The Academic Workplace: HRD’s Potential for Creating and Maintaining a Positive

Organizational Culture and Climate During Organizational Change

Julie Gedro, MBA, PHR, EdDEmpire State College / State University of New York

Julie.Gedro@esc.edu

Abstract

This manuscript will consider higher education institutions as workplaces, and to

explore the relationships between the shifting landscape of higher education, the

corresponding organizational changes that are identified and implemented by college and

university leaders in response to those shifts, and workplace culture and climate. Its

purpose is to offer a typology of HRD interventions that respond to organizational needs

for skill building, and education in order to equip individuals and organizations to thrive

during periods of significant change. The context for this paper is mostly through a U.S.

based lens, although it is likely that several concepts and suggestions might have

transnational relevance.

Keywords: Organizational change, higher education, leadership

2

Introduction

The paper is framed by two propositions. After examining some of the larger

trends and debates in higher education, the paper will then transition to a micro level

discussion and consider how these broad trends impact a college or university and in

particular, how employees are affected by changes. In short, it is a discussion of

organizational change in a higher education context. The typology of the features—the

pressure points, if you will—that facilitate positive, effective organizational change will

suggest specific ways that HRD practitioners can contribute to overall organizational

effectiveness in a turbulent environment. The overarching aspiration of this manuscript is

to propose a framework to conceptualize the macro environment of higher education

institutions as workplaces that are faced with the necessity to undergo significant

changes, and then offer a typology of HRD interventions that facilitate a successful,

positive, and effective workplace environment that equips employees (faculty, staff, and

administrators) to thrive.

This examination of the landscape of higher education will examine the context in

the United States. It will consider how these changes in the larger environment impact

those who are employed in the higher education sector, and this includes faculty, staff

and administrators. It will explore constructs that when taken together, create a composite

model of suggestions for HRD practice in higher educational settings. The model consists

of trust, civility and collegiality, ethics and integrity, positive organizational behavior,

and effective leadership. The HRD practice model can take each of these components as

a separate initiative and then when taken together, comprise the spectrum of HRD

3

activities to strengthen an organization. Implications for future HRD research will

accompany these implications for practice.

Design/Methodology/Approach

The approach that this manuscript uses is a conceptual one, one in which I

identified literature that, as (Callahan 2010) suggests, supports and informs the premise

of the manuscript. Drawing upon literature from higher education, human resource

development, management, organizational studies and psychology, the ideas and

suggestions set forth here represent a composite of the ways in which HRD practice can

facilitate organizational change in higher educational institutions.

Proposition 1: The changing environment of higher education is rooted in and shaped by

historical, social, economic, educational and political forces; this environment has been

explored on theoretical levels, and it has very real, practical, material consequences that

manifest through organizational changes and shifting career opportunities for

academics.

The Changing and Contested Environment of Higher Education

Higher education is experiencing significant shifts that are the result of

demographics, technology, globalization and policy. There are deeply contested

perspectives regarding the larger institutional and global forces, or more specifically, the

narrative about larger institutions and global forces, that are bearing down directly upon

colleges and universities, and creating conditions where higher education administrators

feel the need to initiate large scale changes. (Vaira 2004) explains that the task

environment of higher education (across the world) has shifted significantly in the last 20

years as a result of a meta-myth that is “used at political, economic, cultural and even

4

everyday-life to make sense of the occurring social transformation and to undertake

actions in accordance with it” (pp. 483-484). Vaira argues that this globalization meta-

myth shapes higher education in terms of policy-making, governance, and academic work

and identity. Vaira notes that there are three points that describe how the meta-myth of

globalization impacts higher education. First, there is the notion of the minimalist state,

which reduces the role of the government from one that regulates and intervenes, to one

that only mediates. This shift to mediator, on a practical level, is recognizable as reducing

funding, reduced regulation, and increased emphasis on performance and outcomes.

Second, there is the trend toward entrepreneurialism/managerialism. Associated with this

trend is the overlay of business principles of commodification, flexibility, innovation,

quality, and products that are designed to meet customer demands. Finally, there is the

trend toward a knowledge society. This trend means that there is an emphasis on

technology and technological development with a larger focus on knowledge production

for competitive purposes, which renders the purpose of a college or university to be that

of generators of human capital. These larger forces, according to Vaira, create the

conditions by which colleges and universities are compelled to respond with

organizational changes. Reduced government support, the shift from considering students

as learners, to students as customers, the focus on quality and outcomes, and the

prioritization on knowledge as a competitive resource, converge to create the conditions

to which colleges and universities must respond with business mindsets, and

corresponding organizational changes. (Thornton 2002) characterizes a university as an

“older type of public corporation” (p. 162) that has been created to serve a public good.

