Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century E-Book

Adrianna Kezar

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: J-B ASHE-ERIC Report Series (AEHE)
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 287

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

There is a widespread discontent with the quality of education and levels of college student achievement, particularly for undergraduates preparing for the professions. This report examines the educational challenges in preparing professionals, reviews the specific types of curriculum innovations that faculty and administrators have created or significantly revised to strengthen college graduates' abilities, and focuses on the societal changes and expectations produced by the acceleration in technology.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title

Copyright

Executive Summary

Foreword

Acknowledgments

Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations

Distinctive Contribution

Focus of the Monograph

Audience

To Change or Not to Change?

Providing a Common Language for Understanding Organizational Change

What Is Organizational Change?

Diffusion, Institutionalization, Adaptation, Innovation, and Reform

Forces and Sources

Degree of Change

Timing of Change

Scale of Change

Focus of Change

Adaptive/Generative

Intentionality: Planned Versus Unplanned Change

Response Time: Proactive and Reactive

Active and Static

Target of Change: Change Process and Outcomes

Summary

Theories and Models of Organizational Change

Typology of Organizational Change Models

Evolutionary

Teleological

Life Cycle

Dialectical

Social Cognition

Cultural

Multiple Models

Summary

Understanding the Nature of Higher Education Organizations: Key to Successful Organizational Change

Interdependent Organizations

Relatively Independent of Environment

Unique Organizational Cultures of the Academy

Institutional Status

Values-Driven: Complex and Contrasting

Multiple Power and Authority Structures

Loosely Coupled Structure

Organized Anarchical Decision Making

Professional and Administrative Values

Shared Governance System

Employee Commitment and Tenure

Goal Ambiguity

Image and Success

Summary

Higher Education Models of Change: Examination Through the Typology of Six Models

Evolutionary

Teleological

Life Cycle

Dialectical

Social Cognition

Cultural

Multiple Models

Summary

Research-Based Principles of Change

Promote Organizational Self-Discovery

Realize That the Culture of the Institution (and Institutional Type) Affects Change

Be Aware of Politics

Lay Groundwork

Focus on Adaptability

Facilitate Interaction to Develop New Mental Models and Sensemaking

Strive to Create Homeostasis and Balance External Forces with the Internal Environment

Combine Traditional Teleological Tools, Such As Establishing a Vision, Planning, or Strategy, With Social-Cognition, Symbolic, and Political Strategies

Realize That Change Is a Disorderly Process

Promote Shared Governance or Collective Decision Making

Articulate and Maintain Core Characteristics

Be Aware of Image

Connect the Change Process to Individual and Institutional Identity

Create a Culture of Risk and Help People to Change Belief Systems

Realize That Various Levels or Aspects of the Organization Will Need Different Change Models

Know That Strategies for Change Vary by Change Initiative

Consider Combining Models or Approaches, As Is Demonstrated Within the Multiple Models

Summary

Future Research on Organizational Change

References

Name Index

Subject Index

End User License Agreement

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

cover

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

xiii

xiv

xv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

150

151

152

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

165

167

169

170

171

Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century

Recent Research and Conceptualizations

Adrianna J. Kezar

Adrianna J. Kezar, Series Editor

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 28, Number 4

Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations

Adrianna J. Kezar

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 28, Number 4

Adrianna J. Kezar, Series Editor

This publication was prepared partially with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. ED-99-00-0036. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the Department.

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012; [phone], fax [phone], e-mail: [email protected].

ISSN 0884-0040 ISBN 0-7879-5837-9

The ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report is part of the Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published six times a year by Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103-1741.

For subscription information, see the Back Issue/Subscription Order Form in the back of this journal.

Prospective authors are strongly encouraged to contact Adrianna Kezar, Director, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, at [phone] ext. 214 or akezar@eric-he-edu.

Visit the Jossey-Bass Web site at www.josseybass.com.

Executive Summary

A critical synthesis of research literature on the process of organizational change at the institutional level is needed because higher education is being asked to be responsive to an ever-changing environment. This work focuses on providing the reader several key insights into the change process by (1) presenting a common language for organizational change; (2) describing the multidisciplinary research base on change; (3) highlighting the distinct characteristics of higher education institutions and how this might influence the change process; (4) reviewing models/concepts of organizational change derived within higher education, comparing and contrasting different approaches; and (5) providing principles for change based on a synthesis of the research within higher education.

