Post on 31-May-2020
Documenting Perceptions of Organizational Change through Reengineering at a Midwestern
Comprehensive University
Chris Crawford, Associate Provost
Kenneth Rigler, Assistant Professor of Applied Technology
Monday, April 18 – 2:00 pm
Purpose
• The purpose of this study was to examine thefaculty, staff, and administration perceptions of a early stage process reengineering initiative using the Organizational Change Recipients Belief Scale (OCRBS) at a Midwestern comprehensive university.
Background and Context
• 27-year President retires; 16-year Provost moves back to faculty
• Massive growth in distance education from 2000 (1000) to 2015 (6500)
• Stable on-campus enrollment (4500)
• Deployment of a large cross-border program in China (3000 to 3500 students)
• Ample financial reserves, low debt
• Heavy faculty workload, lean staff support, increased reliance on virtual adjuncts
Background and Context
• New leadership determined that reengineering would be utilized to achieve the follow goals:– Consider new ways of work for the university
– Expend investments in talent and technology
– Leverage the combines size and resources
– Restructure work patterns
– Break down barriers to change and improvement
– Achieve efficiency in operations and processes
– Provide excellence in our services to students
– Ensure that departments are in the best position to nurture synergistic collaboration
Background and Context
• Two task forces were authorized
– Operations (Student Affairs, Technology, Administration and Finance)
– Academics (Academic Affairs)
• Task forces were charged
– Study critical operational and structural issues
– Identify and recommend realignments of reporting structures
– Other functional or operational efficiencies
Background and Context
• Reengineering Timeline – October 2014 – President delivers charge to University
– November/December 2014 – Task Force conducts work
– January 2015 – Task Forces present initial findings to administration
– February 2015 – Revise Task Force reports
– March 2015 – Present revised Task Force reports to campus
– April 2015 – Process feedback, revise reports
– May 2015 – Release final Task Force reports, implement, seek KBOR approval, OCRBS survey released
– October 2015 – KBOR approved structural changes
Review of Literature
• Reengineering
– Origin in early 1990s as a way to radically improve organizational performance through process review and adoption of technology
– Practical alternative to TQM methods
– Mixed results, generally high levels of resistance and failure rates across sectors
– Higher education prone to reengineering failure due to traditional structure and inertia
Review of Literature
• Reengineering, cont.
– Reengineering considered more useful for non-manufacturing, service enterprises
– Goal of radical strategic change rather than incremental improvement through rethinking the core processes
– 50-70% of organizations did not meet target outcomes
– Some aspects of satisfaction increased while others decreased in most organizations
Review of Literature
• Organizational change
– Technological advancements of the information age have caused the rate of organizational change to rapidly escalate
– Today, much more focus on efficiency and effectiveness to respond to this drastically changing environment
– Success of large-scale change efforts are dependent on two factors: leadership and organizational support for change
Review of Literature
• Organizational change
– Higher education is an example of a loose-coupled system where members retain a degree of autonomous control as professionals
– Loose coupled systems are more difficult to change due to the inherent resistance offered by autonomous control
– Reengineering, in order to be successful, must overcome the inherent resistance to change
Review of Literature
• Organizational change
– Readiness for change comprised of five dimensions
• Discrepancy – need for change exists resulting in a clear difference between the present and future
• Efficacy – perceived capability to implement the change
• Valence – attractiveness of the outcome of the change
• Principal support – support from top management
• Appropriateness – the alignment between the organizational context and the intended corrective actions
– Measured by the OCRBS, 24 item Likert scale survey
Methodology
• Research questions
– RQ1: What were the university faculty, staff, and administrator perceptions toward the reengineering initiative?
– RQ2: What were the differences in the university faculty, staff, and administration perceptions towardsthe reengineering initiative based on age, years of experience, division, and employee classification?
Methodology
• The OCRBS and six demographic questions were administered to all faculty, staff, and professional administrative personnel (N = 1313)
• n = 257 responded (20%)
• Survey was approved through IRB, anonymous, not conducted through university survey system
• Notably, survey open for 2 weeks, following the final open forum on reengineering
Results
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Employee Classification
Professional Unclassified Faculty Support Staff Other/Missing
Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Faculty Classification
Part-time/Adjunct Temporary Tenure Track Tenured
Results
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Faculty Rank
Instructor Asst Professor Assoc Professor Professor
Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
College/Unit of Employment
COAS COBE COET CHLS Acad Affairs Student Affairs Admin/Fin Technology Other/Missing
Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Years of Employment
1-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years 20+ years Missing
Results
• Significant findings
– Perceptions of change differed across employment units (all subscales showed significant differences)
• Admin/Finance were least favorable
• Information Technology, COBE, Academic Affairs, Student Affairs were most favorable
– Perceptions of change differed by years of experience (efficacy and principal support were not significant)
• 1-4 years showed the most support, 5-9 years the least support
Results
• Significant findings
– Perceptions of change differed across employeeclassification (all subscales showed significant differences)
• Faculty and unclassified professional were most favorable
• University support staff and other least favored change
Conclusions
• Significant differences between employee classification attributed to support staff skepticism
• Differences between years of employment related to fear amongst those newest to the organization
• No differences by faculty rank, so the fear was attributable more to support staff and other
Reengineering Outcomes
• Actual implemented reengineering outcomes– Created a IR unit, Created a International unit
– Split COAS into a new STM College
– Realign the CHLS, removing the STM departments and adding Psychology and Social Work to create the CHBS
– Split Management and Marketing department
– Moved Sternberg Museum to Academic Affairs
– Moved Teaching/Learning Technology into IT – feedback was overwhelmingly negative
– Proposed combining Modern Languages, Philosophy, and History – feedback was overwhelming negative
Next Steps
• Survey was Phase I of the study – reported here
• Phase II is under analysis – interviews conducted with representative personnel (stratified selection)
• Phase II results tell the story of anxiety and dissatisfaction, stark contrast to the Phase I results
• Phase III will re-administer the survey –scheduled this spring
Questions?
Documenting Perceptions of Organizational Change through Reengineering at a Midwestern
Comprehensive University
Chris Crawford, Associate Provost
Kenneth Rigler, Assistant Professor of Applied Technology
Monday, April 18 – 2:00 pm