University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

MANAGING SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE FOR FACULTY IN
HIGHER EDUCATION: AN INNOVATION STUDY

By

Tory Cox

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Tory Cox
2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Anthony Bernard Maddox, for inspiring me to
think innovatively, for guiding me on this politically uncertain journey, and for believing that I
was onto something. It is this belief and your receptivity to my process that spurred me on when
I thought I had lost my direction. Your confidence inspired me. Thank you!
To my dissertation committee members, Dr. Michelle Alvarez and Dr. Nadia Islam, for
giving these ideas validation outside of the Rossier School of Education Organizational Change
and Leadership program. Your insights into the generalizability of this topic of constant change
environments in higher education gave me the belief that from California to New Hampshire,
these ideas resonate. Thank you both also for your impact on my development as a professional
connected to and outside of this particular project. Thank you!
The process of finishing this dissertation has required the support of my family,
especially my wife, DeeDee, and my children, Alexandria and Hunter. Without their support,
this manuscript would have not been possible. I dedicate this dissertation to DeeDee – 25 years
in and she can finally say she married a doctor! She managed our household, our finances, and
our social calendar while giving constant support these last three years. Thank you love!
To my mother, Linda Cox, for excitedly dialoguing with me on a regular basis about the
impact of change, whether it be in higher education or in local churches. Those discussions
generated enthusiasm and led to ideas that made it into this document. Thank you mom!
To my work family for encouraging me to keep going, prematurely calling me “doctor”
with a smile and a head nod of confidence, and setting markers of excellence by showing me the
way to doctoral completion. Thank you!
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2

Table of Contents 3

List of Tables 5

List of Figures 7

Abstract 8

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Introduction of the Problem 9
Related Literature 10
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Statement of Significance 13
Organizational Goal 17
Description of Stakeholder Groups 18
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 20
Stakeholder Group for the Study 21
Purpose of the Project 22
Project Questions 23
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 23
Organization of the Project 24

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 25
Rapid Rate of Change Increasing in Higher Education 25
Change Overload 27
Work Relationships and Morale Low 29
Increased Stress and Decreased Productivity 30
Resistance to Change 31
Importance of the Problem 33
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 35
Learning and Motivation Theory 35
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 36
Knowledge and Skills 36
Motivation Influences 43
Organizational Influences 49
Conclusion 59

Chapter Three: Methodology 63
Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Context 63
Participating Stakeholders 67
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale 68
4

Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 69
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale 69
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 71
Observation Sampling Criterion and Rationale 71
Observation Sampling (Access) Criterion and Rationale 72
Data Analysis 73
Credibility and Trustworthiness 74
Validity and Reliability 76
Ethics 79
Limitations and Delimitations 82

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 85
Purpose of the Project 85
Knowledge Results 91
Knowledge Findings 100
Motivation Results 103
Motivation Findings 108
Organization Results 111
Organization Findings 133
Synthesis 137

Chapter Five: Recommendations 139
Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 139
Motivation Influences and Recommendations 146
Organizational Influences and Recommendations 154
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 166
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 167
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 168
Level 3: Behavior 169
Level 2: Learning 172
Level 1: Reaction 175
Evaluation Tools 176
Data Analysis and Reporting 178
Summary 180

References 183

Appendices 193
Appendix A: Organizational Change Readiness Survey 194
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 205
Appendix C: Observation Protocol 210
Appendix D: Evaluation Instrument: Level 1 and Level 2 213
Appendix E: Evaluation Instrument: Levels 1, 2, 3, & 4 215

5

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 20
TABLE 2.1: Summary of Assumed Influences on Faculty Experiencing Overlapping 33
Change Initiatives
TABLE 3.1: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization (KMO) Worksheet: Knowledge 42
TABLE 3.2: KMO Worksheet: Motivation 48
TABLE 3.3: KMO Worksheet : Organization 58
TABLE 3.4: Summary of Sources about Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, 60
and Organizational Issues
TABLE 4.1: Full-time Faculty Line 87
TABLE 4.2: Primary Role and Responsibility 87
TABLE 4.3: Primary Program Affiliation 88
TABLE 4.4: Gender 88
TABLE 4.5: Age 88
TABLE 4.6: Ethnicity 89
TABLE 4.7: Years of Service 89
TABLE 4.8: Department 89
TABLE 4.9: Interview Demographics 90
TABLE 4.10: Knowledge Influences, Survey Results 92
TABLE 4.11: Knowledge Influences, Interview Results 93
TABLE 4.12: Motivation Influences, Survey Results 103
TABLE 4.13: Motivation Influences, Interview Results 105
TABLE 4.14: Organization Influences, Survey Results: Change Readiness 112
6

TABLE 4.15: Organization Influences, Survey Results: Faculty Support 116
TABLE 4.16: Organization Influences, Survey Results: Faculty Engagement 117
TABLE 4.17: Rank Order of Leadership Efforts, Survey Results 121
TABLE 4.18: Rank Order of Organizational Efforts, Survey Results 122
TABLE 4.19: Organization Influences, Survey Results: Change Readiness 123
TABLE 4.20: Open-ended Questions, Survey Results 125
TABLE 4.21: Organization Influences, Interview Results 127
TABLE 4.22: Organization Influences, Observation Results 131
TABLE 5.1: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 140
TABLE 5.2: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 147
TABLE 5.3: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 154
TABLE 5.4: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 169
TABLE 5.5: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers 170
TABLE 5.6: Required Drivers to Support Full-Time Faculty Adaptation to Constant 171
Change
TABLE 5.7: Components of Learning for the Program 175
TABLE 5.8: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 176

7

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3.1: Conceptual Framework: Managing Successful Organizational Change 65
FIGURE 4.1: Fall, 2015 Cohort Evaluations of New Courses, 2015-17 96
FIGURE 4.2: Fall, 2015 Cohort Evaluations of Faculty, 2015-17 96
FIGURE 4.3: Student Evaluations, Courses: Old vs. New Curriculum, 2015-17 98
FIGURE 4.4: Student Evaluations, Faculty: Old vs. New Curriculum, 2015-17 98
FIGURE 4.5: Student Evaluations, Courses: Old vs. New Core Curriculum, 2015-17 98
FIGURE 4.6: Student Evaluations, Faculty: Old vs. New Core Curriculum, 2015-17 99
FIGURE 5.1: Level 4 Training Report 178
FIGURE 5.2: Trainees Implementing Work Improvement Plans: 1-Mth and 6-Mth 178
FIGURE 5.3: Post-Training Percentage of Level 2 Criteria Attainment at 0-Mth 179
FIGURE 5.4: Post-Training Percentage of Level 2 Criteria Attainment at 6-Mth 180
FIGURE 5.5: Overall Level 1 Training Satisfaction and Perceived Relevance 180

8

ABSTRACT
This mixed methods study examined the pace of change at the Prism School of Social
Science to help future leaders create successful change environments for faculty that value
innovation and seek to establish healthy workplace environments. The research questions for
this study explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influenced the
success of Prism organizational change efforts. The research methods included a 50-question
survey for all full-time faculty members, 12 interviews with volunteer faculty from a variety of
roles, a document review, and an observation. This researcher gained approval through school
leadership, the school’s research council, and the university’s Institutional Review Board,.
The data analysis produced 10 themes: three addressing knowledge gaps, two addressing
motivation gaps, and five addressing organizational gaps. The themes were: 1) training faculty
on change; 2) implementing new curriculum with realistic deadlines; 3) understanding the
duality of faculty existence as both embracing and worn out by change; 4) improving workplace
environments; 5) overcoming organizational distrust; 6) changing how change happens; 7)
leading the field; 8) needing resources and support to lead change; 9) engaging faculty in
creating change; and 10) translating individual readiness for change to organizational readiness.
Recommendations included aligning administrative resources to support change; valuing
faculty members’ health and psychological well-being as they execute the organizational
changes; examining failure as a means to improve future change efforts; setting realistic
deadlines for course preparation; and training faculty in change adaptation. In addition, leaders
should harness faculty members’ inherent drive for innovation while acknowledging them; form
a change management team with a communications officer; hold regular change conversations;
and engage faculty continuously in change planning, implementation, and evaluation.
9

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Change is inevitable in all aspects of human existence. Whether it is the natural
progression of aging or the ebbs and flows of relationships beginning and ending, change is
always present. However, when changes are imposed by others, people often respond with
resistance, questioning why they have to adjust to a new reality. In workplace settings, where
about one-third of waking hours is spent and success (both personal and financial) is built on
knowledge, skills, and abilities for a particular job, change can induce feelings of anger and
struggles with identity ambiguity, both individually and organizationally (Abrahamson, 2000;
Corley & Gioia, 2004). One might wonder why change is even necessary if it evokes such
emotional responses and creates resistance from the very people whose work helps the
organization meet its performance goals (Abrahamson, 2004). Research suggests, however, that
organizations that do not change may fall behind technologically, fail to attract top job
candidates, lose critical market share, and ultimately atrophy because they have not adapted to
changing environments and contexts (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). In other words, organizations
that do not change often remain stagnant and fail; thus, change is necessary in order for
organizations to thrive.
Change is also necessary in institutions of higher learning. Although the ivy-covered
walls and tweed jackets that often symbolize university settings seem to connote stability,
student demographics change, tuition and overhead costs increase, alternative pathways to career
success are introduced, and new revenue streams develop. In addition, faculty roles and
responsibilities shift, public scrutiny around tuition costs intensify, onsite and online
programming evolves, and other technological transformations lead to constant change efforts in
10

post-secondary school educational settings (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). These efforts, however, may
not have led to actual transformation in higher education settings because of resistance to change
stemming from an institutional mentality, long-standing traditions of methodical debate and
contemplation, and decision-making processes that are difficult to understand (Bercovitz &
Feldman, 2008; Kezar, 2014). Faculty, especially senior male professors who statistically resist
change at a greater rate than other faculty, may be more prone to workplace disengagement when
multiple changes occur (Corley & Gioia, 2004). Change overload, or the implementation of too
many concurrent changes by an administration, is a precipitating factor to why faculty resist
change (Abrahamson, 2004; Corley & Gioia, 2004). According to research, change overload
lowers the morale of the workplace, leads to elevated stress and decreased work productivity,
and increases faculty resistance to change (Abrahamson, 2004; Brownell & Tanner, 2012;
Bunton, et al., 2012; Corley & Gioia, 2004; Tagg, 2012).
The problem of practice presented in this study is the reduction in overall work quality by
higher education faculty members when administration introduces a large number of changes at
once. This study, then, hypothesizes that successful leaders in higher education settings need to
balance the implementation of new initiatives with faculty capacity for change in order to
increase faculty productivity and student outcomes (Sastry, 1997).
Related Literature
Change overload occurs when employees are no longer able to manage new initiatives
without experiencing resentment and resistance (Abrahamson, 2000 & 2004; Abrahamson &
Team, 2013; Cohen, Glavin, Moore, Allen & Zolner, 2003; Corley & Gioia, 2004). According
to Abrahamson and Team’s (2013) repetitive change syndrome, faculty may experience
“initiative overload, change-related chaos, (and)…cynicism and burnout” (p. 93) as they
11

