The following month, the Vice-President formed a committee. I joined. The charge was to re-imagine the structure and processes of the Student Affairs Division. Diligently, the committee surveyed best practices, completed institutional research, gathered input far and wide, and drafted a model. We presented, discussed, collected feedback, further researched, re-configured the committee, presented again, and discussed some more. On and on we went with no conclusion in sight. Then, a new President came to the college and ordered a halt to all change efforts pending completion of a new strategic planning process. The end.
Years later, the structure and processes of the Student Affairs Division remain unchanged. Motivated, intelligent individuals worked hard at this problem over a period of years - a futile effort. Why? Group factors of leadership, power, and politics colluded with system factors of functional structure and institutional culture to maintain a powerful momentum toward organizational inaction and stasis, regardless of individual efforts. A close analysis of these organizational behaviors yields insights into specific opportunities to jump-start generative change within the division.
Analysis: Key Threats to Change (Spoiler Alert: Ourselves)
First, the interplay of leadership, power, and politics forced the change effort of the Student Affairs Division straight into deadlock. In my view, the rationale and vision for change provided by leadership was ambiguous and deficit-based. Confusion reigned, which did little to allay speculation and fear. Plus, leadership provided little clarity about the decision-making model guiding the process. This created further confusion around different roles and responsibilities related to choosing a course of action. Power dynamics emerged, the division devolved into narrow self-interests, and any openness to change was foreclosed.
A number of concepts illuminate the challenge here. In an organizational environment of declining resources, any change implying a reallocation of resources stimulates conflict and politicking, which are exacerbated by role and decision-making ambiguity (Robbins & Judge, 2018). Furthermore, system factors such as organizational role confer power differentials across the group, which structure individual possibilities for action (Haugergard, 2010). Put differently, those with less power in a group have less ability to assert their interests into a conflict; they are more vulnerable to negative outcomes; hardening boundaries is a defense mechanism. Stress, worry, and fear pushes followers toward the panic zone; here people freeze and undoubtedly resist change (Senge et al., 1999).
Second, a functional structure defined by high task specialization and high compartmentalization maintained inertia toward stasis within the Student Affairs Division. In my observation, the delivery of highly-specialized services within a narrow span of control resulted in codified procedures and centralized capacity within each specific department (i.e. sub-units of the division). The fact that specific departments often address specific compliance requirements imposed by powerful external actors - such as accreditors and the Federal government - only served to strengthen the horizontal boundaries between departments. Standing inside of this functional structure, many followers reasonably concluded: “This is a fool’s errand. Sounds nice, but how would we provide [x, y, or z service].”
Theory suggests a number of factors explaining this organizational behavior. Robbins and Judge (2018) stated that challenges to formalized processes, roles, and power dynamics create a structural inertia toward stability. Adding to this, threats to the expertise of specialized groups produce change-resistance (Robbins & Judge, 2018). In particular, Hartl (2019) asserted that a functional structure leads to narrow perspectives that resist change in a turbulent environment. A negative reinforcement loop - or a catch-22 of sorts - results: functional structure produces expertise which hardens functional structure. Unsurprisingly, when the Student Affairs committee proposed a cross-functional structure with more porous borders, there was a revolt at the level of task experts within departments.
Third, an institutional culture that places supreme value on information gathering, participation, collaboration, and strategic planning mandated a singular way forward: planned change toward outcomes pre-determined through informed deliberative consensus. According to the dominant cultural logic of the institution, this is how work should be carried out. In my observation, such an approach to change management generated deep insights and wide discussion, but co-opted significant organizational resources and fell prey to analysis paralysis, a bottomless search for agreement, and routinized possibilities. Put simply, there was a lot of thinking, talking, and planning, but no changing; we ended right where we started.
