Lessons in Change
description
Transcript of Lessons in Change
Lessons in Change
University of Cinncinati
30 April 2001
Dr. Karan L. Watson(in collaboration with Jeff Froyd)
Funded in part by the National Science Foundation through the Foundation Coalition
Presentation
• Motivation for change, with diversity as an example
• Case Study- TAMU’s Integrated First-year
• Ideas about change- How should we model the process of change
• Major components of the Change Model
• Discussion
Female AfA Lat NaA AsA FoNGaTech 1.26 2.20 0.51 0.74 0.93 0.57 Penn State 0.90 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.55 0.23 Illinois UCH 0.80 0.58 0.51 0.48 1.60 0.37 Purdue 1.16 0.45 0.39 0.33 0.57 1.96 Texas A&M 1.15 0.59 1.73 0.34 0.73 0.75 U Mich AA 1.36 1.09 0.33 1.04 0.67 0.20 Cornell 1.22 0.30 0.53 0.49 2.22 1.19 UC Berkeley 1.22 0.34 0.65 0.76 4.31 0.89 U Texas Au 0.95 0.70 1.74 0.52 1.60 0.97 MIT 1.68 1.24 1.23 0.56 1.80 0.94 U Wash 1.08 0.43 0.41 1.79 2.48 0.54 U Wisc Ma 0.94 0.18 0.23 - 0.38 1.67 Stanford 1.39 1.07 1.28 1.83 2.30 1.03
BS
UCinn 0.70
1999/2000 Graduation Ratio: Inst % Women Engr/Nat’l % Women Engr
Female AfA Lat NaA AsA FoNGaTech 0.90 2.36 0.86 - 0.75 4.71 Penn State 1.02 0.79 0.74 - 0.66 4.68 Illinois UCH 0.84 0.47 0.82 - 0.86 4.38 Purdue 0.84 0.37 1.33 - 0.76 5.06 Texas A&M 0.92 0.67 1.70 - 0.51 7.19 U Mich AA 0.95 1.17 1.15 - 1.04 4.92 Cornell 0.90 0.65 1.09 - 2.23 4.35 UC Berkeley 1.37 0.89 1.33 - 1.84 3.82 U Texas Au 0.88 0.37 1.35 - 0.77 5.15 MIT 0.99 0.71 0.83 - 1.50 3.54 U Wash 1.30 0.22 0.34 1.97 1.16 3.27 U Wisc Ma 1.01 0.59 1.52 - 0.39 5.66 Stanford 1.04 0.61 1.19 1.30 2.02 5.03
MS
UCinn 1.03
1999/2000 Graduation Ratio: Inst % Women Engr/Nat’l % Women Engr
Female AfA Lat NaA AsA FoNGaTech 0.88 1.88 1.13 - 1.14 0.83 Penn State 1.04 0.34 1.63 - 0.76 1.06 Illinois UCH 0.60 0.28 1.02 - 1.26 0.88 Purdue 0.94 0.71 0.42 - 1.08 1.35 Texas A&M 0.63 2.17 1.56 - 0.61 1.35 U Mich AA 1.45 2.12 1.09 - 1.02 0.99 Cornell 1.24 1.25 6.74 - 0.70 0.95 UC Berkeley 1.44 0.57 1.71 - 1.51 0.60 U Texas Au 0.84 0.32 0.76 - 0.88 1.03 MIT 1.21 0.74 0.89 2.34 0.96 0.85 U Wash 0.94 0.79 - - 2.42 0.61 U Wisc Ma 1.51 - 1.36 5.40 0.16 0.91 Stanford 1.25 1.08 1.29 2.56 1.13 0.89
PhD
UCinn 0.58
1999/2000 Graduation Ratio: Inst % Women Engr/Nat’l % Women Engr
BUT, percentages are so different from one field to the next, SO I’ll ratio by comparing to national average per field and weighting the size of the program
(% women grad. in field local) (# grads in that field local)
(% women grad. In field Nat'l) (# grads in engr. local)
fields
Total BS MS PhDUCinn 0.78 0.62 1.05 0.46TAMU 1.05 1.08 0.89 0.94Purdue 1.04 1.07 0.94 1.11UIll-ChU 0.88 0.91 0.97 0.67UMich 1.18 1.42 1.15 1.02UWash 1.18 1.20 1.23 1.09PennSt 0.86 0.76 0.88 0.94
Faculty at TAMU
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Full/Assoc Level National
Full/Assoc Level TAMU
Asst Level National
Asst Level TAMU
Full/Assoc Level National 3.3% 6.1% 8.9% 19.6% 22.8%
Full/Assoc Level TAMU 4.1% 5.6% 2.9% 15.8% 16.4%
Asst Level National 14.6% 24.4% 19.4% 38.9% 45.5%
Asst Level TAMU 19.35% 15.4% 28.2% 34.9% 45.2%
EngrPhysical Science
Math & CSLife and Related
Sciences
Social & Related
Sciences
Various TAMU InterventionsVarious Interventions 1997
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Total Females Under rep Min
1 Yr R
etent
ion
Traditional
FC
CREW
MAPs
Phase 1
In 1997: Total for college was n=1265•Total for FC Integrated Courses was 230•Total for CREW Womens’ 1 Yr Dorm Clusters was 65•Total for MAPs Women Student/Pro Mentoring was 85•Total for Phase 1 5wk summer students needing Math Remediation was 44
Texas A&M University
TECHNOLOGY ENABLED ROOMS13 redesigned classrooms