experience excessive changes. Rapid change efforts often lead to turbulence (Cameron, et al.,
1987), which affects faculty members in a variety of negative ways tied to workplace culture.
According to their study of more than 3,400 faculty members, administrators, trustees, and staff
at 334 higher education environments, the existence of turbulence led to a decrease in numerous
positive workplace attributes, including innovation, morale, participatory behavior, and leader
credibility (Cameron, et al., 1987). Other researchers found that change overload negatively
impacted employee work productivity (Abrahamson, 2004; Hargreaves, 2004; Vakola &
Nikoloau, 2005). Faculty who experienced change in the workplace and had concurrent stress
were less likely to embrace change and more likely to lose motivation to complete work
responsibilities (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002).
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization being studied for this dissertation is the Prism School of Social Science
(PS). The PS teaches and trains masters of social science (MSS) students to become social
scientists in communities of need throughout the world. The mission of the PS is to:
…Promote social justice and well-being at every social level through advanced
education, community engagement, interdisciplinary scientific activity, advocacy, and
professional leadership (Prism School, 2018).
The Dean of the PS supports faculty in creating non-traditional social science
opportunities that focus on the skills being developed instead of the jobs being performed to
change society’s perception of social scientists and the social science profession. The school’s
“why” is to change the world from one rooted in violence, bigotry, and hatred into one where all
persons are valued for their inherent worth. The PS is working to create social scientists who can
help others access the resources they need to thrive in life, have social support systems in which
12

they are loved and nurtured, and have the ability and means to provide for their families so that
all members are physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially healthy.
The PS is primarily located on the grounds of a Research 1 (R1) university in the western
half of the United States. The Carnegie Classification of Higher Education Institutions (CCHEI)
is a nationally recognized system that identifies colleges and universities by a variety of
indicators, including its prominence in research (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary
Research, 2016). The “R1: Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity” designation
represents its highest classification (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research,
2016). The school also has another campus located in a neighboring county as well as its online
Prism Online Program. The PS is comprised of a large number of staff and faculty members
(Prism School, 2017) from tenure line, clinical teaching, clinical field, research, senior lecturer,
practice, and adjunct lecturer lines (Prism School, 2017). The school’s faculty is 76% female
and 24% male, and is 64% White, 15% African-American, 15% Latino, and 6.5% Asian-
American (Prism School, 2017). The PS Leadership Team consists of a female Dean and a male
Executive Vice Dean, both of whom are White. At the Senior Vice Dean level, there are three
female administrators from different ethnic backgrounds: one is African-American, one is Asian-
American, and one is White. There are two female campus leaders for the off-site academic
centers: one is African-American, and one identifies as Latina.
The average age of students enrolled in the MSS program at the PS is 30. Their gender
and ethnic breakdown at the time this information was gathered was 83% female to 17% male
with 30% Latino, 29.8% White, 16.5% Asian-American, 11.5% African-American, 9.5% multi-
ethnic, 0.8% Arab/Middle Eastern, and 0.1% Native American (Prism School, 2016). The
school has experienced rapid growth since its MSS went online, which is when the school’s
13

budget increased by 500% million (Prism School, 2016). A 200% increase in enrollment due to
the launch of the online program, reduction in per-student overhead costs, and increases in
research funding led to this significant increase in the budget. The school has become
increasingly financially viable, which led to the school accepting the Provost’s request to host a
department of medicine.
Statement of Significance
The problem of managing change implementation at the PS is important to solve for a
variety of reasons. First, studies show that organizations need to re-invent themselves constantly
in order to survive (Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Beer & Nohria, 2000). Those that cannot and do
not innovate may not endure. The market could pass them by, leaving them holding on to the
vestiges of past successes (Kotter, 2007). PS is faced with challenges of innovation similar to
other higher education colleges, schools, and departments (Kezar, 2014). Those challenges
include rising tuition costs, more technologically aware students, increases in competitive
programs, and new pathways to advanced learning through online and open classroom
technology.
In the documentary Ivory Tower (Rossi, 2014), several organizations actively discourage
degree attainment while promoting skill-based education through group engagement, collective
creation of start-ups, and fellowships designed to place individuals as workplace-ready without
expensive, four-year degrees. Uncollege, the Thiel Fellowship, and hacker houses that have
sprung up in Silicon Valley all the way to Gainesville, FL, are creating alternative pathways for
entrepreneurs, engineers, and tech start-up innovators looking for fast-track entrances to the
workplace without sacrificing four years of college with little guarantee that they will develop
the skills needed by today’s economy (Rossi, 2014). These types of organizations are putting
14

pressure on higher education entities to progress in new and creative ways; otherwise, those
higher education work units may be in danger of losing enrollment, viability, and being either
subsumed by other programs or eliminated altogether (Gumport, 2000).
Second, higher education faculty have traditionally been resistant to changes that impact
their pedagogical approaches, preferring to teach the practice techniques and research processes
that have worked for them (Tagg, 2012). Faculty at similar institutions to PS have been willing
to engage in change efforts when participatory design occurs, i.e., they are included in the
design, find a connection to their research or area of expertise, or follow a trusted colleague who
has embraced the change (Clark, Ellet, Bateman, & Rugutt, 1996; Hargreaves, 2004). Leaders
who are initiating change efforts and innovative practices need to know how to manage faculty
through this change process and into innovation implementation so that the work unit is stronger
after the change has occurred.
Studies have generally focused more on whether innovative practices work instead of
how to manage the impact of innovation on work groups. Once innovators successfully lead
work groups through creative interactions and techniques, they often leave and the entity returns
to its former ways after a brief engagement. At the PS, innovators-in-residence who have
consulted with the school since 2015 will continue their work, infusing their ideas around
innovation into the new doctorate in social science (DSS) program while remaining a presence in
overall administrative decision-making. The concept of innovators-in-residence derives from the
widespread use of accelerators and incubators, two terms that describe either rapid or slow
processes to develop ideas from inception to implementation. Innovators-in-residence were
brought to the PS to help mature existing ideas and introduce new ones to push the school into
innovative places that faculty had been unable to penetrate. Their tenure at the school is unclear,
15

but the question remains: after they leave, will faculty be able to continue applying their
approach to innovation? A skillful leader will understand that faculty will need continual
guidance to consistently venture out into unknown areas.
Managing change implementation is important because introducing change has direct
consequences for the workforce. Innovation is the latest catchword that is capturing the
imagination of employers across the nation and the world. As leaders search for ways to infuse
excitement and transformation in their organizations, they often turn to consultants with
promises of new practices that will transform the institution. Introducing too much change,
however, can lead to disengagement from work, deterioration of relationships, and increased
stress (Abrahamson & Team, 2013). These factors may lead to a lower quality work product and
interactions with students. In other words, the core output of higher education units – teaching
quality – is threatened by too much change (Kezar, 2009). On the other hand, too little change
leads to reduced motivation and creativity.
Studies have shown that creating an environment of moderate displeasure with the status
quo helps energize faculty to become involved in change efforts (Cohen, et al., 2003). Leaders
create this environment by messaging to key stakeholders that continued organizational success
is in jeopardy due to current challenges and future threats (Pascale, Millemann, & Gioja, 2000).
To counter those threats, leadership at the PS is driving significant change efforts as more than
12 new initiatives have been rolled out within the two-year period that started in January 2015.
The 12 new initiatives, which is not an exhaustive list, consist of:
 Launching a doctorate in social science (DSS) program
 Starting a Medicine master’s program online;
 Starting a military veterans and family mental health clinic;
16

 Collaborating with the school’s President’s Office to focus research and practice on
the issue of homelessness;
 Leaving the state’s child welfare education program that trains future public child
welfare workers to run a similar multi-million dollar initiative at the school;
 Building a collaborative partnership with the county’s probation department;
 Crafting a school-wide diversity and inclusion plan in response to an overall
university initiative;
 Creating, reviewing, revising, and introducing a new curriculum in both the on-
ground and the online learning environments;
 Implementing a new organizational departmental structure to replace the foundation-
concentration model that had lasted for decades;
 Offering ten options for specialized studies to replace the previous five sub-
concentrations;
 Incorporating new social science competencies throughout the curriculum as
determined by social science schools’ governing entity; and
 Scaling up online field education student evaluations to include all on-ground and
online students.
These new initiatives may be indicative of more change to come as plans for new
certificate and master’s programs are being discussed at the time of this writing. Researching
and understanding the appropriate balance of initiative implementation and organizational
stability will be essential to the continued success of the PS (Sastry, 1997).

17

Organizational Goal
One of the PS’s goals was to become an industry leader amongst schools of social
science in the United States as measured by a top ten ranking from U.S. News and World Report.
U.S. News and World Report bases its rankings solely on “peer assessment surveys” completed
by deans, administrators, and/or faculty from other accredited schools of social science (U.S.
News and World Report, 2017, p 1). This method of ranking leaves programs open to rises and
falls directly related to public perception of the school.
Eight years ago, the Prism School launched the first online MSS program from an R1
institution, and the response from peer institutions reflected a negative perception of the school.
The fall from a top ten ranking (2010) to a double-digit one in 2011 since the inception of the
online program was an example of how a school’s rankings can be a subjective result. The
school had been in existence since 1920 and had seen dramatic growth in its student population,
budget and online presence in the last eight years since the online program began. The Dean of
the PS continued to implement innovative programming and drive organizational change efforts
that some viewed as a way to improve the school’s ranking to its previous top ten ranking.
Its primary method for achieving this goal was the introduction of new initiatives that
brand the school as innovative, forward thinking, and worthy of a higher ranking. Faculty were
challenged to implement these new initiatives, and these additional responsibilities have led, in
some instances, to symptoms of burnout and fatigue. The Dean of the PS may have operated
with the goal of improving the school’s ranking even though the outdated mission statement at
that time did not include this element and was in need of renewal (Our mission, 2015). The
school also did not have a strategic plan or a vision, although it was working on these elements
as of this study.
18

Although many social science schools are now pursuing online programming, when the
PS launched the Prism Online Program, some influential social science schools and their deans
and directors came out publicly against the move with the argument that social science cannot be
conducted in an online environment. The following year (2011), the school dropped in annual
rankings and has fallen nine spots since 2010. This drop appeared to have spurred the school’s
leadership team to continue expanding programming options as referenced earlier. As a revenue-
producing school, Prism’s budget increased 500% since 2007 primarily due to the rapid scaling
up of the online program that tripled the size of the school (Prism School, 2016). The school
also grew in size as the number of faculty rose significantly from its 2010 level of approximately
120 full and part-time faculty members (Prism School, 2017).
Based on the continued push for new, innovative programming and the fast pace of
change, it appeared that one of the school’s short-term goals was to return to its previous top ten
status. With new curricula, programs, and departmental organization structure, the pace of
change at the school led some faculty and students to question whether it was too much change.
Faculty have been key components of the drive to innovate and improve the quality of the MSS
program. They have taken on overloads and dedicated long work hours to new initiatives;
however, in this drive for success, these investments of time and energy may have led faculty to
be less willing to embrace the next change initiative.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The PS had many stakeholders, but the ones most affected by or able to influence
organizational culture were the students, staff, faculty, and administration at the school. Students
were impacted by the constant changes as their programs of study altered. They were in classes
where faculty have had to learn the courses while they are delivering the material, leading to
19

complaints by some students about a reduction in the quality of the andragogy. Furthermore,
they have seen the opportunities for specialized studies change, their affiliated concentration
names change, the number of electives negatively impacted (part-time students primarily), and
the overall competence of all members of the institution reduced as everyone seeks to understand
and implement the wholesale changes.
There were more than 100 staff members at the PS, ranging from those with front desk
administrative roles to those in Assistant Dean positions. The staff were responsible for much of
the operations necessary to successfully deliver the diverse programming options within the
school, many of them envisioned by leadership and developed by faculty. For example, the new
curriculum required students to register for an increasing number of classes based on their
specialized area of interest; thus, staff in the Registrar’s office created new registration protocols
to ensure students registered only for their eligible courses. Staff members led not only
registration, but also admissions, marketing, information technology, management information
services, student advising, grants management, and global immersion activities, among other
areas. In the online program, staff shared these duties with employees from the school’s for-
profit partner, which required another level of oversight by university-employed staff members.
Another group impacted by the changes in the school were the faculty members. Faculty
governed the school through the new department structure and existing mechanisms of review
and oversight, such as Faculty Council, Curriculum Council, and Research Council. However,
the Dean had strong influence in developing the school’s strategic plans and initiating the
thought and work around new initiatives. For example, more than 65% of the full-time faculty at
the school contributed to the development of the new curriculum. All other new programs also
had strong faculty representation in their development, even though the Dean presented the
20