Thornton suggests that this public good centers around the advancement and transmission

5

of knowledge. However, she argues that the introduction of entrepreneurism and profit-

seeking were never intended to become the objectives for colleges and universities.

Thornton, therefore, identifies and concurrently contests the corporatization of higher

education.

Staley and Tickle (2011) categorized the changes along ten themes. First, there is

the increasing differentiation of higher education, characterized by increasing

heterogeneity of colleges and universities that offer an array of choices for students.

Second, is the transformation of the general education curriculum, in which the tension

between curriculum that prepares students for the workforce rubs against the tension for

liberal arts education. Third, the composition of faculty is changing, where tenured

opportunities are being supplanted, due to budget pressures as well as the ability of

technology to enable pre-packaged courses that can be taught by adjuncts. Fourth, the

surge of faculty and student mobility means that “the United States may lose its unique

place in the worldwide higher education landscape” (p. 20). Academic mobility means

that institutions are having to view “their missions in international terms” (p. 20). Fifth,

there is the new “invisible college” which is enabled through technology, and represents

the de-coupling of research and knowledge work from specific institutional ties. Sixth,

student demographics are shifting; students who are over twenty-five who work fulltime

—students who were once considered non-traditional, now represent “more than sixty

percent of students enrolled” (p. 23). Seventh, there is mounting pressure to demonstrate

the “added value” (p. 24) of a college degree. The assumption that a college degree

inevitably leads to a good paying job, which was the countervailing thinking since the

end of World War II, is now “being challenged” (p. 25). Eight, there is a revaluation of

6

middle-skill jobs, which are jobs “defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as

those between high-skill jobs, which require abstract reasoning and low-skill jobs, which

are found at the low-paying end of the service sector” (p. 26). Nine, higher education is

increasingly seen as a private good rather than a public good. This trend is manifest in the

reduction of state funding for colleges and universities. It also means that students are

increasingly having to take on the cost of financing their educations. Ten, lifelong

partnerships with students will become a norm, where colleges and universities actively

engage with alums in order to provide training; Staley and Trickle call this “service after

the sale” (p. 28).

Consequences of the changing landscape

These trends articulated by (Staley & Trinkle 2011; Thornton 2002; Vaira 2004)

represent macro-environmental changes, ones that are relatively, readily discernible

because these changes are being communicated through various means including,

publications such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, and magazines such as U.S.

News and World Report. There is scholarship and popular press that helps to raise the

level of awareness around visibility around these environmental shifts. What is less

obvious is that these environmental shifts signal changes for institutions and those who

work at those institutions. These changes are sometimes subtle and gradual, and

sometimes they are more disruptive. Wilson (2010) argues that the shift, for example, in

the makeup of the professoriate from tenured faculty to part time, adjunct faculty is a

shift that happened over time without a corresponding resistance from those whom it

could greatly affect. In particular, those affected by the decline of tenure in the academy

are those who are considering the professoriate as a career. In 1975, 56.8% of faculty

7

were tenured or tenure track and 30.2% were part-time. In 2007, 31.2% of faculty were

tenured and 50.3% were part time. There has been little exploration of the trends in

higher education translate into changes in the daily worklives of faculty, staff and

administrators in higher education. Altbach (2000, p. 21) notes that:

Trends in academic appointments In response to the pressures referred to earlier

—budgetary problems, accountability, changing patterns of enrollments, among

others—academic hiring is undergoing considerable change. Without question,

the most important development is the diversification of the types of

appointments made to teaching and research posts.

Given, then, the increasing pressure brought about through reduced state funding,

increased competition, the decline of the tenure track, fulltime faculty career as an option

(as colleges more and more look to adjunct faculty to teach courses), the impact of

technology and globalization, and the overall destabilization of higher education, this

paper explores the microenvironments of higher education. By “micro environment,” I

mean the workplace. With perhaps a few exceptions, such as private elite institutions

shielded from market forces due to large endowments, the larger scale changes in the

landscape of higher education result in changes in the ways that colleges and universities

operate. These changes could include hiring freezes, a retrenchments, re-structuring,

accreditation reviews, new programs, new leadership, or even, as in the case of

Sweetbriar College in Virginia, closing (McKenna, 2015, retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/the-unfortunate-fate-of-sweet-

briars-professors/387376/).