Providing a Language for Understanding Organizational Change

Some generic definitions of organizational change have been offered by theorists. For example, Burnes noted that organizational change refers to understanding alterations within organizations at the broadest level among individuals, groups, and at the collective level across the entire organization (1996). Another definition is that change is the observation of difference over time in one or more dimensions of an entity (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). But these definitions fail to capture the assumptions inherent in different models or theories of change. For example, cultural and social-cognition theories of change would replace the word observation with the word perceptionin the second definition above. Theorists exploring change through a cultural or social-cognition perspective would examine not dimensions (typically, organizational structural characteristics such as size), but values or organizational participants’ mental maps. Because the language relating to change differs, a common language is difficult to find. However, certain concepts are common across various models, such as forces or sources of change and first-order or second-order change. These common concepts are noted within key sources of change literature such as Burnes, 1996; Goodman, 1982; Levy and Merry, 1986; and Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1996. As these scholars studied change, these concepts became critical points of concern in their analyses. Forces and sources examine the why of change. First and second/second order, scale, foci, timing, and degree all refer to the what of change. Adaptive/generative, proactive/reactive, active/static, and planned/unplanned refer to the how of change. Last, the target of change refers to the outcomes. As a campus begins to engage in a change process, members of the organization need to first examine why they are about to embark on the process, the degree of change needed, and what is the best approach to adopt.

Theories of Change

Six main categories of theories of change assist in understanding, describing, and developing insights about the change process: (1) evolutionary, (2) teleological, (3) life cycle, (4) dialectical, (5) social cognition, and (6) cultural. Each model has a distinct set of assumptions about why change occurs, how the process unfolds, when change occurs and how long it takes, and the outcomes of change. The main assumption underlying evolutionary theories is that change is a response to external circumstances, situational variables, and the environment faced by each organization (Morgan, 1986). Social systems as diversified, interdependent, complex systems evolve naturally over time because of external demands (Morgan, 1986). Teleological theories or planned change models assume that organizations are purposeful and adaptive. Change occurs because leaders, change agents, and others see the necessity of change. The process for change is rational and linear, as in evolutionary models, but individual managers are much more instrumental to the process (Carnall, 1995; Carr, Hard, and Trahant, 1996). Life-cycle models evolved from studies of child development and focus on stages of growth, organizational maturity, and organizational decline (Levy and Merry, 1986). Change is conceptualized as a natural part of human or organizational development. Dialectical models, also referred to as political models, characterize change as the result of clashing ideology or belief systems (Morgan, 1986). Conflict is seen as an inherent attribute of human interaction. Change processes are considered to be predominantly bargaining, consciousness-raising, persuasion, influence and power, and social movements (Bolman and Deal, 1991). Social-cognition models describe change as being tied to learning and mental processes such as sensemaking and mental models. Change occurs because individuals see a need to grow, learn, and change their behavior. In cultural models, change occurs naturally as a response to alterations in the human environment; cultures are always changing (Morgan, 1986). The change process tends to be long-term and slow. Change within an organization entails alteration of values, beliefs, myths, and rituals (Schein, 1985). Some researchers suggest using several models or categories, as each sheds light on different aspects of organizational life (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). The advantage to multiple models is that they combine the insights of various change theories. Bolman’s and Deal’s (1991) reframing of organizations and Morgan’s (1986) organizational metaphors illustrate how assumptions from teleological, evolutionary, political/cultural, social-cognition, and lifecycle models can be combined to understand change.

Change occurs because leaders, change agents, and others see the necessity of change.

Understanding the Nature of Higher Education Organizations: Key to Successful Organizational Change

There are two main reasons it is necessary to develop a distinctive approach to change within higher education: overlooking these factors may result in mistakes in analysis and strategy, and using concepts foreign to the values of the academy will most likely fail to engage the very people who must bring about the change. In order to develop a distinctive model, the following unique features of higher education institutions need to be taken into account:

Interdependent organization

Relatively independent of environment

Unique culture of the academy

Institutional status

Values-driven

Multiple power and authority structures

Loosely coupled system

Organized anarchical decision-making

Professional and administrative values

Shared governance

Employee commitment and tenure

Goal ambiguity

Image and success

Although not an exhaustive list, this represents some of the key features of higher education institutions that affect organizational change. (For a more detailed description of these characteristics, see Birnbaum, 1991.)