majority of the initial reasons to change or to develop new programs. Based on informal
feedback from faculty members, despite their participation in curricular developments, there was
growing dissension about the level of work expected and the rapid change undermining their
own internal sense of progress. They were the primary group responsible for implementing the
new programs and curriculum, which required the majority of them to learn a new course,
prepare accordingly, engage with new partners, or help create a new program infrastructure. An
estimated 87% of PS faculty taught new courses in academic years 2015-2017, placing the
burden of curricular fidelity squarely on faculty.
Administrators at the school were another stakeholder group impacted by the changes.
Administrators carried the responsibility of orchestrating curricular changes and continuing to
push for additional programs to add relevance and revenue to the school. This set of individuals
was more focused on the bigger picture instead of the specifics affecting smaller numbers of staff
or faculty; therefore, they were not the primary stakeholders for this study. In many ways, the
PS administrators’ reputations were at stake as they were the ones leading the creative process of
initiating change efforts. Faculty and staff both respected and questioned their willingness to
disrupt the status quo. Faculty welcomed the benefits that usually come with successful
innovations, but the struggle to implement and react to overlapping change efforts has negatively
impacted staff and faculty motivation.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
TABLE 1.1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Prism School of Social Science is to improve the well-being of vulnerable
individuals and communities, advance social and economic justice, and eradicate pressing
societal problems in complex and culturally diverse urban environments throughout Southern
California, the nation and the world. Our mission is achieved through value-driven, scholarly
and creative social science education, research, and professional leadership.
21

Organizational Global Goal
By 2018, the Prism School will be ranked in the top ten of all United States schools of social
science as measured by U.S. News and World Report rankings.
Stakeholder 1
School administration
Stakeholder 2
Faculty
Stakeholder 3
Staff
Stakeholder 1
Proficiencies/Competencies
Administrator proficiencies
include developing policies,
setting expectations, leading
change efforts, making the
final decision on student
dismissals, hiring and firing
staff and faculty, and serving
as the central figures in
promoting and accepting the
praise/blame for program
errors.

Stakeholder 2
Proficiencies/Competencies
Faculty proficiencies include
quality teaching,
transformative research,
challenging practicum
experiences, knowledge of
social science, engaging
interactive style, grant
funding at the R1 level, and
partnerships with community
agencies.
Stakeholder 3
Proficiencies/Competencies
Staff proficiencies include
knowledge of curriculum
sequencing, ability to get
appropriate university office
approvals, advising students,
registering students, assigning
faculty, securing space for
classes, analyzing data,
preparing reports that drive
decisions, handling
technology, marketing, and
Web pages to promote the
school.
Stakeholder 1
(Intermediate) Goal
By May 2018, the PS’s
administrative leadership
team will successfully
manage the implementation
of a new curriculum and new
programs with no (zero)
voluntary faculty departures
and no (zero) formal
grievances to the university
on workload issues related to
teaching the new curriculum
or implementing new
programs.
Stakeholder 2
(Intermediate) Goal
By May 2018, the faculty at
the PS will successfully
implement new programs and
the school’s new curriculum
as evidenced by keeping the
average course evaluation
rating by students at a 4.2 or
higher (out of five) and
maintaining student ratings of
instructor quality at 4.5 or
higher, on average.
Stakeholder 3
(Intermediate) Goal
By May 2018, Prism staff
will ensure that budget goals
are met by bringing in the
same or greater number of
students over last year (550),
providing scholarship support
for at a higher percentage
(63%) of incoming students,
and improving revenues for
the school by five percent ($8
million), year over year,
through the management of
the new programs and
curriculum implementation.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Because of their importance in developing and implementing the new curriculum;
enhancing the profile of the school through their research, scholarship, and leadership; and
managing the new program implementations, the full-time faculty at the school were the focus of
this study. The intermediate stakeholder goal was that by May 2018, the PS faculty would
22

successfully implement new programs and the school’s new curriculum as evidenced by keeping
the average course evaluation rating by students at a 4.2 or higher (out of five) and maintaining
student ratings of instructor quality at 4.5 or higher, on average. An inability to achieve
successful implementation of this goal would undermine the experiences of the students,
potentially leading to withdrawals and damaging statements by students in social media. Faculty
could have taken the opportunity to look elsewhere to find more familiar curricula to teach.
Potential students, having read about the dissatisfying experience, could have also chosen to go
elsewhere for their MSS degree. These outcome measures, if not achieved, would prevent the
school from moving up in rankings of schools of social science.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project is to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources for faculty to successfully implement the new initiatives
perceived as necessary to reach the PS’s organizational performance goal of becoming an
industry leader amongst schools of social science in the United States. Evidence of this goal will
be a return to a top 10 ranking by 2018 as determined by U.S. News and World Report’s annual
rankings. The analysis generated a list of possible needs and examined these systematically to
focus on actual or validated needs. Those needs include focusing on helping faculty manage the
implementation of new initiatives in ways that prevent change overload or the accumulation of
fatigue and burnout caused by the simultaneous implementation of multiple initiatives. While a
complete needs analysis could have focused on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the
stakeholder group in this analysis is all full-time PS faculty members.
Project Questions
As such, the questions that guide this study are the following:
23

Research Question (RQ) 1: What knowledge about change overload, higher education
innovations, and specific school or department initiatives do full-time faculty members in a
school at a R1 university need in order to support continued growth opportunities (i.e., adopt a
new organizational structure, create and embrace a re-envisioned curriculum, and endorse new
program initiatives)?
RQ2: What motivational elements do full-time faculty experiencing school or department-level
change overload at a R1 university need to support continued growth opportunities?
RQ3: What organizational factors create successful change environments for full-time faculty in
a school at a R1 university experiencing change overload?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
A conceptual framework is essential to gain a clear understanding of complex problems
and their potential solutions. To improve organizational performance, Clark and Estes (2008)
advocate for a specific type of conceptual framework known as a gap analysis. This type of
systematic analysis presents a clear picture of organizational goals while also identifying gaps
between preferred and actual performance levels within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008).
For this study of the PS, the methodological framework will consist of a mixed methods case
study with descriptive statistics. Personal knowledge and related literature was used to generate
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs at the School. The following
assessment tools were used to validate the needs of the School: surveys, observations, interviews,
a literature review, a document review, and a content analysis. These data collection efforts were
approved by appropriate PS administrators. Data collected at the PS included faculty perceptions
of workplace satisfaction, current and historical trends regarding instructor performance quality,
faculty perceptions of change overload, faculty understanding and acceptance of innovation
24

implementation, and faculty perceptions of administrator knowledge and application of change
management strategies. Recommendations for the school emphasized research-based solutions
to close performance gaps and comprehensive evaluations to ensure accuracy of analysis.
Organization of the Project
The study is organized in five chapters. This chapter provides the reader with key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the ambitions of administrative
leaders of higher education work groups and faculty members’ work satisfaction and perceived
resistance to change. The PS’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts of
gap analysis adapted to needs analysis are introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current
literature surrounding the scope of this study. Topics of faculty resistance to change,
administrative rationale for the introduction of multiple new initiatives, faculty work satisfaction,
and the impact on faculty work productivity are addressed. Chapter Three details the assumed
needs for this study as well as methodology regarding choice of participants, data collection, and
analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five contains
solutions based on data and literature for addressing the needs and closing the performance gap
between the administrative push for change and faculty members’ ability to successfully
implement the change. The conclusion of Chapter Five includes recommendations for a plan to
implement and evaluate the solutions.
25

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
An Examination of Literature on Managing Successful Organizational Change for Faculty
in Higher Education
Introduction
This chapter examines the literature on the impact of change overload on faculty
members in higher education environments, particularly as it relates to sustaining organizational
environments receptive to continuous change efforts. The first section investigates how national
rankings and increased competition for students have led higher education institutions to increase
the speed of change and new initiative implementation. The second section of the chapter
explores how these rapid, overlapping change initiatives have led to elevated stress, decreased
work productivity, poor work relationships, and increased faculty resistance to change. The
chapter ends with an analysis of the impact of overlapping organizational change efforts on
climate, employee turnover, and initiative sustainability utilizing the gap analysis framework of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors.
Rapid Rate of Change Increasing in Higher Education Settings
The national rankings system, most prominently associated in the United States with U.S.
News and World Report’s rankings, has intensified the competitive market for students. Ranking
systems are utilized both by marketers and recruiters to attract students, and by students to
determine the quality of an institution in their application process (Altbach, 2015). Rankings
have grown in importance as potential students, donors, staff and faculty can independently
assess a university without needing the higher education institution to disseminate the message
(Altbach, 2015). Competition is increasing amongst universities for donor dollars, R1 grants,
and prestige associated with higher rankings (Altbach, 2015). In an era of mass education at the
26

higher education level, some system of differentiation needs to be utilized; otherwise, decision-
making for university stakeholders resembles flipping a coin (Altbach, 2015).
Clarke (2007) examined the impact of rankings on student access, choice, and
opportunity. Access is defined as the process of being able to enter institutions of higher
learning, choice as the ability to align educational goals with decisions to apply from among
competing institutions, and opportunity as the earnings and success one can expect in post-
university life (Clarke, 2007). In her analysis, Clarke found that rankings were most utilized by
high-achieving, high-income students from college-educated parents. In a 1998 survey by
McDonough, et al., of more than 220,000 undergraduate students, 40% of U.S. students indicated
that they utilized news magazine rankings in selecting their higher education institution
(Hazelcorn, 2007).
These findings suggest that institutions of higher education have had to increase their
outreach efforts to students in the high-achieving category, often tailoring scholarship offerings
to recruit these types of students (Clarke, 2007). These efforts place a premium on improving
the educational product being delivered, as marketing efforts seek to highlight new and creative
internal innovations and organizational change as indicators that the school is worthy of its
ranking or deserving of a higher one (Hazelcorn, 2007).
University officials responding to a 2006 international survey indicated they felt that
increases in rankings gave added prestige to the institution, but a drop in rankings was also used
as an impetus for organizational change (Hazelcorn, 2007). According to Hazelcorn (2007) and
Clarke (2007), high-ranking institutions have utilized the ranking system to spur on internal
efforts to innovate. This move toward innovation can also lead to disrupted learning
environments as new programming and initiatives are introduced to attract new students (Clarke,
27