8

(Altbach, 2000) argues that the trend toward mass higher education began in the

United States, which because it is the largest as well as comprehensive system, provides a

model for educational systems in other countries. Altbach further notes that the reforms

that are happening in the United Staets system, such as the structure of academic rank and

performance management which determines rank as well as salary, are changes that are

occurring in other countries. Morever, Altbach laments that these changes are

consistently negative types of changes, such as eroding salary levels, decreasing

autonomy, and increased bureaucratization. In summary, the “entrepreneurial model

becomes the basic and legitimated organizational principle, or archetype, deemed to be

able to let higher education institutions to cope with the challenges in their new task

environment and constitute the pathway to pursue restructuring processes” (Vaira 2004,

p. ).

Findings and Discussion

This section of the paper will explore the implications of the changing landscape

of higher education for those who are employed in colleges and universities, which

includes my second proposition. Faculty experiences and behavior, according to (Keashly

& Neuman 2010) are “important determinants of organizational culture and climate” (p.

50). Thornton (2002) suggest that the application of business thinking and business

practices to colleges and universities, and the shift toward profit-seeking (or revenue

generating), creates the conditions by which students are not seen as learners, but as

consumers. The objectification of students in this way is but one of the macro level shifts

that has had a destabilizing effect on colleges and universities.

9

In times of change, and managerial leadership within higher education institutions

that has taken on a private-sector type of approach that focuses on increasing revenues,

and decreasing labor costs, there are organizational changes such as downsizing or

implementing hiring freezes, in order to reduce labor costs that could result in intra-

organizational turmoil. (Reio 2011) for example, observed that “in these economic times

where the threat of downsizing is all too familiar to most organizations…of course there

will be frustrated employees” (p. 66).

More than a decade ago, Strebel (1996) argued that vision and leadership drive

successful organizational change but that few leaders recognize the importance of

the employees’ commitment to changing. Employees within the organizational

system are responsible for adapting and behaving in ways aligned with change

strategies and programs initiated by management, often with fewer resources than

before (Mishra, Spreitzer, & Mishra 1998). With the change, they must learn to

forge new paths and strategies to attain redefined goals. They must have the

confidence (efficacy) to adapt to organizational change as well as the resilience to

bounce back from setbacks that are bound to occur during the change process.

Moreover, it follows that to be successful, employees undergoing change would

need to have the motivation and alternate pathways determined (i.e., hope) when

obstacles are encountered and make optimistic attributions of when things go

wrong and have a positive outlook for the future.(Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans

2008 p. 49).

There are fundamental questions and debates that distinguish the higher education

“workplace” from other types of workplaces. Arguably, there are “employees” (fulltime,

10

tenure and tenure track faculty) who have invested a substantive amount of their time,

education, and resources into their careers, which means that they are likely to be

particularly invested in the institution. They are also likely to have expectations (for

tenured faculty) of remaining at an institution for a career. The paradigm of the tenured

faculty member who is at one institution for an entire career is certainly part and parcel of

the shifts that I am highlighting in the paper overall. Even though it is changing, there are

tenured faculty in the “workplace” today (I include myself in this category) and as such,

they constitute a unique type of employee. There are also staff and professional

employees who may have similar investments and intentions toward their institutions.

These more permanent, or at least long term, types of employee engagements distinguish

the academic workplace from other types of workplaces. There are questions and debates

that are occurring right now in these organizations. For example, are those who work in

higher education responsible for a service? Are those who work in higher education

responsible for “customers?” It may be less clear in higher education because of the

debates around the purpose of a college degree.

Proposition 2: HRD practitioners can respond to the organizational changes that result

from environmental shifts, by offering various types of positive, strength-based, capacity

building interventions that equip faculty, staff and administrators to develop resilience

and the ability to acquire or retain choice with respect to their careers and their work

environments. HRD scholars can respond to organizational changes that result from

environmental shifts, by conducting research on positive culture and climate during

organizational change and offering resources for employees in higher education that

incorporate a strength-based perspective.