CURRICULUM INTEGRATIONchanged first- and second-year engineering, math, physics and chemistry for all
students (6 coordinators)upper-division changes in CVEN, PETE, INEN, AERO, MEEN
TEAMING & ACTIVE LEARNINGfaculty workshops, student profiles, industry diversity training
Texas A&M University
ASSESSMENT & EVALUATIONNew professional staff, focus on faculty needs in course
revisions
INCLUSIVE LEARNING COMMUNITIESClusters- 70% first-year students & 25% second-year students, 94 faculty membersIndustry case studies with all first-year studentsGroup Study Workshops
Texas A&M University Performance Benefit: Grades & Standardized Tests
% Gain Greater Test than Traditional
0 5 10 2015
16%Standardized Critical Thinking15%Force Concept Inventory
10%Mechanics Baseline Test10%Calculus Concept Test
When compared to equivalent students in traditional engineering programs, after one year, students in the new curriculum perform better on standardized tests
and better in grades for follow on courses.
Texas A&M UniversityFOCUS ON UNDER-REPRESENTED GROUPS
Better retention
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
% R
eta
ine
d i
n E
ng
ine
eri
ng
TraditionalFC
Calc 2, Phys 2, Engr 2, Chem ( 300 )
Calc 2, Phys 2, Engr 2( 200 )
Calc 2, Engr 2, Chem( 300 )
Independent Courses( 300 )
Clusters areoffered to
students at eachlevel.
PRECALC
CALCULUS 1
BEYONDCALCULUS
1
500
1000
300
Independent Courses( 200 )
Precalc, Chem, Engr 0( 300 )
Calc 1, Phys 1, Engr 1, Engl 1 ( 100 )
Calc 1, Phys 1, Engr 1( 600 )
Calc 1, Engr 1 ( 150 )
Independent Courses( 150 )
Calc 2, Engr 1( 50 )
Independent Courses( 250 )
Numerous Integrated Models to Serve Students
Examples of Texas A&M Engineering Data
In 1994:Women’s 1st yr retention was 3% lower than men’sAnd Underrep min. was 6% lower than non-minorities
In 1999:Women’s 1st yr retention was 1% higher than men’sAnd Underrep min. was 1% higher than non-minorities
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
% o
f g
ro
up
retain
ed
after 1
yr
Trad
FC
Top 10% from HS and 20 pt drop in SATM median
No Pre-calc studentsin FC Pilots
required retention to have 1000 sophomores
Lessons from Foundation Coalition Curriculum Change Experiences
• Focus on faculty behavior, not the curriculum or technology.
• People outside the pilot groups need to be engaged from the beginning.
• Assessment data is necessary but not sufficient.
• Successful change requires energy and time.
• Don’t become surprised or defensive when resistance appears.
• Persevere through turmoil.
• Zealous change champions cannot institutionalize the change by themselves.
• Articulate an explicit process for the change.
• Change occurs in stages
• If you want to facilitate change, then you need to facilitate movement from one stage to the next. Don’t expect a person to change all at once.
• Different people understand different things about change
Change: Oblivious to Need to Action
Nature of Change Nature of Resistance
Organizational Culture
Leadership Change Dynamics
Concepts in Organizational Change
• Who has to change?– Behavior– Attitude– Belief– Value
• What is the timeline for change?
• What are the available resources to fuel change?
Nature of Change
“... we use the term “profound change” to describe organizational change that combines shifts in people’s values, aspirations, and behaviors with “other” shifts to processes, strategies, practices, and systems.... In profound change there is learning. The organization doesn’t just do something new, it builds its capacity for doing things in a new way--indeed, it builds capacity for ongoing change.... It is not enough to change strategies, structures, and systems, unless the thinking that produced those strategies, structures, and systems also changes.”