2007; Hazelcorn, 2007; Altbach, 2015). The increased demand for quality students has placed
new emphases for higher education institutions to introduce more innovations to stay
competitive. For example, Koch (2012) detailed a partnership between Harvard University and
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in which MIT President Susan Hockfield spoke
about a period of extreme change for higher education. “Today in higher education generally,
you can choose to view this era as one of threatening change and unsettling volatility, or you can
see it as a moment charged with the most exciting possibilities for education leaders in our
lifetimes (p. 2).”
One important challenge for higher education leadership is to successfully manage and
guide faculty receptivity to change efforts (Abrahamson, 2013; Clarke, Ellett, Bateman, &
Rugutt, 1996; Corley & Goia, 2004; Tagg, 2012). Specifically, this chapter explores a rarely
researched reason as to why faculty resist change – change overload (Abrahamson, 2004; Corley
& Goia, 2004). This author theorizes that change overload, essentially the implementation of too
many concurrent changes by administration, exacerbates poor work relationships, leads to
elevated stress and decreased work productivity, and increases faculty resistance to change
(Abrahamson, 2004; Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Bunton, et al., 2012; Corley & Goia, 2004;
Sastry, 1997; Tagg, 2012).
Change Overload
Changing realities for universities have led to an industry approach to higher education
where students have become consumers and programs have become revenue generators
(Gumport, 2000). In an effort to address these realities, schools and departments are initiating
extensive teleological, or planned, changes and innovations to stay relevant (Kezar & Eckel,
2002). Change initiatives in organizations are often “messy and full of surprises” (Kotter, 2007,
28

p. 103) and failure rates run as high as 70% (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Higher education settings
have been especially resistant to change for a variety of reasons, including an institutional
mentality, long-standing traditions of methodical debate and contemplation, and decision-making
processes that are hard to understand (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008; Kezar, 2014). Faculty,
therefore, may be more prone to workplace disengagement and identity ambiguity when multiple
changes occur (Corley & Goia, 2004), potentially leading to higher rates of failure.
Change overload, described earlier in this study, can lead to feelings of resentment as
employees struggle to master existing competencies as new ones are being introduced.
Employees are also less likely to take on additional tasks when they feel pulled in too many
different directions (Corley & Goia, 2004). Beer and Nohria (2000) describe this common
practice as leaders engaging in an “alphabet soup” (p. 88) of change initiatives, what
Abrahamson (2004) also calls initiative overload.
According to Abrahamson and Team’s (2013) repetitive change syndrome theory, faculty
may experience “initiative overload, change-related chaos, (and)…cynicism and burnout” (p. 93)
as they experience excessive changes. Since research on excessive change in higher education
institutions is rare, this chapter examines the impact of change overload in the marketplace as
well as in higher education environments in an effort to establish a generalized view of its
applicability to higher education settings. The argument has already been made in this study that
with increased competition for students, collaborative private sector partnerships, and rising
costs, higher education institutions are becoming more like for-profit entities. Citing studies in
business environments, therefore, has increasing relevance to the world of academia.
Rapid change efforts, described by Cameron, et al. (1987) as creating turbulence,
impacts faculty members in a variety of negative ways tied to workplace culture. Turbulence is
29

similar to change overload except that external factors are more prominently causing turbulence
while internal decision-makers often instigate change overload (Cameron, et al., 1987).
According to their study of more than 3,400 key stakeholders (faculty, administrators, trustees,
and staff) at 334 higher education environments, the existence of turbulence led to a decrease in
numerous positive workplace attributes, including innovation, morale, participatory behavior,
and leader credibility (Cameron, et al., 1987). This decrease in positive occupational traits can
also be linked to the quality of workplace relationships and attitudes during times of change.
Work Relationships and Low Morale
Faculty often experience negative reactions to change processes when they do not have
supportive relationships in the workplace (Abrahamson, 2004; Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008;
Clarke, et al., 1996; Vakola & Nikoloau, 2005). According to a study by Vakola and Nikoloau
(2005), poor work relationships led to higher stress levels during change processes. They
surveyed 292 employees from a variety of organizations and found that poor work relationships
were the single largest factor in predicting negative attitudes toward change. An earlier study
explored reasons for faculty attrition and identified personal reasons as one of the causes.
According to Weiler (1985), two-thirds of faculty who left the University of Minnesota
during the study’s time period did so due to personal reasons, including power struggles with
colleagues and administration. Conversely, faculty receptivity to change accelerated when
respected peers embraced new initiatives. Bercovitz and Feldman (2008) discovered in their
study of 1,780 faculty members at two different medical schools that when members of a
respected cohort accepted change, faculty members moved past tacit acceptance and fully
conformed to the new expectations. Faculty relationships, therefore, can influence receptivity to
change.
30

Morale has been strongly linked with faculty members’ decisions whether or not to leave
an institution (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Zhou & Volkwein, 2004). Johnsrud and Rosser (2002)
studied the connection and found that there was a direct correlation between the two – as morale
increased, intent to leave decreased, and vice versa. Similarly, Cropsey, Masho, Shiang, Sikka,
Kornstein, & Hampton (2008) found that both women and non-white faculty members cited
workload issues at two times the rate of males and whites, respectively, and had nearly twice the
frequency of citing personal reasons for leaving. Faculty members who experience challenges
with workplace relationships during times of change often feel increased stress and decreased
work productivity as well.
Increased Stress and Decreased Productivity
Overall faculty work productivity may be negatively impacted by change efforts
(Abrahamson, 2004; Hargreaves, 2004; Vakola & Nikoloau, 2005). Faculty who are
experiencing change in the workplace and have concurrent stress are less likely to embrace
change and more likely to lose motivation to complete work responsibilities (Johnsrud & Rosser,
2002). Using the ASSET (A Shortened Stress Evaluation Tool) organizational screening tool to
measure occupational stress for non-academic employees, Vakola and Nikoloau (2005) found
that higher levels of occupational stress resulted in decreased organizational commitment and
increased reluctance to embrace change.
Levels of stress are often related to perceptions of its origin. According to Hargreaves
(2004), higher stress levels were felt when faculty perceived that the change was externally
driven. Abrahamson (2004) also found that during times of change, faculty members
experiencing stress might move into a protective mode, sometimes inadvertently, as they try to
hold onto their job, skill base, and authority. Elevated stress, decreased productivity, and poor
31

work relationships due in part to compounding change efforts can form important aspects of
faculty resistance to change.
A review of relevant research shows that change overload can negatively influence
faculty well-being and work performance, often resulting in resistance to change (Abrahamson,
2004; Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008; Cameron, Kim, & Whetten, 1997; Corley & Goia, 2004).
Resistance to Change
Numerous studies exist that examine why higher education faculty members are more
prone to resist change. According to the literature, higher education faculty members were the
most resistant to change efforts and were heavily influenced by peer reactions and socialized
norms in the workplace (Clarke, et al., 1996; Cohen, et al., 2003; Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008).
Often that resistance is rooted in length of service and established hierarchy. For example,
Clarke, et al. (1996), in their study of 2,761 faculty members, identified senior male faculty
members as the largest group that resisted change, especially if there was no relevance to their
research or personal interests (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008). Another factor influencing
resistance to change is exclusion of faculty in administrative decisions. Clarke, et al., (1996)
surveyed 779 faculty units at 79 CCHEI ranked R1 institutions and found that faculty deprived
of decision-making authority were much more likely to resist change than were other faculty
who were part of the decision-making processes. According to Hargreaves (2004), faculty
inclusion in change planning countered the potentially negative impact of change efforts
regardless of whether they were internally or externally driven.
Workplace norms, described by Tellis (2013) as the practices, values, and traits that form
the pillars of organizational culture, have a profound impact on faculty members’ receptivity to
change. Bercovitz and Feldman (2008) discovered in their study of 1,780 higher educational
32

stakeholders that social norms in the workplace overrode individual norms forged through
training and experience. Clarke, et al. (1996) identified resistance to change as an external
process (one that is expressed outwardly as a social norm) and receptivity to change as an
internal process (one that is processed internally as an individual norm) that did not necessarily
result in receptivity to the change. According to these researchers, faculty members who were
internally receptive to change actually resisted it externally because of socialized workplace
norms. Cohen, et al., (2003) studied individual readiness for change and found that a condition
for change was one in which faculty had moderate dissatisfaction with their employment. On the
extremes, those who were content within this study did not challenge the status quo and those
who were extremely dissatisfied were often paralyzed by repeated failed reform efforts and had
become unable to act upon their deep concerns (Cohen, et al., 2003).
Brownell and Tanner (2012) discovered that as they adapted to changing environments,
faculty were forced to alter their professional identity because the foundations of their own
learning and mentoring experiences were challenged. This challenge of identity transformation
persisted even if faculty had benefited from an infusion of training, time and incentives to assist
with the transition (Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Cropsey, et al., 2008).
The literature focuses primarily on faculty as the source of the resistance, generally
excusing administrators for their role in creating unhealthy work environments. For university
leaders, the challenge of overcoming resistance to change while not overloading faculty with too
many new initiatives is a difficult balancing act. Yet it is emerging as an important area to
manage as inevitable innovations alter the educational landscape.

33

Importance of the Problem
Researchers have shown that resistance to change is the number one “rational and
predictable” (p. 180) reason why change initiatives fail (Cohen, et al., 2003). Due to the high
incidence of change initiative failure, administrators at the university level could benefit from
renewed skills to lead their faculty through an uncertain landscape. Administration should help
faculty move beyond expected resistance to change (Tagg, 2012) and into an era of receptivity to
innovation. They should frame resistance to change as a contributing factor to a potential decline
in the importance of universities in shaping the intellectual landscape of the 21
st
century. If they
can guide faculty to embrace innovations, they can help ensure that higher education remains a
preeminent influence in the 21
st
century.
Administrators should also be aware of the consequences of forcing faculty to adapt to
numerous concurrent initiatives. As they guide faculty through change efforts, they should
balance the implementation of new initiatives with times of stability to ensure that faculty
internalize and sustain the change efforts (Sastry, 1997). This punctuated change approach will
help promote faculty well-being and productivity by acknowledging the increased demands that
occur during times of change (Sastry, 1997). In doing so, administrators will help overcome
faculty resistance to change by addressing change overload as a legitimate concern and barrier to
successful implementation of new initiatives.
TABLE 2.1: Summary of Assumed Influences on Faculty Experiencing Overlapping Change
Initiatives
Knowledge General Literature
Faculty know that as a group, they have been
resistant to change efforts in the academy
(institutional mentality)

(Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008; Clarke, et al.,
1996; Cohen, Glavin, Moore, Allen &
Zolner, 2003; Gaff, 1978; Kezar, 2014;
Tagg, 2012)

34

Faculty know that new initiatives are increasing
in frequency and impact (change overload)

(Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Gumport, 2000;
Kezar, 2009)

Faculty know that they are neither trained nor
prepared through their education to manage
rapid change initiatives (professional
preparation)
(Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Austin, 2002;
Kazlow, 1977)

Motivation

Faculty in excessive change environments
experience elevated stress and loss of identity
(identity ambiguity)

(Abrahamson, 2004; Brownell & Tanner,
2012; Bunton, et al., 2012; Corley & Gioia,
2004; Cropsey, et al., 2008; Sastry, 1997;
Tagg, 2012)

Faculty who are not included in decision-making
processes are more likely to resist change efforts
(participatory decision-making)

(Black & Gregerson, 1997; Clarke, et al.,
1996; Hargreaves, 2004; Lipshitz & Strauss,
1997)

Faculty in excessive change environments
experience decreased work productivity (change
overload)
(Abrahamson, 2004; Abrahamson & Team,
2013; Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Bunton, et
al., 2012; Cohen, et al., 2003; Corley &
Gioia, 2004; Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002;
Sastry, 1997; Tagg, 2012; Vakola &
Nikoloau, 2005)

Faculty are more likely to experience cynicism
and burnout in environments with rapid,
overlapping change initiatives (Repetitive
Change Syndrome)
(Abrahamson, 2000; Abrahamson, 2004;
Abrahamson and Team, 2013; Hargreaves,
2005; Lackritz, 2004)

Organizational Culture

Institutional rankings have forced universities to
increase programmatic offerings to stay
competitive and attract quality students (new
initiatives)