11

Positive workplace culture and climate during organizational change

Organizational culture and climate are related constructs and for purposes of this

paper, it is important to understand each construct. (Shuck, Reio & Rocco 2011) offer an

explanation that psychological climate is an employee’s interpretation of wellbeing in a

workplace. Shuck et al indicate that psychological climate is the “lens an employee uses

to understand and interpret their work environment relative to the social and physical

structures and environmental cues” (p. 431). Schein (2010) argues that organizational

studies scholars “avoid superficial models of culture” (p. 14) and he offers the following

characteristics of culture, which he says is based upon more sophisticated anthropological

models. These characteristics, or dimensions that define culture, include the following:

observed behavioral regularities when people interact; group norms; espoused values;

formal philosophy; rules of the game; climate; embedded skills; habits of thinking,

mental models, and linguistic paradigms; shared meanings; root metaphors and

integrating symbols; and formal rituals and celebrations (pp. 15-16). Denison (2014) has

teased out the differences between organizational culture and organizational climate,

suggesting that in organizational studies, culture has been studied using qualitative

methods that have attempted to understand the specific aspects of a social system;

conversely, climate researchers have been interested in quantitatively assessing the

“impact that organizational systems have on groups and individuals” (p. 621). Litwin and

Stringer (1968 in Denison 2014) identified nine dimensions of climate: “structure,

responsibility, reward, risk, warmth, support, standards, conflict, and identity” (p. 623).

Climate refers to the way that employees experience their workplace and those

experiences include, as Litwin and Stringer indicate, structural features of work which

12

include responsibility and reward. Culture on the other hand, is comprised of the

characteristics that reflect the values and the habits of the organization. A measure of

climate in my own workplace, for example, might ask me questions related to my

assessment of the technology that I have available to do my work, my assessment of the

tenure and promotion process, my assessment of the extent to which I feel that good work

is rewarded. Culture, on the other hand, is perhaps better studied using qualitative

explorations of observation, interviews, or focus groups because culture is manifested

through organizational or group routines and rituals, symbols, artifacts, and language. My

observations here are in harmony with Denison’s, which state that climate has historically

been studied quantitatively while culture has been studied qualitatively. It is necessary for

HRD practitioners and scholars to seek to understand both organizational culture and

organizational climate, if they are to seek guidance from the typology offered in this

paper. The reason for this is that an organization’s culture represents the way that work

gets done, the routines and the rituals that create a sense of shared meaning in an

organization. To be quite specific, an organization may have a culture of inclusion and

respect that permeates faculty meetings, in which all faculty feel free to engage in

discussion and debate. Conversely, an organization may have a culture of “pecking order’

in which only senior faculty feel free to share their ideas, which then tamp down the

willingness of less senior colleagues to engage in such conversation. In particular, this

dimension of culture could represent very real consequences for an organization that is

undergoing a planned change, because input from stakeholders could lead to vital input

and cues that could help to guide the design and implementation of the change.

13

… contextual factors such as leadership effectiveness and the history of change in

the organization certainly play important roles in shaping employees’ attitudes

toward organizational change. Therefore, HR practitioners need to explain past

failures fully and align systems and policies appropriately before initiating change.

Also, they can foster perceptions of support, participation, and trust among

employees by encouraging open communication, offering training, and

implementing task forces.(Bell, Lee, & Yeung 2006 p. 494)

The reason for investing in creating and maintaining a positive organizational culture is

based mainly upon my own humanistic orientation. It is inherently worthwhile for HRD

scholars and practitioners to use our talents, training, resources and energy to pursue

endeavors that lead to human flourishing. There is, too, an instrumentalist case to be

made for these investments. (Kataria, Garg, & Rastogi 2013) indicated that a positive

psychological climate results in greater employee investment in work manifested through

greater time, energy and effort spent on achieving their work objectives. Garner and

Hunter (2012, in Kataria et al) and Biswas and Varma (2007, in Kataria et al) determined

that in a positive climate, employees tend to demonstrate positive work attitudes and

behaviors.

