Peter D. Eckel

The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education: Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts?

This study examines the impact of institutional culture on the change process in colleges and universities. Using an ethnographic approach and two-tiered cultural framework, it investigates comprehensive change at six institutions. Results suggest that campuses should conduct audits of their institutional culture before engaging in the change process.

EXAMINING THE INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION PROCESS: The Importance of Sensemaking, Interrelated Strategies, and Balance

This study develops elements of a transformational change framework that is theoretically and empirically grounded and is context based through case studies of 6 institutions over a 4-year period. The 3 key findings include: (a) 5 core strategies for transformational change; (b) the characteristic that makes them the essential, sensemaking; and (c) the interrelationship among core and secondary strategies, the nonlinear process of change, and the need for balance among strategies. Two major conclusions are developed from the study findings: (a) the efficacy for researchers of combining multiple conceptual models for understanding change processes; and (b) the importance of social cognition models for future studies of transformational change based on the significance of sensemaking.

Meeting Today's Governance Challenges: A Synthesis of the Literature and Examination of a Future Agenda for Scholarship

Previous governance scholarship focused almost exclusively on structural and political theories and provided limited explanation of improving governance. This article reviews theoretical perspectives that have been applied to the study of governance to identify conceptual gaps, synthesizes what we know about governance from existing scholarship to understand new directions, and identifies new questions for study, encouraging a broad-based agenda of scholarship on governance.

The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education

The array of challenges that higher education faces today is virtually unparalleled when compared to any other point in U.S. history. The litany of changes is familiar to those in the field of higher education: financial pressure, growth in technology, changing faculty roles, public scrutiny, changing demographics, competing values, and the rapid rate of change in the world both within and beyond our national boarders. The changes many institutions face have accelerated beyond tinkering; more campuses each year attempt to create comprehensive (or transformational) change. Yet, change strategies have not been exceedingly helpful in their capacity to guide institutions, and we know even less about how to facilitate major, institutionwide change. The current change literature in higher education provides mostly generalized strategies about what is effective: a willing president or strong leadership, a collaborative process, or providing rewards (Roberts, Wren, & Adam, 1993; Taylor & Koch, 1996). This broad writing may mask information helpful to advance institutional change on a specific campus. “Achieving buy-in” or “communicating effectively” can seem very empty to institutional leaders and higher education scholars. Can this strategy be used at every institution and in the same way? The assumptions behind this approach are that each strategy is enacted similarly on each campus and that nuance and context do not much matter. Broad change strategies are presented as uniform, universal, and applicable.

The Role of Shared Governance in Institutional Hard Decisions: Enabler or Antagonist?

The discussion on institutional governance and change is muddled by those interested in carving out a strong role for faculty (AAUP) or for administrators and trustees (AGB). This study explores empirically the ability of shared governance systems to make institutional hard decisions--in this instance, to discontinue academic programs. The four cases suggest that shared governance can be productive in making difficult decisions. The paper also offers suggestions for effective campus governance.

Advancing diversity agendas on campus: examining transactional and transformational presidential leadership styles

This study draws on the experiences and insights of current college and university presidents to understand whether transactional, transformational or a combination of these leadership strategies advances an institution‐wide diversity agenda. The qualitative elite interview study demonstrates that both styles of leadership appear important and that most presidents used both approaches to reach different audiences and with different effects, but both are necessary. Certain presidents may be more successful using transactional leadership, based on their race, while other presidents may have a personal preference for transactional or transformational leadership or be in a culture that suggests one over the other at a particular point in time.

Decision Rules Used in Academic Program Closure: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

By what criteria do institutions decide which academic programs to terminate? This study adopts a decision/action rationality framework to explore the criteria used to close programs at four universities. Findings suggest that decisions are based upon criteria other than cost, quality, and centrality and that process leads to criteria generation.

Developing Academic Strategic Alliances: Reconciling Multiple Institutional Cultures, Policies, and Practices

The resource-constrained environment is leading colleges and universities to forge academic strategic alliances. The primary challenge of these partnerships is reconciling disparate organizational cultures. This research examines how institutions resolve such differences. Developing a shared alliance identity is a critical marker of cultural reconciliation.

Capitalizing on the Curriculum: The Challenges of Curricular Joint Ventures

For many institutions, finding new resources and positioning themselves well in the technology-rich, competitive environment has become a high priority. Universities have long capitalized on their research to both maximize prestige and generate revenue. Many institutions now view their curriculum and courses as capital. Some engage in for-profit curriculum-based ventures and others enter into strategic alliances. These activities raise questions for shared governance in initiating and operating activities intended to capitalize on the curriculum. This article explores how these new activities and traditions of shared governance and institutional autonomy intersect, identifying potential conflicts and raising questions for campus leaders.

A world apart? Higher education transformation in the US and South Africa

Higher education transformation is context dependent. However, through a comparison of transformation in South Africa and the United States, this paper highlights challenges and issues confronting higher education leaders and policy makers. Contrasting the experiences and issues of transformation in a long-standing democracy and in a newly emerging one surface key elements such as the structures of national mandates, challenges of urgency and abundance, the importance of a language of “transformation”, and issues of legitimate and tested decision making processes. This paper raises some of the implications for effecting change based upon this trans-national comparison, and concludes with implications for leaders interested in affecting transformation.