(Altbach, 2015; Clarke, 2007; Hazelkorn,
2007a; Hazelkorn, 2007b; Marginson & Van
der Wende, 2007; Thakur, 2007)
Organizations experiencing change overload are
more likely to have higher employee turnover
than other organizations (attrition)

( Leana & Van Buren, 1999; Maertz, et al.,
2007; Tolbert, et al., 1995; Weiler, 1985;
Zhou & Fredericks, 2004)

Excessive change negatively impacts
organizational culture by decreasing the quality
of work relationships (climate)

(Abrahamson, 2004; Brownell & Tanner,
2012; Bunton, et al., 2012; Corley & Gioia,
2004; Sastry, 1997; Tagg, 2012)

35

Organizations implementing new initiatives by
alternating periods of change and
reconsolidation create healthier work
environments (punctuated change)
(Eisenbach, et al., 1999; Gersick, 1991;
Sastry, 1997; Van de Ven, 2005; Weick &
Quinn, 1999)

The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis was utilized to research potential causes and
identify possible solutions to faculty performance issues as they experience change overload.
This analytical framework helped identify gaps between actual and preferred performance levels
within an organization, focusing specifically on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
elements. Assumed causes for the performance gaps were generated based on related literature
and personal knowledge. These causes were more thoroughly investigated through a mixed
methods approach: key stakeholder interviews, a survey, observations, and document analyses.
Research ‐based solutions were identified and recommended to the Prism School.
Learning and Motivation Theory
This chapter examines knowledge and motivation influences on faculty learning
experiences in higher education, particularly as it relates to changing environmental factors such
as change overload that impacts faculty acceptance of or resistance to change. Clark and Estes
(2008) write that identifying the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers can help
organizational leaders accurately identify the assumed causes, properly assess gaps, and
collaborate on solutions to improve performance. Specific knowledge types are considered part
of knowledge and skills, as are supports, training, and education. Motivational elements involve
three areas as well: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Organizational barriers, which
Clark and Estes’ describe as work processes and material choices, manifest themselves in the
motivational and organizational elements.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
36

This section of the chapter examines knowledge and motivation influences on faculty
learning experiences in higher education, particularly as it relates to changing environmental
factors that impact faculty acceptance of or resistance to change. Specifically, it examines the
impact on the stakeholder group of faculty at the PS as the school implements a number of new
initiatives simultaneously. Higher education settings have been especially resistant to change for
a variety of reasons described earlier in this study. To accurately determine how faculty can
make the transition to a variety of new initiatives, the literature on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences impacting faculty experiences with change was examined.
Knowledge and Skills
This portion of the chapter focuses on literature related to knowledge influences
impacting faculty ability to maintain high pedagogical standards amidst constant change. At the
PS, more than twelve separate initiatives have been introduced in the last two years, including
two changes that have impacted all faculty: the introduction of a new curriculum and the change
from a concentration faculty structure to a department model (Social Science programs, 2016).
Faculty, known throughout literature as being slow to embrace change, may be influenced to
embrace change more readily if they receive the knowledge needed to implement the new
changes (Brownell & Tanner, 2012). Training was often cited as one of the biggest barriers to
implementation of new changes, according to Brownell and Tanner (2012). The concepts
examined were categorized as one of three types of knowledge: declarative, consisting of factual
and conceptual; procedural; or metacognitive.
Knowledge influences. This chapter examines literature related to types of knowledge
that faculty need to successfully negotiate concurrent change initiatives in the PS. Specifically,
this examination looks at ways to influence faculty adaptation to a new curriculum with the
37

desired intent of maintaining the quality of instruction, which has been identified as the
stakeholder goal. By May 2018, the goal is for the faculty at the PS to successfully implement
new programs and the school’s new curriculum as evidenced by keeping the average course
evaluation rating by students at a 4.2 or higher (out of five) and maintaining student ratings of
instructor quality at 4.5 or higher, on average.
This section of the chapter will briefly describe the types of knowledge to be examined
and connect them to knowledge influences, while explaining the importance of this
categorization. Declarative knowledge can be subdivided into two categories: factual and
conceptual. Factual knowledge consists of the elements needed to understand a subject, such as
terminology and specific details, and be able to problem solve within it (Krathwohl, 2002). This
type of knowledge is relevant to faculty as they teach new classes with new syllabi and have to
adapt quickly to how the new material is impacting student behavior and performance (Brownell
& Tanner, 2012; Cropsey, et al., 2008). Conceptual knowledge is the understanding of
classifications or categories within a broader structure, essentially how the various pieces of a
system interact with each other to produce desired results (Krathwohl, 2002). This type of
knowledge impacts faculty as they come to terms with a new identity within the new department
structures. The names have changed and the interactions are different. This change in identity
may come with a sense of loss as the school moves away from the old concentration model,
which was in place for 40 years. Corley and Gioia (2004) studied the impact of changes in
identity and found that loss of productivity could be an outcome of this type of change.
A second broad category of knowledge is procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge
consists of “how to” do something. It is the knowledge type that focuses on skills, techniques,
and understanding of when to utilize specific procedures (Krathwohl, 2002). This knowledge
38

type is especially relevant for faculty as they negotiate the new structures in place with Prism’s
departmental model. With new leaders in place in the departments, new ways of interacting with
existing staff offices, and new approval channels created, faculty need procedural knowledge to
achieve self-efficacy.
A third category is metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge is the
knowledge type concerned with cognition, including one’s own cognition, as well as strategic
knowledge and self-knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). To grapple with the pace of change and
prevent initiative overload, faculty need to spend time in reflection, processing the changes that
are occurring. Current structures for these metacognitive processes include weekly and biweekly
consultation groups by course led by lead instructors. Other means of metacognitive knowledge,
such as consultation across courses or faculty retreats designed to share knowledge of how the
new courses intersect or fail to align, have yet to occur.
In summary, these three knowledge types are of great importance in the successful
completion of the stakeholder goal identified in this chapter. These types were used as the
framework for analyzing the literature related specifically to the stakeholder goal in this chapter.
Stakeholder Knowledge Influences. Faculty have been known throughout higher
education circles as slow to change (Clarke, et al., 1996), preferring dialogue, process, and
adherence to faculty governance procedures to ensure that no new initiative gets adopted without
significant input from all stakeholders (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008). Faculty also experience
something called the “endowment effect,” a term coined by Tagg (2012, p. 4) to describe how
possessions and processes gain in importance simply by being present with someone, regardless
of their inherent value. This belief, reinforced over time, leads to loss aversion, a view whereby
change is seen in terms of what will be lost instead of what could be gained (Tagg, 2012).
39

At the PS, under the Dean’s strategic leadership, the faculty voted to adopt a new
curriculum in January 2015 while simultaneously changing the organizational structure of the
school (Social Science programs, 2016). These two changes, which added to other significant
changes that continue to occur in the school, appear to have created a sense of uncertainty and
loss of identity amongst faculty, outcomes researchers have noted in other organizational change
processes (Corley & Gioia, 2004). The leadership lines are changing and power is being
distributed in different ways. These circumstances have brought into question the prospects of
maintaining the quality of course quality and instructor delivery as characterized by student
evaluations.
Declarative Knowledge Influence. The first knowledge influence concerned the need for
faculty to gain conceptual and factual knowledge. For this knowledge influence, the need was
for faculty to gain knowledge of models of change (conceptual) and on-campus writing and
psychological resources (factual) in order to accurately assess student responses to the new
programs and curriculum and adapt their interactions with students accordingly. This approach
was supported by Cropsey, et al., (2008) and their call for increased training. Clarke, et al.
(1996) examined faculty resistance to change and found that the responses varied somewhat due
to specific circumstances. Males were most resistant to change compared to females, while all
faculty were more receptive when the innovation or initiative related to their specific area of
interest (Clarke, et al., 1996). Non-tenured, assistant, and associate-level faculty were all more
open to change than faculty who were tenured or full professors (Clarke, et al., 1996). Clarke, et
al., (1996) findings suggest that tenured male faculty were least likely to seek out new
information needed to facilitate a quality transition to the new curriculum and department
structure.
40

Hargreaves (2008) discovered that faculty who were included in change planning were
less likely to express frustration with the implemented change than those who were not included.
At Prism, approximately two-thirds of the full-time faculty participated in some way in the
change efforts. Yet, levels of anxiety associated with uncertainty has been present during these
first few years of implementation. Vakola and Nikolaou (2005) examined the impact of stress to
work commitment and found that employees were less likely to perform at their previous level of
functioning once the existence of work stress appeared. This finding seemed most relevant to the
Prism faculty, who struggled to understand how students reacted to the changes, what their own
role was in instituting that change, and how to access needed resources for students to manage
the change successfully. To determine if the outcomes were achieved, faculty were assessed on
their knowledge of models of change and ability to intervene on behalf of students with fidelity
to those models. Faculty knowledge of on-campus resources to support students and their
willingness to refer them to those resources were also be assessed.
Procedural Knowledge Influence. The second knowledge influence to review is
procedural knowledge. Literature shows that the inability to accomplish a task due to changing
structures leads to frustration and loss of productivity. This outcome is more likely to exist
during times of change overload (Corley & Gioia, 2004). When studying why faculty leave
higher education settings, Weiler (1985) and Cropsey, et al. (2008) discovered that a lack of
mentoring of junior faculty by more seasoned faculty was one reason why some of them left a
university setting. Specifically, only 50% of junior faculty reported actually being mentored
despite expressed organizational commitments to do so. Many stated that they did not receive
mentoring to help in reducing isolation and obtaining career guidance, areas that impacted their
decision to leave. In the study by Cropsey, et al. (2008), faculty experienced a lack of support at
41

learning new processes, citing a lack of connection and poor work relationships as reasons why
they left. Fernandez and Rainey (2006) describe the importance of understanding the political
climate of an institution during times of change. Aligning with the wrong political partner could
present barriers for faculty members as they attempt to understand the new infrastructure and
navigate the newly defined systems (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006). Based on this literature,
faculty at Prism need knowledge of how and when to seek out appropriate mentoring,
implementation support, and curriculum guidance from lead instructors to implement the new
curriculum with fidelity.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence. The third knowledge influence to explore is
metacognitive knowledge. Sastry (1997) argues that non-stop change does not allow for
reflection on cognitive processes, forcing employees to expend their efforts on task
accomplishment instead of improving the quality of their work. She makes a case for punctuated
change, allowing time for employees to adjust to the changes and solidify the gains before
starting a new initiative. Similarly, Abrahamson (2004) describes the potential negative
implications of not spending time in reflection (Immordino-Yang, Christodoulou, & Singh,
2012), gaining input from stakeholders, and having administration push additional change
initiatives through an organization. He cites the impact of repetitive change syndrome as leading
to burnout, cynicism, and loss of productivity (2004).
Cognitive load theory is also relevant here. This theory looks at the importance of
reducing the amount of extraneous load, defined as information not easily recognized or
followed cognitively, in order to allow for greater understanding and more room for automatic
processes called germane and intrinsic load (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006). The new
curriculum is forcing most faculty at Prism to tax their extraneous load processes as they absorb
42

new texts, new syllabi, and students expressing frustration at the constant change in their
learning environments (personal communication, Course Lead Instructor, April 6, 2016). This
reality means less automatic processing and increased effort at comprehension, which is
impacting instructor understanding and teaching.
To properly address these challenges, faculty need knowledge of the importance of
metacognitive processes, including reflections, sharing of best practices, and exploration of new
approaches to teaching and learning (Immordino-Yang, et al., 2012). Assessment will include
lead instructors leading bi-weekly consultation groups focused on implementation of the new
programs and curriculum in order to engage in reflection, collaboration, and exploration. They
will assess the quality of the groups through training evaluations.
The table presented below shows the knowledge worksheet described in this section. The
worksheet flows from the organizational mission and global goal to the specific stakeholder goal
of the Prism faculty and the relevant knowledge influences.
TABLE 3.1: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization (KMO) Worksheet: Knowledge

Organizational Mission
The mission of the Prism School of Social Science is to improve the well-being of vulnerable
individuals and communities, advance social and economic justice, and eradicate pressing
societal problems in complex and culturally diverse urban environments throughout Southern
California, the nation and the world. Our mission is achieved through value-driven, scholarly
and creative social science education, research, and professional leadership.
Organizational Global Goal
By 2018, the Prism School will be ranked in the top ten of all United States schools of social
science as measured by U.S. News and World Report rankings.
Stakeholder Goal:
By May 2018 the faculty at the Prism School of Social Science will successfully implement
new programs and the school’s new curriculum as evidenced by keeping the average course
evaluation rating by students at a 4.2 or higher (out of five) and maintaining student ratings of
instructor quality at 4.5 or higher, on average.
Knowledge Influence
Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative [factual or
conceptual], procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
43

Faculty need knowledge of
models of change and on-
campus writing and
psychological resources in
order to accurately assess
student responses to the new
programs and curriculum and
adapt their interactions with
students accordingly.
.
Factual and Conceptual
Faculty were assessed on
their knowledge of models of
change and ability to
intervene on behalf of
students with fidelity to those
models. Faculty knowledge
of on-campus resources to
support students and their
willingness to refer them to
those resources were
assessed.