In light of these distinctive organizational features, higher education institutions would seem to be best interpreted through cultural, social-cognition, and political models. The need for cultural models seems clear from the embeddedness of members who create and reproduce the history and values, the stable nature of employment, the strong organizational identification of members, the emphasis on values, and the multiple organizational cultures. Because there are no bottom-line measures for examining performance in higher education, image and identification are extremely important in understanding if change is occurring and how it occurs. The relationships of image and identification to change seem to indicate that social cognition is important to understand. Furthermore, the loosely coupled structure, anarchical decision-making, and ambiguous goals make meaning unclear, and social-cognition models’ emphasis on multiple interpretations may be important to consider when examining and facilitating change. The shared governance system, organized anarchy, conflicting administrative and professional values, and ambiguous, competing goals also point to a need for the interpretive power of political models. Evolutionary models are important for understanding the impact of environmental factors on change, such as accreditation, foundations, and legislatures in an interdependent system, especially since these factors are growing in magnitude and influence. However, even though a higher education institution is an open system, it may have internal consistency and logic that can be damaged by the intrusion of external environmental forces.

Higher Education Models of Change: Examination Through the Typology of Six Models

An extensive review of all the research on change conducted specifically within higher education, and within the framework of the six theories outlined above, provides a set of insights about the change process in this context. The cumulative evidence, so far, suggests that organizational change can best be explained through political, social-cognition, and cultural models. Political processes such as persuasion, informal negotiation, mediation, and coalition-building appear to be very powerful strategies for creating change (Conrad, 1978; Hearn, 1996). Social-cognition models illustrate the importance of altering mental models, learning, constructed interaction, and other processes for creating change (Eckel and Kezar, forthcoming; Weick, 1995). Cultural models demonstrate the importance of symbolism, history and traditions, and institutional culture for facilitating change on campus (Cohen and March, 1974; Kezar and Eckel, forthcoming). Evolutionary models highlight some key characteristics of change, such as homeostasis, interactivity of strategies, or accretion, that appear important to understanding change. Life-cycle models have not, for the most part, been applied to higher education institutions, but show promise for helping to develop explanations of how organizational change occurs. There is mixed evidence about the explanatory power of teleological models, but to date they appear to have limited support from the research in terms of how change actually occurs in higher education and of efficacy for facilitating change. Some strategies, such as incentives or vision, have proven successful for creating change.

Research-Based Principles of Change

A complex set of research-based principles emerges from this extensive review of the research. These principles include:

Promote organizational self-discovery

Be aware of how institutional culture affects change

Realize that change in higher education is often political

Lay groundwork for change

Focus on adaptability

Construct opportunities for interaction to develop new mental models

Strive to create homeostasis and balance external forces with internal environment

Combine traditional teleological tools such as establishing vision, planning, or strategy with social-cognition, cultural, and political strategies

Be open to a disorderly process

Facilitate shared governance and collective decision-making

Articulate core characteristics

Focus on image

Connect the change process to individual and institutional identity

Create a culture of risk and help people in changing belief systems

Be aware that various levels or aspects of the organization will need different change models

Realize that strategies for change vary by change initiative

Consider combining models or approaches, as is demonstrated within the multiple models

These will help you to develop a systematic and systemic process of change that works with individuals, acknowledges change as a human process, is sensitive to the distinctive characteristics of higher education, is context-based, achieves balance of internal and external forces, and is open to creativity and leveraging change through chance occurrences.

Foreword

Understanding and effectively leading institutional change are central concerns for most of today’s academic leaders, be they presidents, provosts, deans, student affairs professionals, or faculty. Institutional change has become an expected session at national association meetings and a familiar topic within the corridors of most, if not all, campus buildings. A number of well-articulated pressures are pushing institutional leaders to think more intentionally about making changes to better respond to a changing environment and to improve the quality of their institutions. Conventional wisdom about leading change abounds, such as the need for widespread involvement, thorough communication, and leadership. However, the new popularity of change as a topic has not rendered institutional change more deeply understood or more easily implemented.