Senge, Peter, et. al., The Dance of Change
Nature of ChangeProfound Change
• Resistance is inevitable, not bad– People are at different stages in changing
– People move from stage to stage at different rates
– People move from stage to stage in response to different stimuli
– Resistance is similar to turbulence
• Ignorance facilitates resistance; resistance facilitates ignorance• Responses to resistance
– Dismissal: “You’re an idiot.”
– Bulldozer: “You just don’t understand and I will try again to convince you of the correctness of my approach.”
– Let’s talk: “What you say has merit. Let me understand your concerns and let’s review how an alternate proposal might address your concerns.”
– Anticipate: Don’t be placed in a position of selling a curriculum proposal; instead position yourself as responding to a felt need
Resistance
How to Recognize Resistance• Confusion
• Immediate Criticism
• Denial
• Malicious Compliance
• Sabotage
• Easy Agreement
• Deflection (changing the subject)
• Silence
• In-Your-Face CriticismMaurer, Rick, Beyond the Wall of Resistance, Austin, Texas: Bard Press, 1996, chapter 2
Resistance
• Level 1: The Idea Itself (primarily intellectual)– Communicating the Idea
-- Relative Advantage -- Simplicity
-- Compatibility -- Easy to Test
– Involvement
• Level 2: Deeper Issues (primarily emotional)– Listen for and address: Distrust, Bureaucratic Culture, Punishments
and Rewards, Loss of Respect and Face, Fear of Isolation, Events in the World
• Level 3: Deeply Embedded (viewed as enemy)
– Pay attention and attend to issues around
--Historic Animosity -- Conflicting Values and Vision
Maurer, Rick, Beyond the Wall of Resistance, Austin, Texas: Bard Press, 1996, chapter 8
How Intense is the Resistance
What is it?
Culture
“Culture eats change
for breakfast”James Hunt
http://www.top7business.com/archives/management/20000208.htmlJim Hunt, Principal
James W. Hunt & Associates
The "Change II" Management Consulting Firm
Web address: www.jameswhunt.com
What is it?
Levels of Culture
• Artifacts– visible organizational structures and process
– easy to observe, difficult to decipher, ambiguous
• Espoused values, rules, behavioral norms– strategies, goals, espoused rationalizations
– articulated reasons for actions, (theories of action, Argyris)
• Basic underlying assumptions– unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs
– theories-in-use (Argyris)Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, second edition
• “Leadership takes place every day. It cannot be the responsibility of the few, a rare event, or a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”
Heifetz, Ronald and Donald Laurie, “The Work of Leadership,” Harvard
Business Review, Jan-Feb 1997
• Leadership is too important to be left in the hands of the few people near the top of the organizational hierarchy.
Leadership
• Change is hard work.
• Leadership begins with values
• Intellectual leads physical
• Real changes takes real change
• Leadership is a team sport
• Expect to be surprised
• Today competes with tomorrow
• Better is better
• Focus on the future
• Learning from doing
• Grow people
• Reflect
Sullivan and Harper, Hope is not a Method
Leadership for Change
• “Get on the balcony”, get perspective
• Identify the adaptive challenge
• Regulate distress: not too high, not too low
• Maintain disciplined attention
• Give the work back to people
• Protect voices of leadership from below
Heifetz, Ronald and Donald Laurie, “The Work of Leadership,” Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1997
Leadership for Change
Change Dynamics
Change Ready ZoneKriegel & Brandt“Sacred Cows Make the Best Burgers”
Drone Zone
Challenge
ResourcesCompetencies, Time, Reserves
Change ReadyZonePanic
Zone
Skill level required,Speed of change,Effort to
learn
Late Majority
34%
Laggards 16%
Early Majority
34%
Early Adopters
13%
Innovators3%
Change Dynamics
Type and Distribution of Adopters
Rogers, Everett M., Diffusion of Innovations, fourth edition
Oblivious to needs, desires,
or effortsAwareness that
things are happening
Interest in the things that are
happeningDecisions about
what is happening
Commitment to aid or resist the changes that are
happening
Action
Passive Information Gathering
Active Information Gathering
Change: Oblivious to Action
Betrayal
Denial
Crisis
Search for Solution
Energy for the Job
Time
Individual’s Approach to Change
Search forSolutions
IdentityCrisis
Denial
Betrayal TIME
Group’s Approach to Change