Faculty need knowledge of
how and when to seek out
appropriate mentoring,
implementation support, and
curriculum guidance from
lead instructors to implement
the new curriculum with
fidelity.

Procedural
Lead instructors will track the
frequency and
appropriateness of faculty
seeking assistance on
implementation issues to
establish baseline data.

Faculty need knowledge of
the importance of
metacognitive processes,
including reflections, sharing
of best practices, and
exploration of new
approaches to teaching and
learning.

Metacognitive
Faculty will lead bi-weekly
consultation groups focused
on implementation of the new
programs and curriculum in
order to engage in reflection,
collaboration, and
exploration. They will assess
the quality of the groups
through training evaluations.

Motivation Influences
This portion of the chapter focuses on literature related to motivation influences
impacting faculty belief that implementation challenges with the new curriculum, the new
organizational structure, and new programs are due to effort, not ability; a sense of competence
in implementing the new curriculum with fidelity; and a desire to grow professionally.
Motivation is a key concept not singularly defined, as some link it to basic drive and needs while
others find the nexus of social and cognitive processes to be the best explanation (Pintrich,
44

2003). For this study, a social-cognitive approach is preferred in that it accounts for behavior
with a purpose as well as being contextually based (Pintrich, 2003). This definition helps
support the perspective that faculty react to change initiatives with a variety of responses, each
one contextually and cognitively considered. It also underlies the importance of motivation as a
factor influencing adaptation to change because it impacts the social and cognitive spheres.
At the PS, the many overlapping initiatives currently being implemented have impacted
faculty feelings about their own efficacy. The faculty stakeholder goal is to maintain the quality
of the current programs’ outcomes regarding graduation rates and student evaluations while
incorporating a new curriculum and new department organizational structure. Three primary
theories are reviewed here as constructs to view the motivational influences on faculty: (1)
attribution theory, (2) self-efficacy theory, and (3) goal orientation theory. Attribution theory is
reviewed because of the importance of faculty viewing any challenges as effort-based and not
ability-based, which would leave them with no option but to leave the profession (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). Self-efficacy theory is valued here as well since faculty are being challenged
in their own perceptions of their efficacy as they implement the new curriculum and
departmental structure (Pajares, 2006). Goal orientation theory has the potential to help faculty
find the meaning in their extra work to implement this new curriculum, since it may lead to
mastery, improved teaching, skill development, or increased learning (Yough & Anderman,
2006). The following sections will focus on the stakeholder motivational influences as embodied
in the three theories listed above.
Attribution Theory. Anderman and Anderman (2006) described the three primary
elements of this theory: (1) locus, (2) stability, and (3) controllability. Locus refers to whether or
not the cause of the difficulty is perceived to be internal or external to the individual. If external
45

to the individual, then the ability to change behavior is greater than if it were internal. Stability
refers to environmental factors remaining stable across time (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Finally, controllability is that which is controllable by the individual (Anderman & Anderman,
2006).
This theory is based on the search that humans go through in the aftermath of an event in
which they seek to attribute the outcome to various causes (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Generally, the attributed cause reflects an internal belief system about humans’ own sense of
competency. If someone with low self-esteem fails a test, they are likely to attribute it to their
own lack of ability, a stable factor with an internal locus of control. This belief is rooted in past
failures, reinforced by the current failure, and usually becomes a contributing cause to lack of
motivation to achieve different outcomes in future occurrences (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
On the other hand, someone with a high level of confidence who fails a test is more likely to
attribute it to unstable factors, or ones that change, and to an external locus of control. This
belief is based on past successes and challenges overcome, is more likely to lead to higher
motivation to correct the results instead of believing that failure is inevitable, and is more likely
to lead to successful results the next time this particular situation occurs (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006).
Faculty and Attributions Theory. Regarding Prism faculty and the impact that one of
these theories could have on them, attributions might be the theory with the most potential to
undermine faculty confidence. For example, as faculty struggle to implement the new
curriculum with fidelity, some might perceive that difficulty as ability-based, meaning there is
very little prospect for improvement (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Others may attribute
changes as occurring in a top-down fashion only. According to Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector
46

(1990), important changes can come from work units toiling away far outside of the usual
administrative processes. In fact, they argue that the most innovative changes come from the
fringes, from the areas outside of the mainstream (Beer, et al., 1990). Cropsey, et al. (2008)
found that external causes were most likely cited by faculty who left a university, including lack
of advancement opportunities and inequitable salaries. These beliefs are externally held, which,
according to Anderman and Anderman (2006), are the hardest ones to change. In applying
attribution theory in a way that promotes instructional efficacy, faculty should feel that the
changes in the school are in the best interest of the students, the employees, the program, and the
university as a whole. This survey could include an interview item asking participants if they
feel that the new curriculum continues the perceived tradition of excellence in the school.
Self-Efficacy Theory. Self-efficacy theory looks at how positive outcomes and
successes can lead individuals to increase their self-efficacy, or their belief in their own ability
(Pajares, 2006). Bandura (2000) describes how perceptions of the power of human agency are
built on the belief of having power over environment. The ability to influence positive outcomes
and fend off undesired outcomes provides the human incentive to act (Bandura, 2000). Pajares
(2006) further explores the theory by taking individual efficacy and connecting it to the
collective, or organizational, efficacy. This important link is relevant to this chapter’s focus as
the self-efficacy of individual faculty members has direct impact on the larger faculty’s sense of
efficacy as well as the organizational sense of confidence.
Faculty and Self-Efficacy Theory. Faculty in higher education are constantly being
assessed for their abilities, productivity, and competence. Whether through annual performance
reviews, mid-term student evaluations, end-of-semester evaluations, or public assessments by
supervisors, their self-efficacy can be influenced by a wide variety of factors. During times of
47

overlapping change, faculty can experience overload, chaos, and burnout (Abrahamson, 2004).
These outcomes impact their sense of self-efficacy and might prevent them from fully engaging
in change initiatives. In an earlier article, Abrahamson (2000) described alternative rates of
change as dynamic stability. The primary difference between non-stop change and dynamic
stability is that the latter leaves survivors (Abrahamson, 2000). In terms of the challenges
presented in this chapter, faculty need to feel that they are competent in implementing the new
initiatives from the school in order to feel self-efficacious in their work. These feelings of self-
efficacy can be assessed through a survey of faculty asking them if they believe they can
implement the new curriculum with fidelity to the original design.
Goal Orientation Theory. Goal orientation theory establishes the importance of
mastery, self-improvement, learning, and advancement (Yough & Anderman, 2006). This theory
is divided into two primary areas: (1) mastery goals and (2) performance goals. Mastery goals
are associated with mastering a task or area of knowledge and are used by individuals in
comparisons to their own previous behavior (Yough & Anderman, 2006). In other words, they
are comparing their accomplishments to their own standards. Performance goals, on the other
hand, are about achieving at a level that exceeds that of others attempting to achieve at the same
level (Yough & Anderman, 2006). These goals are analogous to admissions standards at a
university, where the comparative quality of other applicants will often determine the admissions
decision by university administrators.
Faculty and Goal Orientation Theory. At Prism, faculty have all been relegated to
performance-goal status due to the influx of change that is impacting everyone. Mastery,
currently, is not possible as the curriculum is in its first few years of implementation. Some
faculty may desire mastery eventually, but that reality would not be present currently. The goal
48

for faculty should be to view these new initiatives as opportunities to grow and develop
professionally. With this goal in mind, faculty will likely find success as well as a guiding
principle to help them negotiate the new curriculum. These efforts can be assessed in interviews
with the question, “How do you view your own growth and development in relation to
implementing new initiatives?”
The table below contains the motivation influences information from the organization
mission down to the motivation influences and assessment strategies.
TABLE 3.2: KMO Worksheet: Motivation

Organizational Mission
The mission of the Prism School of Social Science is to improve the well-being of vulnerable
individuals and communities, advance social and economic justice, and eradicate pressing
societal problems in complex and culturally diverse urban environments throughout Southern
California, the nation and the world. Our mission is achieved through value-driven, scholarly
and creative social science education, research, and professional leadership.
Organizational Global Goal
By 2018, the Prism School will be ranked in the top ten of all United States schools of social
science as measured by U.S. News and World Report rankings.
Stakeholder Goal
By May 2018, the faculty at the Prism School of Social Science will successfully implement
new programs and the school’s new curriculum as evidenced by keeping the average course
evaluation rating by students at a 4.2 or higher (out of five) and maintaining student ratings of
instructor quality at 4.5 or higher, on average.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment

Utility value – Faculty need to see the value
in adapting to changing circumstances;

Attributions – Faculty should feel that the
changes in the school are in the best interest
of the student, the program, and the university
as a whole.
Written survey item – “It is important to me
that I successfully adapt to the new initiatives
in the school” (very important/not important
at all)
Interview item: “How are you handling the
influx of new initiatives in the school?”

Written survey item – “I believe that the
changes brought about through the school are
in the best interest of the student, program,
and university” (strongly agree/strongly
disagree)
49

Interview item – “In what ways do you feel
the new curriculum continues the tradition of
excellence in the school?”

Self-efficacy – Faculty need to feel that they
are competent in implementing the new
initiatives from the school.

Goal orientation – Faculty should view these
new initiatives as opportunities to grow and
develop professionally
Written survey item – “I believe I am able to
implement the new curriculum with fidelity to
its design” (strongly agree/strongly disagree)
Interview item – “Talk about your comfort
level in implementing the new curriculum as
it was originally designed.”

Written survey item – “I believe these new
initiatives give me the opportunity to grow
and develop professionally “(strongly
agree/strongly disagree)
Interview item – “How do you view your own
growth and development in relation to
implementing new initiatives?”