Adrianna Kezar, a higher education faculty member at the University of Maryland, College Park, tackles the complex topic of institutional change in this monograph, Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations. She synthesizes a wide range of scholarly research on organizational behavior and change from inside and outside higher education, with the intent of identifying a set of principles that can deepen our understanding of the change process in higher education. This monograph is grounded in the assumption that institutional change is facilitated by better understanding the process of change from multiple perspectives. A comprehensive and nuanced understanding needs to draw upon a diverse literature, with its varying sets of assumptions, and requires a familiarity with the unique organizational characteristics of academic institutions. A single approach to change may overlook essential elements and contain unarticulated assumptions. The complex ideas in this monograph, presented in a clearly organized framework, will help leaders make wise choices and develop strategies and approaches to effect desired change.

The volume is organized into five sections. First, Kezar presents a common language for organizational change. A clear comprehension of ideas and of how the various theorists’ language of change converges and diverges is essential to a solid understanding of the complexity of change. Second, the author describes the wide-ranging and multidisciplinary change literature, drawing out assumptions and highlighting commonalities. Third, she reviews the distinctive characteristics of colleges and universities, and explores how these elements inform the change process. Without a solid grasp of organizational context, campus leaders may attempt to implement change processes inconsistent with the nature of their institutions. Fourth, she compares and contrasts important models of change presented in the higher education literature. Kezar concludes by offering a set of research-based principles for change.

The need to understand and facilitate institutional change is growing not only in the United States, but also abroad, making this work timely. Higher education in Europe and Canada is undergoing tremendous change. At a recent transatlantic meeting in Canada, sponsored by the American Council on Education and the European Universities Association, institutional leaders from Europe and North America agreed that one of their most important shared challenges was the need to bring about major institutional change. Institutional change is increasingly occupying the time and attention of academic leaders worldwide.

Peter D. Eckel

Associate Director for Institutional Initiatives

American Council on Education

Acknowledgments

This monograph is dedicated the many important people who help to create change in my own life because of their energy, spirit, and integrity: Tom Kezar, Monica Kezar, Dan Kezar, Tara Kezar +3, and Carol Kezar; and my dear, close friends Beth Minehart, Rachel Flanagan, Elizabeth Leinbach, Ginger Donnell, Maureen Vasquez, Stephanie Perkal, Michelle Gilliard, Jaci King, Kristen Winklerath, and Tami Goodstein. I also want to thank the staff at ERIC—Pat Wood, Lori Cavell, Tracy Boswell, Shannon Loane, Eugene Yuk, and Liz Miles—for being so wonderful to work with. I hope that these lessons have been implemented in our own workplace. Lastly, I want to thank the reviewers who provided valuable feedback and Peter Eckel for his support over the years as we have wrestled to understand the nature of change in higher education.

Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations

SEVERAL CONDITIONS have coalesced in recent years that necessitate a synthesis of the organizational change literature. There are more pronouncements of crisis in higher education today than ever before, coming from both within and outside of the academy (Birnbaum, 2000). Whether this is actually a time of crisis is debatable, yet it is clear that higher education faces a host of changes that can no longer be ignored. The list of transforming forces has become so common that it is almost unnecessary to name them—technology, new teaching and learning approaches such as community-service learning or collaborative learning, cost constraints, changing demographics, international competition, assessment, accountability, diversity/multiculturalism, and other challenges create a complex climate. (For a detailed look at each of these forces, see Green and Hayward, 1997.) These challenges have, in some cases, created stress in institutions (Green and Hayward, 1997; Leslie and Fretwell, 1996). Not only is change described as necessary based on external pressures, but also the sheer number of major changes keeps increasing (Green and Hayward, 1997; Leslie and Fretwell, 1996).

Some scholars describe the changing context as a reason to reexamine organizational structures and culture, necessitating internal change. Bergquist, for example, describes the postmodern era as posing new challenges for organizations, particularly around the issue of change (1998). Postmodernism requires organizations to change their size and shape to respond to a more fragmented and complex environment. Reexamining the institutional mission is a major priority (Bergquist, 1998; Cameron and Tschichart, 1992). As institutions rethink their reasons for being, the institutions themselves change their identities; Bergquist lists several institutional responses. First, the postmodern environment means that organizations move from more singular models of operation (as bureaucratic or as a research university) to examining multiple ways to be successful. Second, organizations might actively engage the various subcultures within higher education institutions, including the political, bureaucratic, symbolic, and human resource cultures. Third, other organizations might develop entrepreneurial cultures and structures in which they are able to adapt to changes. Last, they might find their distinctive niches, focusing on specialized aspects rather than a more comprehensive mission as higher education institutions have done in the past. Organizational change is conceptualized as an effort at becoming less homogenous and responsive to the multiplicity of various constituents (for example, women and people of color), customers, or interest groups. According to Bergquist, the postmodern era is requiring organizations to change; there is no way to avoid this cycle.