The role of collegiality and respect

The field of Human Resource Development has explored the issue of workplace

incivility with some impressive depth and breadth. For example, there was an issue of

Advances in Developing Human Resources entitled “HRD’s Role in Addressing

Workplace Incivility & Violence” (2011) that contained articles related to ‘the toxic

continuum” (R. Ghosh, Jacobs, & Reio 2011), incivility as an “instrument of oppression”

14

(Callahan 2011), the incivility spiral in mentoring relationships (R. Ghosh, Dierkes, &

Falletta 2011), diversity and incivility (Githens 2011), supervisor and coworker incivility

(Reio 2011), workplace bullying (Bartlett & Bartlett 2011), hate crimes and the

workplace (Jacobs & Scott 2011), and workplace violence (Kormanik 2011). Ghosh

(Rajashi Ghosh, Reio, & Bang 2013) explored the role of incivility and its impact on

employee turnover. There is little guidance within the HRD literature for how to create

and sustain a positive workplace in higher education context during times of significant

change. Keashly and Neuman (2010) observed that despite the fact that scholarship on

workplace bullying has significantly increased over the last two decades, there has been

little exploration on the topic within the context of higher education institutions. They

suggest that the reason that bullying is prevalent in colleges and universities is because of

the corporatization of higher education. Thornton (2004, in (Zabrodska & Kveton 2013 p.

91) suggests that the shift in higher education toward a market-orientation has also

contributed to the reduction of workplace civility. Keashly and Neuman suggest that the

nature of the academic workplace, in which faculty and in some cases, staff as well, are

engaged in very long career relationships with each other, may contribute to the incivility

and bullying that is prevalent in higher education. HRD’s response can and should be to

develop programs that can help colleges and universities address incivility and bullying,

and create work environments that are characterized by respect, civility and collegiality. I

do not limit these aspirations to peer to peer relationships but also, to relationships across

and up and down organizational hierarchies. Reio (2011) observes that HR interventions

to reduce incivility and bullying include offering training programs such as technical skill

enhancement workshops and manager training, as well as designing websites that offer

15

relevant information. Reio further suggests that workshops that help employees to learn

how to communicate effectively in electronic means such as email can be helpful,

because such trainings can reduce the frustration that can occur as a result of unskillful

digital, asynchronous communication. HRD can play a vital role in enhancing the

wellbeing of employees within colleges and universities by directly addressing the

quality of interpersonal relationships through these types of initiatives. There is sufficient

research on incivility and bullying in the academy that warrants such efforts. Leadership

plays an important role in higher education as well; leaders set the tone for an

organization. This is true in corporations, governments, non for profits, and it is true for

higher educational institutions.

The role of leadership

Although perhaps intuitive, the literature in management, organizational studies,

and health and safety has empirically established the link between effective leadership,

workplace civility and respect, and morale (Christensen 2014; Idris, Dollard, & Yulita

2014; Keashly & Neuman 2010; Shanker, Bhanugopan, & Fish 2012; Thornton 2002).

It is important to explicate what this paper is not. It is not a treatise designed to

even remotely suggest that employees surrender their individual agency to resist

oppressive managerial regimes and to unreflectively accept direction. Rather, it is to

suggest, with an explicitly value-laden orientation, that well-being, psychological safety,

collegiality, respect, trust, and human flourishing are unquestionably good things, worthy

of the focused pursuit set forth by this manuscript.

The guidance offered by organizational leadership scholarship, that has proven

that great leaders are those who are kind, respectful, ethical, and thoughtful is entirely

16

appropriate as guidance for higher education administrators. Higher education

administrators should demonstrate great listening skills, great motivational capacity,

charisma, and empathy. Any ferocity, or intensity or tendencies toward confrontation,

that characterizes a leader in higher education, should be channeled into positive pursuits

such as accumulating social capital among those parties who are in the best positions to

collaborate with the institution, and foster relationships that serve the highest good for the

institutional stakeholders.

The role of trust

During times of organizational change, employees must trust their leaders and the

change process that leaders present (Burke 2014). Mayer Davis and Schoorman (1995,

p. 712), define trust as the “willingness of one party to be vulnerable to the actions of

another party.” (Nooteboom 2007) indicates that trust is a behavior as well as a

disposition. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) Different types of change: internally

initiated, externally initiated, responding to scandal (such as ethics scandal), responding

to crises in the external environment. “Trust is based on beliefs about the other party,

which are shaped through information. Consequently, providing information gives an

employee the opportunity to develop trust, and lack of information can reduce trust. Two

particular aspects of information sharing that are often discussed in the literature are

quality of information and quantity of information” (Thomas, Zolin, & Hartman 2009 p.