Organizational Influences
Knowledge and motivation are important factors to assess in a gap analysis. When
employees are missing key aspects of knowledge or lacking motivation to achieve organizational
goals, outcomes usually fall short of expectations. However, even when knowledge and
motivation factors are firmly embedded in organization culture, successful outcomes may still
not be guaranteed due to organizational influences that prevent achievement of goals and
objectives. At the PS, a drop in rankings due in part to the introduction of the school’s online
program has precipitated a barrage of change initiatives promulgated by school leadership,
including starting new programs, creating new revenue streams, developing new curriculum, and
moving faculty and staff to new physical locations. The eight-year experiment in online social
science education at the school remains a dividing force between two different cultures, the
traditional ivory tower brick-and-mortar program and the non-stop high intensity online program.
It is important to assess the impact of these organizational influences operating at the
school in order to close the gaps preventing full attainment of organizational goals. In this
50

section, those organizational influences will be examined, specifically as they relate to the
stakeholder group that is the focus of this chapter: the PS faculty. Those influences will be
assessed in the context of general theory on organizational culture and change and then applied
specifically to the Prism faculty.
General theory. A number of theories of organizational culture and change are relevant
to this study’s focus on managing the impact of overlapping change, also known as change
overload or initiative overload (Abrahamson, 2000). Researchers have contributed knowledge to
the understanding of organizational change processes that will be explored in this section.
Researched concepts relevant to the change process include the importance of individual and
institutional identity, inclusiveness in decision-making, organizational reflection in cycles of
improvement, and the propensity for employees to self-organize in times of chaos (Agocs, 1997;
Pascale, et al., 2000; Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000; Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2004; and Burke,
2013). However, for the purposes of this section, the focus will be on four key areas in
managing organizational change:
1) Natural migration to the edge of chaos,
2) Maintaining balance versus disturbing equilibrium,
3) Overcoming resistance, and
4) Implementing multiple initiatives simultaneously to effect change (Agocs, 1997;
Pascale, et al., 2000; Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000; Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2004; and
Burke, 2013).
Natural migration to the edge of chaos. Kezar (2001), Pascale, et al. (2000), and Burke
(2013), among others, have surmised that the process of change is not linear, that it does not
follow a predetermined path. As cited in Burke (2013), Pascale, et al. (2000) lists four criteria
51

of change in complex organizations in what they call “the new science of complexity” (p. 266-
267). The second criterion describes a natural process that occurs during organizational change
efforts when, under threat or compelled by belief in the need for change, people move to the
“edge of chaos” (p. 266). This is an important part of the change journey where creativity is
heightened and new solutions are often developed (Pascale, et al., 2000).
Similarly, Kezar (2001) describes change as a disorderly process in which strategies to
manage change must be adaptable; interestingly, despite the common belief that a plan is
necessary, there is evidence that a disorderly process can still achieve positive outcomes. In fact,
studies on higher education campuses have shown that opening up dialogue with no overt change
strategy present has actually led to “fundamental campus changes,” whereas forced, planned
change has often not led to significant outcomes (Kezar, 2001, p. 119). Burke (2013) refers to
this phenomenon as unanticipated consequences and posits that leaders should prepare for these
realities in efforts to reach new stages of equilibrium. This finding is not an encouragement to
throw out organizational change plans, but rather to accept the complex nature of change and
develop adaptable strategies for managing it when it does not fit into expectations (Kezar, 2001).
Maintaining balance versus disturbing equilibrium. Kezar (2001) writes that higher
education systems should seek homeostasis and balance as an outcome of change processes. Yet
Burke (2013) argues that momentum propelling organizations away from equilibrium is the
desired state, similar to concepts inherent in thermodynamics theory. Thermodynamics theory
posits that the heat of the change process creates responses in energy and work to those changes,
resulting in new states of being for entities in flux, in this case, organizations (Tooby, Cosmides,
& Barrett, 2003). If they follow thermodynamics theory, organizations are as likely to move
toward maximum disorder as they are toward maximum order, depending on the interaction of
52

the changing variables (Tooby, Cosmides & Barrett, 2003). Burke (2013) writes that change
processes are meant to achieve new states of equilibrium, but that once achieved, the
organization begins to settle into this new state of equilibrium, thus leading to the need for
leaders to create even newer states of equilibrium. Therefore, the process continues as
organizational learning takes place and new levels of productivity and innovation are achieved
(Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000). Pascale, et al. (2000) as cited in Burke (2013) describes
equilibrium as the “precursor to (organizational) death” (p. 266). Burke (2013) goes on to
explain that leaders need to move organizations away from homeostasis as it creates lethargy, or
as Pascale, et al. (2000) refers to it, reduced responsiveness to environmental factors, thus
placing its growth and productivity at maximum risk.
Kezar (2001) counters that leaders should be protectors of homeostasis and only move to
make change when the system clearly shows a significant problem that is creating instability and
a reactionary movement away from homeostasis. Because change is usually gradual, a direct
response from central leadership is not recommended in most situations, according to her
research (2001). This approach finds its support from many models of change discussed in
Kezar’s work, including evolutionary, social-cognition, cultural, and teleological models (2001).
These conflicting ideas illustrate the complexity of organizations and, perhaps, reinforce the need
for leaders to be open to surprises and prepared to capitalize on opportunities often disguised as
challenges (Kezar, 2001).
Overcoming resistance. Higher education settings have a reputation as being slow to
change, with faculty often described as being resistant to change (Tagg, 2012). Schein (2004)
provides context for this resistance as being rooted in the organizational culture of higher
education institutions. He describes culture as consisting of several components, including the
53

values, beliefs, rules and behavioral norms of an organization (Schein, 2004). Understanding
organizational culture in this context could lead to re-framing faculty resistance to change as
actually responding to cultural expectations; in other words, the current cultural context reflects
established values, beliefs, norms and rules, and movement to a new structure could threaten
those core cultural elements (Schein, 2004).
In his four-item description, Schein (2004) lists stability, depth, breadth and patterns of
shared basic assumptions as the cornerstones of organizational culture. In examining stability,
he refers to the confidence one has when an aspect of culture continues to be there in various
settings within the same organization, not necessarily that it reflects a stable organization. If the
environment changes, a threat to this aspect is introduced. Essentially, because change efforts
are intended to help create a new culture, these efforts threaten these agreed-upon, or stable,
aspects of organizational culture (Schein, 2004). Resistance, therefore, is not only understood as
rational, but even admirable as it supports existing cultural expectations (Schein, 2004).
The argument for introducing change must then account for the existing cultural
landscape. Agocs (1997) describes six ways to overcome resistance in the implementation of
organizational change efforts, including creating allies and organizing politically to counter
movement toward equilibrium. Agocs (1997) encourages organizational change leaders to resist
the institutional pressure to maintain homeostasis, describing this act as the first step in mounting
large-scale change efforts. If, as Kezar (2001) recommends, leaders focus on adaptability and
inclusion, they are more likely to overcome initial barriers to change in order to achieve their
intended outcomes. Clearly making the case for change and marshaling existing resources
needed to move forward are two additional areas for leaders to master in overcoming resistance
(Agocs, 1997).
54

Implementing multiple initiatives simultaneously to effect change. Burke (2013)
describes the importance of continuing the momentum of change by disturbing the status quo.
He writes that organizations’ natural movements toward equilibrium has to be countered through
additional change initiatives, citing Pascale, et al. (2000) belief that an inert organization is at
maximum risk of regressing. Pascale, et al. (2000) eschews references to chaos theory to
describe organizational change, preferring to highlight the complexity of organizations.
According to his application of complexity theory, organizations need to create positive
disruption in order to achieve desired outcomes (2000). Burke (2013) picks up the theoretical
discussion by emphasizing his four principles of organizational change, including the final one to
“launch yet again new initiatives” (p. 269). He stresses that leaders of organizational change
need clarity of purpose in disturbing the system with new initiatives so that the negative
attributes of equilibrium do not take root. Burke describes several different approaches
organizations should use to continue producing change, including:
 Creating a new business line or new product, or both.
 Establishing a strategic alliance or joint venture with another organization.
 Starting a new program that will help to improve quality and reduce costs.
 Deploying current products and/or services into markets not yet penetrated… (2004, p.
270).
Schwandt & Marquardt (2000) emphasize that addressing change on multiple fronts is
essential in today’s marketplace; that addressing one issue at a time will lead to the demise of
any organization. In order to achieve this approach, they argue that leaders must understand that
all aspects of a complex organization are intertwined and must implement multiple changes
simultaneously in order to effect change. Added to the research from Burke (2013) and Pascale,
55

et al. (2000), a compelling argument can be made that organizations should seek to create a state
of constant change to ensure continued organizational health (Agocs, 1997; Schwandt &
Marquardt, 2000).
Stakeholder specific influences. The Prism school operates in a state of rapid change,
beginning new initiatives before the previous changes have gone through an improvement cycle,
before faculty have reached mastery of the previous changes, and before organizational
knowledge can be built that inculcates the new systems. Faculty have openly expressed
frustration at the rate of change and are concerned about their ability to adapt to further change
efforts. According to the literature, however, constant change creates momentum and prevents
dangerous stagnation (Burke, 2013; Pascale, et al., 2000). It reflects the recognition of
organizations as complex entities needing complex approaches in order to stay relevant. The
challenge for management is to acknowledge faculty frustrations while also including them in
the important work of building infrastructures that support necessary change (Kezar, 2001).
A second element of stakeholder influence is that the unspoken driving force in the
school is to return to the top ten in U.S. News and World Report rankings of schools of social
science. To accomplish this goal, faculty are pushed to embrace and implement new initiatives,
but, it appears, without ample administrative support. Faculty are being asked to add to their
workload, experience another learning curve while absorbing new knowledge, and implement at
a rate quicker than they can process the change.
Using the perspective from Pascale’s, et al. (2000) edge of chaos theory to examine the
PS’s change efforts, it can be argued that school leadership identified threats to future growth
and acted to mitigate those threats by introducing numerous overlapping change efforts. The
state of uncertainty that ensued has created anxiety among faculty, but according to Pascale, et
56

al. (2000), may also be one reason for increased innovation. Viewing the experimentation that
has occurred as an expected outcome during these turbulent times may help faculty view the
overall change process as positive and beneficial to the organization.
In assessing the school’s organizational culture, Prism faculty operate in two distinct
cultural settings. The first is the traditional, on-ground campus climate that resists embracing the
eight-year-old Prism Online Program (POP). Rapid programmatic and faculty growth on the
POP may be interpreted by ground faculty as an indication of a lack of quality. This feeling may
have contributed to resistance in initially granting governance rights to POP faculty, inadequate
inclusion in faculty meetings, and minimization of their representation in faculty governance
committees. Schein’s (2004) model of organizational culture sets the framework to understand
these feelings of resistance and normalizes them as part of the stability needed in strong
organizational culture. As described earlier, adherence to established organizational culture can
be viewed as endemic to the established values, beliefs, norms and rules of an institution.
Management can use these insights to infuse a different interpretation of how faculty can
contribute to the health of the organization, namely through acceptance of consistent change
initiatives like the POP that – it can be argued – help build a better institution (Schein, 2004).
The second cultural setting impacting the faculty stakeholders is the POP. The central
conflict in the POP is quantity versus quality. The school fell in national rankings the year the
POP was implemented, enrollment is twice the size of the ground program, and concerns persist
about the quality of students entering the school. Faculty in the traditional on-campus program
question the credentials of the faculty cohort on the POP, in part because it consists of 84%
adjunct faculty, 10% higher than the ground program. The pace of hiring is accelerated on the
POP due to its year-round structure, and may lead to some veteran faculty members feeling that
57

the standards to become a POP professor are distinctly lower than those for the traditional
program. This combination of perceptions may add to other perspectives from faculty who may
continue to question whether social science education should be delivered in an online format.
This lack of alignment of resources and support with clear organizational goals introduces an
organizational factor to the Prism School’s problem of practice. Aligning organizational
mission, vision, goals and objectives with resources can lead to more effective and efficient work
productivity and employee motivation across different work units (Alagaraja & Shuck, 2015;
Tosti & Jackson, 2000).
Analyzing the organization from these perspectives, at least two distinctly different
cultures appear to be in operation at the Prism school. The impact on organizational
performance has already been seen in the drop in rankings, which often reflect a number of
criteria loosely defined across multiple ranking systems (Thakur, 2007), including input from
leaders at other similar schools (Altbach, 2015). Other indicators still to be assessed are the
default rate on student loans, which reflects poorly on the institution and its student profile, the
prospect of declining enrollment while tuition costs continue rising, and the passage rate on
social science licensure exams across the country.
Burke (2013) argues that the creation of programs like the POP should be highly valued
as instrumental to moving an organization forward and continuing the momentum. He
recommends the introduction of new programs, especially those creating new revenue streams,
the creation of new partnerships, and the emergence into new markets not yet accessed by similar
institutions. These perspectives support the creation of the POP and legitimize its existence as
essential to the health of the organization. Likewise, Kezar encourages higher education
programs to create new belief systems that encourage appropriate risk-taking (2001). As a
58

preeminent researcher on organizational change on college campuses, she writes about resistance
to change in the academy and the need to move out of old systems that reinforce stagnation. The
introduction and continued success of the POP could be seen from these perspectives as essential
to the future growth of the Prism School.
TABLE 3.3: KMO Worksheet: Organization