A number of different theoretical lenses explain how this happened. According to Robbins and Judge (2018), institutional culture becomes a liability when it fails to further an organization’s effectiveness. They argued, “This is most likely when an organization’s environment is undergoing rapid change, and its entrenched culture may no longer be appropriate” (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 272). New technology, new competitors, changing customer demographics and preferences, new business models, and evolving societal perspectives are disrupting the higher education industry; planned change toward outcomes pre-determined through informed deliberative consensus is failing to produce timely adaptation (for example, see Lederman, 2019). The premise of planned change - a stable and predictable future - is out of touch with the reality facing the institution - a dynamic and volatile Now (Wiltbank et al., 2006). Pisapia, Jelenc, and Mick (2016) argued that strategic planning relies on a logic of causality, linearity, and rationality that is ill-suited for today’s adaptive organizational environments. They continued, “This reliance may result in narrowing vision, creating a rigidity of the process, destruction of commitment, increase of politics, shortened tenure of lead administrators, and the process itself becoming more important than the results” (Pisapia, Jelenc, & Mick, 2016, p. 46). In subtle yet nefarious ways, an uncritical belief in the cultural logic of the institution blinds the division to the dead end signs along the path it travels. In the language of Robbins and Judge (2018), the cultural logic of planned change through informed deliberate consensus has achieved “immortality” (p. 272).
Prescription: Transformation from Within
As this case analysis demonstrates, leadership, power, politics, functional structure, and institutional culture combined in such a way to scuttle a highly concerted and well intentioned change effort in the Student Affairs Division. This is an example of the great paradox of the higher education industry: an organization of higher learning quashing organizational learning. As a participant in this process, I say: we have quashed ourselves. However, there is great news in this story. Despite the imposing external environment facing the higher education industry today, we practitioners possess untapped potential to generate and implement adaptive solutions to the problems that we - to a degree - have created for ourselves.
Increase the quality of communication from leadership. At the outset, fulfill transactional and transformational leadership functions through clear and frequent communication that: a) clarifies goals and roles of the change process; and b) inspires a shared vision, builds trust through authenticity, and encourages the heart through positivity (Deichmann & Stam, 2015; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Robbins & Judge, 2018). As a specific example, co-create and openly articulate a clear and compelling rationale and strategic intent for the change effort (Wiltbank et al., 2006). Thereby, disrupt the zero-sum and deficit-based narrative of change at root of inter-departmental conflict; diminish unfounded assumptions and wild speculations that stir up fear, resistance, and politicking; and reduce the relevance of power dynamics. Address remaining fears, concerns, and conflicts through transparent, emotionally-intelligent, and mindfulness-based resolution strategies (see Goleman, 1998; Jackson, 2017; Rush, 2018).
Develop and articulate a situational and wise decision making model. At the outset of the change effort, intentionally develop and clearly communicate the key criteria, ways of knowing, input points, situational levels of participation, cognitive bias interventions, and feedback loops that will guide decision-making throughout the change process (Boelhower, 2013; Robbins & Judge, 2018; Vroom, 2007). Thereby, eliminate confusion around roles and authority within the situational context of specific decisions; generate epistemologically diverse, bias-conscious, wide insight into possible choices; and create limitations and tipping points around decision making to avoid analysis paralysis and bottomless agreement-seeking.
Utilize dialogic organization development processes to move toward a generative change approach. Reduce the use of processes that seek planned change toward predetermined outcomes; instead, increase the use of processes that seek generative change toward adaptive solutions through organizational learning (Marshak and Bushe, 2018; Senge, 1990). As Mintzberg (1994) argued, “Such strategies cannot be developed on a schedule and immaculately conceived. They must be free to appear at any time and at any place in an organization” (p. 110). Create guided opportunities for self-organizing and adaptive processes to produce a panoply of possibilities for action (Marshak and Bushe, 2018). Experiment liberally from the wide range of adaptive learning tools: test and learn, discard or embed. As an example, a sequence for the Student Affairs Division could potentially look something like this:
- Cultivate beginner’s mind through contemplative group exercises; let go of preconceived “answers” to the “problems” facing the Student Affairs Division (see Whitman, 2019; Wilding, 2018). As Zen monk and teacher Shunryu Suzuki (2006) quipped, “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few” (p. 1).
- Lead appreciative inquiry that utilizes dialogue to identify the unique qualities, powerful strengths, and potential synergies that the Student Affairs Division can marshall toward adaptive change (Bushe & Marshak, 2009).