290).

As organizations change in response to the shifts in student demographics,

funding, stakeholders, and even institutional mission, trust between all parties and in

particular, between senior leadership, faculty and staff, is essential to effective

17

organizational functioning. Therefore, trust is an antecedent of positive organizational

change and it is also a consequence of effective HRD initiatives suggested in Table 1 of

this paper.

Table 1: HRD Interventions to Facilitate Civility, Collegiality, and Respect During

Organizational Change

Characteristic of

Capacity

Type of HRD Initiative Mode of Delivery

Trust is an antecedent of all of these efforts.

Understanding change HRD can play a facilitative role in gathering input from employees and other stakeholders, and help translate the meaning of the feedback.

Conducing information through qualitative means, such as suggestion boxes, interviews, focus groups and then analyzing and using the data to help employees and leaders understand the change.

Creating a positive workplace culture and climate

This includes civility, anti-bullying, and safe space.

Synchronous training programsDevelop a code of conduct, and then provide mechanisms to help reinforce the values and ensuing behaviors that reflect the code. The expectations for positive behavior.

Leadership development Coaching leaders on their leadership style; providing feedback on an iterative basis during the change.

One on one coaching.Leadership training.

Developing and maintaining individual resilience

HRD can provide resources to help individuals cope with the stress of change, and become stronger, more

Synchronous trainings on negotiating workplace stress; conflict resolution; personal resilience.Asynchronous resources,

18

adaptable, and effective. readings, videos and other resources offered through a self-serve portal.

Trust, positive organizational culture and climate, and stronger organizational

effectiveness are consequences of these efforts.

The dimensions of this model could mostly apply to any workplace. However, the point

of this conceptual manuscript is to focus on colleges and universities as workplace,

because there has been little HRD research to date, focused squarely on colleges and

universities. However, given the shifts that are occurring in higher education that have

the potential to impact employees of colleges and universities, there is not a

corresponding exploration of HRD scholarship focused on these issues, relative to the

changes and the need for training and development resources.

Practical Implications

This paper presents several implications for HRD practitioners. One, there is a

dual role that HRD scholars can play in their own organizations. They can provide their

own expertise in matters dealing with change. Two, they can create and implement

trainings and learning opportunities that equip individuals to thrive in the midst of

change. Table 1 presents specific suggestions for these interventions. Three, they can

work with organizations to create cultures of trust that manifest as positive expectations

of each party that they intentions are pure.

The outcomes of studying case examples of organizations who downsize, initiate

new programs, experience different types of accreditation reviews, experience ethical

issues (now enhanced because of the instant media that we have now, that brings ethical

breaches to light with amazing speed and ease), while establishing and maintaining

19

positive employee engagement, are that those who are engaged in work in colleges can

benefit from positive workplaces; students have high quality experiences, because they

are served by staff who are engaged, and taught by faculty who are committed to their

teaching but also to the institution.

To consider the costs of a poorly managed change, it is necessary to consider the

college of university in terms of operating in a marketplace. This represents contested

terrain. We are back to the issue of the extent to which a college produces a product or

service, and we are back to the issue of whether or not an academic job is the same thing

as a job. What role does tenure and other forms of secured employment (which is a

characteristic most highly prevalent in the U.S.) play with respect to organizational

change in a college or university? In a college or university, it is likely that the employees

are committed to their careers, and hopefully, to the organization. What role does

employee engagement play in organizational change in a college or university?

There are parallels between HRD initiatives aimed at increasing LGBT diversity

and inclusion, and HRD initiatives aimed at facilitating positive organizational change

and a positive organizational climate. There has to be a sense of trust, of good and sincere

intentions, and an openness to learn about the “other” or about uncomfortable topics. The

macro-environment of higher education is complex and undergoing transformation and it

is predicted by some, such as (Hopewell 1997) that there might be fallout and bankruptcy

of colleges and universities in the face of these changes. As institutions, therefore,

attempt to address challenges such as changing student demographics, tensions between

applied versus liberal arts curricula, in fact this tension gets at the heart of higher

education – what is its ultimate purpose and to whom is higher education accountable? –

20

and as institutions make structural and budget decisions based upon reduced federal and

state support, there must be a concomitant mindfulness of the internal, or intra-

organizational implications that result from attempts to deal with these challenges. It is

inevitable that organizational life for employees changes, as the organizations change.