Another factor requiring an update to our knowledge base on organizational change is the plethora of new models developed and research conducted in the last decade. The Kellogg Foundation has funded several major studies on change and transformation within higher education, resulting in the creation of several research teams around the country that have developed new conceptualizations and strategies for change. In addition, the Pew Charitable Trusts Leadership Award, initiated in 1996, attempts to document institutions that have responded to calls for change in higher education, providing models for other institutions. The purpose of this project is to highlight successful change efforts and help more institutions realize the necessity of change. Institutions involved in the Pew project are required to illustrate change in curriculum, faculty roles, and resource allocation. The sheer number of calls for change by policy-makers has spawned interest from organizational theorists in further exploring the structures and attitudes that influence the change process. Although many individual publications are being developed, without synthesis of these various ideas, there is no way for practitioners to compare the advantages or disadvantages of various models and conceptualizations.

Finally, higher education administration programs have developed new courses on change or leadership classes in which organizational change is a major component. The growing number of classes in this area also requires that the knowledge base be collected and organized in one publication. Even if there were not calls for change, it would be necessary to synthesize this literature for students, faculty, and scholars. Although episodes of extreme change tend to be cyclical, anyone who has spent any time in organizations knows that change is ongoing. This knowledge is always needed for leading and working within higher education institutions.

Probably the single most important reason for readers to carefully review the information from the collective research knowledge base is the findings of research studies about change: using change strategies accurately has been demonstrated to affect the success or failure of an effort (Collins, 1998). The research also illustrates the important principle that one size does not fit all when it comes to change approaches—a principle commonly misunderstood among education professionals (Birnbaum, 1991a; Bolman and Deal, 1991). Solutions such as total quality management, interpretive strategy, or becoming a learning organization do not work within all environments, among all types of changes, or within all institutional structures and cultures. Yet professionals tend to use whatever change theory or approach they are familiar with or that is popular at the time. With many prominent scholars and opinion leaders calling for a serious examination of institutional structure, mission, and culture, and a plethora of new research and ideas, a better understanding and synthesis of knowledge about change seems appropriate.

. . . professionals tend to use whatever change theory or approach they are familiar with or that is popular at the time.

Distinctive Contribution

This monograph presents a critical synthesis of research literature on the organizational change process at the institutional level, providing guidance about the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches or models and offering research-based principles. This differs from other resources that focus on one approach, such as reengineering, or nonresearch-based models. Much of the organizational change literature has been written from the perspective of a writer who believes in one approach to facilitate change. Such writers often become advocates of a model, rather than providing careful, cautionary tales to readers about use of the approach. Also, the vast majority of the literature focuses on planned change; in fact, the last major review of change literature in higher education, by Robert Nordvall (1982) focused only on planned change. Although planned change is important to understand, much of the change that occurs is unplanned or only partially planned. Another weakness in the change literature is that the vast majority of literature relies on anecdotal change stories or cases such as Introducing Change from the Top in Universities and Colleges: 10 Personal Accounts (Weil, 1994). These voices can provide some insight, but tend to be idiosyncratic stories that can be applied to other situations and campuses with limited success. This report is distinctive in its focus on research.

Moreover, it focuses on organizational change rather than change agents. Many recent books review change agents’ roles, examining how department chairs, deans, faculty, student affairs officers, and presidents can help to initiate change (Wolverton and others, 1998). These books tend to focus on particulars of a functional area. For example, change agents in academic affairs administration are briefed on the importance to change of tenure review processes, evaluation, faculty development, or hiring (Lucas and Assoc., 2000). Such resources for change agents provide some helpful strategies, yet they lack the broad, conceptual knowledge necessary to create and sustain change. Furthermore, these resources are based on experiences and anecdotes rather than research, so there is no proof that they work. At this point, no broad synthesis of the conceptual, research-based literature on the change process has been developed. This monograph attempts to fill that gap in our knowledge.

