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