Without attention to the quality of work-life, and the climate and culture of the

organizations as they undergo change, our field is ignoring a crucial stakeholder that

could greatly benefit from our expertise, both in research as well as practice. The larger

emphasis of this manuscript is on practice, yet I would be remiss if I did not express my

ideas for research.

Research Implications

This paper implicates several different areas and types of HRD research related to

creative and sustaining a positive culture and climate during organizational changes.

Research using quantitative and qualitative measures would be valuable, particularly as

that research can be disseminated for not just those who are in narrowly defined roles of

HRD, but also, for all who work in higher educational institutions. To be specific,

quantitative research that explores relationships between leadership style, organizational

change effort, and workplace climate could be helpful in leadership development

programs. I imagine this type of research as a survey offered to those who work in higher

education institutions, that asks questions about the leadership styles of leaders in their

organizations, and asks questions about their own sense of safety, empowerment,

hopefulness, and intention to remain with the organization. These metrics could then be

compared with the overall quality of the institution as it undergoes a change effort. Such

metrics could include enrollment numbers, completion rates, and financial health. This is

21

but one example that I offer for the purpose of specifically imaging quantitative research

that informs practice. Qualitative research could include interviews with employees of a

particular institution that asks questions related to their overall assessment of the quality

of their work environment and the extent to which they feel that they work in an

environment that allows them to flourish professionally. Again, this is but one example

for the sake of illustration. Research that take into account the specific context of a

college or university is crucial at this point in time, because of the shifts in the landscape

of higher education that result in organizational changes.

Practical Considerations

One of the most pressing and practical challenges with establishing and maintaining

a positive climate during and after an organizational change, is the question of who

“owns” the HRD effort and responsibility. In other words, whose job is it to identify

organizational climate and culture, and then create interventions that address issues and

that create a positive culture? Does it rise up from within the employee ranks? Is it the

job of Human Resource Management? Is it the responsibility of the senior leadership? If

there are issues of incivility or bullying, where does an employee go for help and

support? These questions present practical considerations for HRD practitioners who are

interested in designing, developing and offering programs intended to decrease

workplace bullying, and increase workplace civility and collegiality.

Burke (2014) soberly notes that the “even in the domain of higher education, which

includes some of the oldest, most traditional types of organizations in the world, the

external environment is changing. Unless colleges and universities adapt, their traditions

22

may not last, at least not for the centuries as they have in the past” (p. 16). This

manuscript has attempted to articulate in some depth, the environmental shifts in higher

education and it has attempted to sound an alarm that HRD practitioners and researchers

have an opportunity to serve our own organizations by bringing our expertise to bear

within them. By designing and offering programs in skill building, leadership training,

communication skills, and education, we have an opportunity to play a role not just for

the sake of assisting our own organizations and professions, but more importantly, to play

a role on the right side of history as the world of higher education transforms before our

eyes. There is the possibility that higher education, as a career, becomes less attractive for

people who are talented, and have high potential and opportunities. (Altbach, 2000) has

made this argument, and has expressed concern that the changing landscape of higher

education which is characterized by increasing emphasis on accountability and evaluation

concurrent with declining salaries and working conditions.

It seems logical that we HRD scholars and practitioners have some “skin in the

game” to ensure the appeal of a career in higher education – whether it be as faculty, staff

or administration – so that the best and brightest are drawn to it. Therefore, this paper has

offered suggestions for our positive contributions.

23

References

Altbach, P. (2000). The Changing Academic Workplace: Comparative Perspectives, (September), 1–363. http://doi.org/10.1177/019263659608058202

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change? Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on Relevant Attitudes and Behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48–70. http://doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470

Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace Bullying: An Integrative Literature Review. Advances in Developing Human Resources. http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311410651

Bell, B. S., Lee, S., & Yeung, S. K. (2006). Hrm : Implications for the Professionals. Human Resource Management, 45(4), 295–308. http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm

Biswas S and Varma A (2007), “Psychological Climate and Individual Performance in India: Test of a Mediated Model”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 664-676.

Burke, W. (2014). Organization Change (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.