- Facilitate scenario planning to clarify strategic intent, sketch a fuller range of possible futures, encourage divergent systems thinking, and develop adaptive hypotheses for moving the division forward (Graetz, 2002).
- Utilize practices of developmental evaluation to frame concepts, test iterations, track developments, and surface issues to guide adaptation to emergent realities in complex environments (Patton, 2011).
As the notion of generative change challenges the hegemonic cultural logic of planned change, start small with specific adaptive processes such as these. Avoid the “energy black hole” of challenging the prevailing institutional logic; view the strategic planning process as simply another adaptive challenge within the external environment. Through a dialogic organization development approach, focus time and effort on generating adaptive solutions that organize the structure and processes of the division in ways that cultivate an ever more exceptional student learning experience. Win over converts from across the institution through compelling results achieved through generative change. Thereby, scuttle the strategic plan, and move the institution forward toward the bold, new Now.
(Boom! Imagine thunder rumbling from the page.)
References
Boelhower, G. (2013). Choose wisely: practical insights from spiritual traditions. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Bushe, G. & Marshak, R. (2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 348-368.
Deichmann, D., & Stam, D. (2015). Leveraging transformational and transactional leadership to cultivate the generation of organization-focused ideas. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 204-219.
Goleman, D. (1998). Emotional intelligence. In Natemeyer, W. E., & Hersey, P. (Eds.) (2011). Classics of organizational behavior (4th ed., pp. 601-613). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: Towards understanding the complementarities. Management Decision, 40(5), 456-462.
Hartl, B. (2019, April 17). Organizational structure (the boxes & lines). Organizational behavior. Talk presented in class at Duluth, MN.
Haugaard, M. (2010). Power: A family resemblance concept. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(4), 419-438.
Jackson, S. (2017, Oct 31). Mindfulness in the workplace: conflict management. Seed. Retrieved from https://seed.co/blog/Mindfulness_and_Conflict/.
Kouzes, J and Posner, B. (1987). Fundamental leadership practices. In Natemeyer, W. E., & Hersey, P. (Eds.) (2011). Classics of organizational behavior (4th ed., pp. 354-359). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Lederman, D. (2019, Oct 22). Not future ready. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/10/22/four-year-college-leaders-not-feeling-ready-future?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=197c687104-DNU_2019_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-197c687104-198897213&mc_cid=197c687104&mc_eid=9babb77e63.
Marshak, R. and Bushe, G. (2018). Planned and generative change in organization development. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 9-15.
Mintzberg, H. (1994, Jan-Feb). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review. 107-114.
Patton, M. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, New York: The Guilford Press.
Pisapia, J., Jelenc, L., & Mick, A. (2016). The foundations of strategic thinking: Effectual, strategic, and causal reasoning. In Raguz, I., Podrug, N., & Jelenc, L. Neostrategic management: An international perspective on trends and challenges (pp. 45-56). Switzerland: Springer International Press.
Rush, T., (2018, Mar 15.) Applying mindfulness for better conflict management: Tips to try the next time you're facing a dispute with a colleague. Retrieved from https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/applying-mindfulness-for-better -conflict-management/.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2018). Essentials of organizational behavior (14th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Senge, P. (1990). The learning organization. In Classics of Organizational Behavior. In Natemeyer, W. E., & Hersey, P. (Eds.) (2011). Classics of organizational behavior (4th ed., pp. 587-591). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change. New York, New York: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Suzuki, S. (2006). Zen mind, beginner’s mind. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Vroom, V., & Jago, A. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. The American Psychologist, (1). 17-24.
Whitman, S., (2019, Apr 16). Adopting a beginner’s mind: Unlearning as a learning strategy. Training Industry. Retrieved from https://trainingindustry.com/ articles/professional-development/adopting-a-beginners-mind-unlearning-as-a-learning-strategy/.
Wilding, M., (2018, Nov 12). 4 ways to cultivate a beginner's mind and unleash your potential: Approaching your work with an attitude of openness can change everything. Inc. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/melody-wilding/to- unleash-your-creativity-embrace-a-beginners-mind-heres-how.html.
Wiltbank, R., Dew, N., Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. (2006). What to do next? The case for non-predictive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(10), 981-998.