Focus of the Monograph

It is assumed that higher education institutions do change, yet we need to better understand how, why, and under what circumstances this occurs. The focus is on synthesizing the literature on all change models across the multidisciplinary fields that have studied change, examining these models in relation to the unique higher education environment, and trying to determine the relative merit of various approaches to studying and understanding change in higher education. This monograph focuses on change at the institutional level and will address state- and national-level studies only occasionally. For sources on state change, see Altbach, Berdhal, and Gumport (1998); for national systems, see Clark (1983a) and Sporn (1999). This work will not argue for the need to change. For an overview of the need for change or the literature on various changes currently facing the academy, see Green and Hayward (1997); Leslie and Fretwell (1996).

This monograph is organized in the following manner. Article two focuses on reviewing major terms or concepts related to change, such as first-order and second-order change, scale of change, and proactive versus reactive change. These terms are important for understanding change theories and beginning to develop a common language for change. One of the major difficulties related to change is that people have unspoken assumptions about how they define and think about change. This article provides some common concepts so that campus leaders can frame discussions about change and identify hidden assumptions. It also attempts to define what change is and distinguish it from diffusion, innovation, institutionalization, and other similar phenomena. It is important to realize that there are many different definitions of change and that these definitions are directly tied to different theories about change. Thus, there is no single definition offered in article two; instead, definitions are offered in article three in conjunction with theories of change.

Article three reviews the research on organizational change, from several disciplines including political science, anthropology, biology, physics, psychology, business, and management. Because the literature is so extensive, it is organized into major change theories according to a typology of six categories: evolutionary, lifecycle, teleological, political, social-cognition, and cultural models. This typology is an original contribution, but builds on the work of Van de Ven and Poole (1995). These categories of models/theories are described in terms of their definitions of change, major assumptions, examples of specific models, key players and activities, and benefits and criticisms. By understanding all major theories about change, leaders will be better equipped for facilitating the process.

Article four focuses on defining the unique characteristics of higher education institutions, relying heavily on the work of Robert Berdhal (1991), William Bergquist (1992), Robert Birnbaum (1991a), Burton Clark (1983a), and Karl Weick (1991). The change literature is analyzed in relation to characteristics that define higher education organizations as unique. Few scholars have examined change on college campuses as distinct from that in other organizations. Instead, models of change from other disciplines or used within other organizational types have been applied to higher education, without consideration of whether this transference is appropriate. The examination of the unique features of higher education in relation to change and observations made from this meta-analysis has the potential to develop approaches to change that are more successful.

In article five, the literature on change from the field of higher education is presented. The typology of change theories is used to organize this literature, allowing the reader to reflect on the key assumptions, benefits, and criticisms already presented. The results of studies directly applied within the higher education setting assist in understanding the efficacy of these models/theories, sometimes derived from outside the realm of higher education, for understanding organizational change. This article does more than synthesize the literature—it begins to create a vision for how change occurs in higher education.

In article six, the earlier articles are consolidated into a set of research-based principles for understanding and facilitating change in higher education. Rather than provide solutions or recommend a model for change, this monograph provides a set of principles that can be used to guide the change process. These principles are derived from the collective wisdom of hundreds of research studies. No recipe is offered; understanding change requires the development of a common language and conceptualization of change that is context based.

The monograph ends with suggestions for future research, article seven. We know less than we should about how change occurs in higher education. There have been few long-term or sustained research agendas by researchers or research projects. Instead, a researcher will conduct a study or two on change, then move on to another topic. Given the lack of consistent attention to this topic in higher education, there are many gaps in our knowledge that need exploration. Future areas for research are detailed, again organized by the typology of six models.

In summary, this work focuses on providing the reader key insights into the change process: (1) it provides a common language for organizational change by reviewing terminology; (2) it brings together the multidisciplinary research base on change; (3) it outlines the ways in which higher education is a distinct institutional type and how this might influence the change process; (4) it reviews models and concepts of organizational change derived from within higher education, comparing and contrasting different approaches; (5) it offers research-based principles for change; and (6) it presents areas in need of future research.

Audience

It is assumed that any member of the institution can be a change agent and can successfully use the principles listed in article six. In fact, acknowledging that any institutional member can be a change agent facilitates the change process. One of the core assumptions among many change models or conceptualizations is the importance of collective leadership. Therefore, it is hoped that all readers feel empowered to use the lessons in this monograph.