24

Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a Manuscript: Distinguishing Integrative Literature Reviews and Conceptual and Theory Articles. Human Resource Development Review. http://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310371492

Callahan, J. L. (2011). Incivility as an Instrument of Oppression: Exploring the Role of Power in Constructions of Civility. Advances in Developing Human Resources. http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311410644

Christensen, M. (2014). Communication as a Strategic Tool in Change Processes. http://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525442

Denison, D. R. (2014). What is the Difference between Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate ? A Native ’ s Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619–654.

Garner B R and Hunter B D (2012), “Examining the Temporal Relationship Between Psychological Climate, Work Attitude, and Staff Turnover”, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Vol. 44, pp. 193-200

Ghosh, R., Dierkes, S., & Falletta, S. (2011). Incivility Spiral in Mentoring Relationships: Reconceptualizing Negative Mentoring as Deviant Workplace Behavior. Advances in Developing Human Resources. http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311410639

Ghosh, R., Jacobs, J. L., & Reio, T. G. (2011). The Toxic Continuum From Incivility to Violence: What Can HRD Do? Advances in Developing Human Resources. http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311410641

Ghosh, R., Reio, T. G., & Bang, H. (2013). Reducing turnover intent: supervisor and co-worker incivility and socialization-related learning. Human Resource Development International, 16(2), 169–185. http://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.756199

Githens, R. P. (2011). Diversity and Incivility: Toward an Action-Oriented Approach. Advances in Developing Human Resources. http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311410646

Hopewell, B. (1997). Creative destruction. Long Range Planning, 30, 136–137. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(97)86590-9

Idris, M. A., Dollard, M. F., & Yulita. (2014). Psychosocial safety climate, emotional demands, burnout, and depression: a longitudinal multilevel study in the Malaysian private sector. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 291–302. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0036599

Jacobs, J. L., & Scott, C. L. (2011). Hate Crimes as One Aspect of Workplace Violence: Recommendations for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources. http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311410653

25

Kataria, A., Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2013). Psychological Climate and Organizational Effectiveness : Role of Work Engagement.

Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 48–70. http://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806320103

Kormanik, M. B. (2011). Workplace Violence: Assessing Organizational Awareness and Planning Interventions. Advances in Developing Human Resources. http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311410658

Litwin, G., & Stringer, 1968. Motivation and organizational climate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: the impact of shame among university and college

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organiza- tional trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734

McKenna, L. (2015, Mar 10). The unfortunate fate of Sweet Briar’s professors. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/the-unfortunate-fate-of-sweet-briars-professors/387376

Mishra, K. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1998). Preserving employee morale during downsizing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 83-95

Nooteboom, B. (2007). Social capital, institutions and trust. Review of Social Economy, 65(1), 29–53. http://doi.org/10.1080/00346760601132154

Reio, T. G. (2011). Supervisor and Coworker Incivility: Testing the Work Frustration-Aggression Model. Advances in Developing Human Resources. http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311410648

Schein, Edgar H.. Jossey-Bass Business and Management : Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th Edition). Hoboken, NJ, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2010. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 4 April 2015.

Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., & Fish, A. (2012). Changing organizational climate for innovation through leadership: an exploratory review and research agenda, 5(14), 105–118.

Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G. & Rocco, T. (2011). The Employee Engagement Landscape and HRD: How Do We Link Theory and Scholarship to Current Practice? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 419–428. http://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311431153

26

Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 86-92.

Staley, B. D. J., & Trinkle, D. A. (2011). Landscape of Higher Education.

Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The Central Role of Communication in Developing Trust and Its Effect On Employee Involvement. Journal of Business Communication, 46(3), 287–310. http://doi.org/10.1177/0021943609333522

Thornton, M. (2002). Corrosive Leadership ( Or Bullying by Another Name ): A Corollary of the Corporatised Academy ?, 161–184.

Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and Higher Education Organizational Change: A Framework for Analysis Globalization and higher education organizational change : A framework for analysis * 1 . Introduction : The problem of higher education organizational in change a globaliz. Higher Education, 48(2000), 483–510.

Wilson, R. (2010, July 4). Tenure, RIP: What the vanishing status means for the future of education. Chronicle of Higher Education.

Twale, D. J., & De Luca, B. M. (2008). Faculty incivility. The rise of the academic bully culture and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. A Wiley Imprint.

.

27