innovation- supporting culture (Simpson 1996), and behaving as ‘leaders’ rather than ‘managers’ (Kotter 1990). There is wide agreement that such leaders should recognise that stakeholders’ motivations are likely to differ. Lovell (1994) argues that managers must understand and take account of stakeholders’ adaptive behaviour during organisational change, while Manning (1994) holds that those leading change must be able to understand and deal with stress, both their own and that of other stakeholders. Similarly, educational change leaders should ‘walk the job’ to understand the work environment and demonstrate their commitment to change (Jones and Anderson 2001). Effective communication at all levels is held to be crucial to the success of planned change. Change agents are generally advised to consult, involve, inform and provide feedback to all colleagues with a stake in the changes (Dutfield and Eling 1994a). The basic rules are to listen to others, to provide adequate information and involve stakeholders in the change process, and to encourage goal-directed behaviour.

These issues raise questions concerning how individual stakeholders respond to change. Lovell (1994) characterises stakeholders’ adaptive modes in terms of a ‘Wild West’ metaphor, perhaps to capture the ‘frontier’ feeling that often accompanies change, although this labelling perhaps carries too many emotional overtones. ‘Explorers’ are highly motivated to initiate change, while ‘Pioneers’ are willing to support change. The majority of stakeholders, however, can be characterised as ‘Settlers’, unwilling to make the first moves, yet able to survive under novel conditions. Finally, ‘Outlaws’ lack the will or skills to change and strongly support the status quo, yet gradually acclimatise to change, although with considerable stress. Similar contentious language appears within more recent change management literature, for example, von Münchhausen and Scherer (2003) talk of ‘saboteurs’ protecting vested interests or avoiding demanding work by deploying delaying tactics. Interestingly, it is hard to reconcile language of this kind with their proposed counter-measures – honest communication and justification of the proposed changes, and careful planning for and clearly defined monitoring of the change process. It can only be assumed that terms such as ‘outlaw’ and ‘saboteur’ are deployed as a means to engage emotionally with those charged with the responsibility of managing change.

The nature of these recommendations is arguably rendered comprehensible in terms of the wide agreement that responding to change is essentially a learning process. For example, Dutfield and Eling (1994b) characterise likely sources of stakeholders’ resistance to change and outline strategies to overcome them. They are: stakeholders’ lack of trust in managers and differing perceptions of events, to be addressed through ‘force and support’; protection of their self-interest, to be overcome with ‘participation and negotiation’; and finally their insecurity or fear of change, to be overcome with ‘education’. Relevant training that recognises stakeholder preferences for different learning styles (Coffield et al. 2004) should be built into the process. Furthermore, additional training and communications may be required to resolve the inevitable resistance of some stakeholders to change; where colleagues need to be persuaded, arguments should be supported with high–quality evidence (Institute of Management Foundation 1998; 1999).

‘Ownership’ is a central metaphor in this literature. Stakeholders must be encouraged to participate in the management of change (Armstrong and Stephens 2005), sentiments echoed in Fullan’s (1993) ‘eight lessons of the new paradigm of change’ in educational contexts and Blackwell et al.’s (2001) study of teaching circles. The argument that people will accept the case for change if they are able to personalise it and relate it to their own work is nothing new. For example, Pettigrew (1985), who takes a ‘contextual processual’ perspective on planned change, concludes that a linear progression from plans to implementation is rare, and the key to success is the extent to which the proposals are perceived to be ‘legitimate’, justifiable within their context. To establish legitimacy, change agents must relate the organisation’s ‘inner context’ (its structure, culture and the historical events that shaped them) to its ‘outer context’ (factors in the wider environment such as client demands, competitors’ behaviour and technological developments). This notion has been present in management theory for many years, for example, in Deming’s (1982) 14 principles of management, intended to revitalise industry in the USA in the face of global competition, although what sets Pettigrew’s work apart is that the conclusions reached have an empirical and theoretical basis.

In broad terms, this generic body of literature strongly implies that change management must be sensitive to its cultural context. This resonates to an extent with what Buchanan and Huczynski (2000) term a ‘psychologistic’ perspective on change management, placing stakeholder’s perceptions, motivations and empowerment as central. This perspective is discernible in contributions by key writers on change management such as Handy (1993), who comments:

To ‘manage change’ is wishful thinking, implying as it does that one knows not only where to go and how to get there but can persuade everyone else to travel there. To ‘cultivate change’ is something different, suggesting an attitude of growth, of channelling rather than controlling, of learning not instruction.

On the other hand, the issues dealt with in the generic literature raise questions that go beyond the psychologistic perspective, invoking the relationship between organisational structures and personal agency.

There exist generic models of change that more explicitly consider this relationship. The ‘organisational development’ approach, developed during the 1960s by writers such as Beckhard (1969), assumes that conflict between individuals, groups and the organisation can and must be resolved. Buchanan and Huczynski (2000) describe its key concepts as ‘force field analysis’ (Lewin 1952) of factors driving and restraining a proposed change, action research and planned intervention, consultation and negotiation, and team building and inter-group development. However, this approach carries the implicit assumptions that change is episodic, and the wider operating context of the organisation relatively stable.

More recent theorists have developed models that are intended to be highly responsive to a dynamic operating context. Lovell’s (1994) model is an example that is particularly relevant to this chapter, given what has been said about the generic change literature. It is perhaps unique in taking an out-and-out phenomenological stance, emphasising the importance of considering employees’ perceptions of the causes of their powerlessness when moving towards being a change-ready organisation. Lovell explicitly recognises that employees ultimately decide what work gets done and are in the best position to respond rapidly to clients’ changing needs and demands.

Lovell identifies three levels of employee empowerment and their likely outcomes. The first, a basic level where staff are consulted, often fails when they realise that their suggestions are being dismissed without explanation. The second sees staff involved in job design, which can lead to the creation and maintenance of autonomous work groups. The third involves staff in the performance of their entire organisation, which necessitates a culture very different to a control-oriented one, featuring a flattened organisational hierarchy where information and control is shared horizontally. It will be argued that similar themes are also evident in recent literature that explores the processes of change management in higher education.

Theorising change management in higher education

There has been a tendency in recent years for literature on change management in higher education to view the change process as multifaceted and uncertain, and thus extremely challenging, and to focus on stakeholders’ reactions to change rather than the ‘levers’ for controlling change (Fullan 1993; Trowler 1998; Trowler et al. 2003). Within this general trend, there is an emerging debate about the need for greater attention to discipline-specific rather than generic purposes and practices (Evans and Abbott 1998; Healey 2000; Pace and Middendorf 2004; Riordan and Roth 2005). Indeed, Healey and De Stefano (1997) argue that those managing change should not attempt to replicate a given reform measure itself, but instead seek to replicate the conditions that facilitated its success.

To understand why educational change should be discussed in this way, it is nece...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Foreword
• Preface
• Chapter 1: The management of planned change
• Chapter 2: No money; no change
• Chapter 3: National initiatives to enhance learning and teaching in higher education
• Chapter 4: Assessment and change in higher education
• Chapter 5: Quality assurance and change in higher education
• Chapter 6: A community development model of change
• Chapter 7: The scholarship of teaching and learning and change in higher education
• Chapter 8: Phases in the development of a change model
• Chapter 9: Dynamics of planned change
• Chapter 10: Technology and change in higher education
• Chapter 11: Change, cats and complexity science
• Chapter 12: Angels in Concrete
• Chapter 13: Engaging higher education in the global challenge of sustainability