Organizational Mission
The mission of the Prism School of Social Science is to improve the well-being of vulnerable
individuals and communities, advance social and economic justice, and eradicate pressing
societal problems in complex and culturally diverse urban environments throughout Southern
California, the nation and the world. Our mission is achieved through value-driven, scholarly
and creative social science education, research, and professional leadership.
Organizational Global Goal
By 2018, the Prism School will be ranked in the top ten of all United States schools of social
science as measured by U.S. News and World Report rankings.
Stakeholder Goal (If Applicable)
By May 2018, the faculty at the Prism School of Social Science will successfully implement
new programs and the school’s new curriculum as evidenced by keeping the average course
evaluation rating by students at a 4.2 or higher (out of five) and maintaining student ratings of
instructor quality at 4.5 or higher, on average.
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Setting Influence 1: The first cultural
setting in the school is the traditional, on-the-
ground campus climate that is slow to change,
believes in the traditions of the past, and resists
embracing the six-year-old Prism Online
Program. A fundamentally different approach
to recruitment, screening, and hiring occurred
with the POP, leading ground faculty to
question the rapid expansion of the overall
faculty numbers. This rapid growth has been
interpreted by ground faculty as an indication
of a lack of quality in POP faculty andragogy.
They question if the standards they believe
were in place for their hiring remain in place
for hiring in the POP. This feeling has led to
resistance in granting governance rights to
POP faculty, providing adequate inclusion in
faculty meetings, and minimizing their
representation in faculty governance
Survey questions could truly assess the
ground faculty’s feelings about the Prism
Online Program, specifically if they see the
faculty, curriculum delivery method, and
students as equals. Interview questions
could ask faculty members if they regret
having launched the POP.
59

committees such as faculty council and
curriculum council.

Cultural Setting Influence 2: The second
cultural setting is the distance education
program called the Prism Online Program. Its
implementation, growth to double the size of
the ground program, significant profitability,
and faculty hiring has produced faculty willing
to experiment, take risks, explore different
avenues for learning, and push against
traditional boundaries. The POP faculty are
also experiencing burnout, know that the
school’s fall in national rankings is because of
its implementation, and are concerned about
the quality of students entering the program.
The central conflict in the POP is quantity
versus quality as embodied by the rapid
acceleration of enrollment on the POP that
now nearly doubles the size of the ground
program.
Survey or interview questions could explore
the duality of risk embracing versus burnout
among POP faculty. Key stakeholder
interviews could explore POP faculty
feelings about student quality versus growth
considerations that are influenced by the
POP partnership with a for-profit company.

Conclusion
The challenges of managing organizational change in higher education settings have
several unique characteristics, including overcoming traditional faculty resistance to change
(Tagg, 2012), working through and around faculty governance, administrative decision-making,
or departmental power structures (Clarke, et al., 1996), and responding to external political
pressures such as school ranking systems and increased competition for prospective students
(Clarke, 2007; Thakur, 2007). Research indicates that organizations, including departments and
schools in higher education settings, must embrace rapid rates of change in order to stay relevant
and competitive in the 21
st
century marketplace (Burke, 2013; Gumport, 2000; Pascale, et al.,
2000; Tagg, 2012; Thakur, 2007). Leaders must find the balance between change efforts that
continue to promote innovation and creativity and the reality of change overload, described in
the literature as a series of overlapping initiatives that can overwhelm employee work capacity
60

and lead to burnout, cynicism, and disengagement (Abrahamson, 2004; Corley & Gioia, 2004)).
Change overload also negatively impacts individual and organizational identity, as well as
influences overall organizational culture by perpetuating work fatigue (Abrahamson, 2004;
Corley & Gioia, 2004).
Faculty at the Prism School may be experiencing gaps in knowledge and feelings of
incompetence with the recent introductions of a new curriculum and departmental structure,
among other changes. Literature supports the importance of reflection to consolidate and adapt
to changing circumstances, an area that faculty at the Prism School can engage in through lead
instructor mentorship and consultation (Immordino-Yang, et al., 2012). Motivational influences
have also been examined to determine how they impact faculty ability to adapt to the changes,
willingness to integrate new information, and self-efficacy (Brownell, 2012; Clarke, et al., 1996).
Organizational factors that influence faculty adaptation to change were reviewed, including
managing naturally chaotic change processes and fighting organizational desires to move toward
equilibrium, a place where creativity is lacking (Burke, 2013; Pascale, et al., 2000). The
literature provided guidance on how to manage change overload in higher education settings,
including its impact on work productivity, employee wellbeing, and subsequent receptiveness to
new initiatives (Abrahamson, 2004; Austin, Ahearn, & English, 1997; Corley & Gioia, 2004;
Pascale, et al., 2000). In order to study these areas, the research design consisted of a mixed
methods approach that will be more fully developed in the next chapter.
TABLE 3.4: Summary of Sources about Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Issues

Causes

Sources Knowledge Motivation Organizational Processes
61

Learning
and
motivation
theory

(Factual and Conceptual)
Faculty need knowledge
of models of change and
on-campus writing and
psychological resources
in order to accurately
assess student responses
to the new programs and
curriculum and adapt
their interactions with
students accordingly.

(Procedural)
Faculty need knowledge
of how and when to seek
out appropriate
mentoring,
implementation support,
and curriculum guidance
from lead instructors to
implement the new
curriculum with fidelity.

(Metacognitive)
Faculty need knowledge
of the importance of
metacognitive processes,
including reflections,
sharing of best practices,
and exploration of new
approaches to teaching
and learning.

(Utility value)
Faculty need to
see the value in
adapting to
changing
circumstances.

(Attributions)
Faculty should
feel that the
changes in the
school are in the
best interest of
the student, the
program, and the
university as a
whole.

(Self-efficacy)
Faculty need to
feel that they are
competent in
implementing
the new
initiatives from
the school.

(Goal
orientation)
Faculty should
view these new
initiatives as
opportunities to
grow and
develop
professionally.

(Cultural Model Influence 1)
The school operates in constant
change, beginning new initiatives
before the previous changes have had
time to go through an improvement
cycle, before faculty have reached
mastery in the previous changes, and
before organizational knowledge can
be built that inculcates the previous
changes.

(Cultural Model Influence 2)
The dominant driving force in the
school is to be number one. Faculty
are pushed into new areas, but without
ample administrative support. Faculty
are being asked to add to their
workload, experience another learning
curve while absorbing new
knowledge, and implement at a rate
quicker than they can process the
change.

(Cultural Setting Influence 1)
The first cultural setting in the school
is the traditional, on-the-ground
campus climate that resists embracing
the six-year-old Prism Online Program
(POP). Rapid programmatic and
faculty growth on the POP has been
interpreted by ground faculty as an
indication of a lack of quality. This
feeling has led to resistance in
granting governance rights to POP
faculty, inadequate inclusion in faculty
meetings, and minimization of their
representation in faculty governance
committees.

(Cultural Setting Influence 2)
The second cultural setting is the POP.
The central conflict in the POP is
quantity versus quality: the school fell
in national rankings the year the POP
was implemented, enrollment is twice
the size of the ground program, and
concerns persist about the quality of
students entering the program.
62

Background
and review
of the
literature

Faculty are historically
resistant to change in part
due to a lack of
knowledge about change
processes, the information
needed to adapt to the
change, and the skills
required to succeed in a
new environment.

As organizations
change,
employees may
lose their sense
of organizational
identity, feel
disconnected at
work, and lose
sight of their job
performance
goals.

Constant change creates a stressful
environment for employees.
Employees experiencing overlapping
change efforts are more vulnerable to
a loss of work productivity than
employees who are not experiencing
this level of change. Long-term
employees often view new programs
with a skeptical eye, withholding
support until the new program has
proven itself.

63

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study will examine the impact of change overload, or constant change that runs the
risk of creating cynicism, burnout, and lost motivation, on faculty at an R1 institution. This
author hypothesizes that the presence of constant change in which new initiatives are introduced
before the previous ones have been successfully implemented, assessed, adjusted, and re-
implemented impacts overall work quality and productivity. At the Prism School, it appears that
new initiatives are being introduced too quickly for faculty to gain mastery of previous ones. In
this chapter, the author will present his research design and methods for data collection and
analysis, reviewing ethical considerations, and examining the limitations of the study.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to graphically or otherwise depict the primary
concepts, ideas, and variables to be studied and to show the relationship between them (Maxwell,
2013). Its role is to help this researcher in developing the design of his or her research, including
the projects’ goals, research questions, methods, and identification of potential threats to validity
(Maxwell, 2013). Earlier in this text, the author described independent variables impacting the
identified problems. In this section, these seemingly disparate concepts are presented both in
narrative and graphic form to illustrate their interconnectivity. Through the words and visuals,
readers will be able to understand the author’s developing theories on how to manage successful
organizational change in a higher education environment when faculty are experiencing change
overload. This study’s research questions are derived from the literature review and depicted in
the conceptual framework as areas of deficit for PS faculty during times of change: resources
64

needed, overcoming resistance to change, handling constant change, and existing in a split-
culture environment.
In this section, the author will demonstrate how Abrahamson’s (2004) concept of
repetitive change syndrome creates a chaotic environment for faculty at a R1 institution. The
concept is rooted in Abrahamson’s (2004) belief that too much change creates stress, anxiety,
and poor work performance. One way to address these challenges is through graduated change,
an approach advocated by Sastry’s (1997) call for seasons of change followed by periods of
stability. This approach allows gains to be consolidated before new change efforts are begun
(Sastry, 1997).
However, according to Pascale, et al., (2000), organizational leaders need to create
environments of constant change, despite the chaos that is likely to ensue. Pascale, et al., (2000)
write that organizational change leaders need to steer their organizations away from equilibrium
and in pursuit of constant change. They argue that the 21
st
century leader needs to help his or her
employees accept constant change and be agile in response to this emerging reality.
Reconstructing the expectations of faculty at the Prism School of Social Science to
expect constant change requires intentional efforts targeting specific areas. With a goal of
returning to a top ten ranking by the U.S. News and World Report, the school has implemented
overlapping initiatives in the form of new programs, new organizational structures, and new
curriculum. Research has shown that faculty experience uncertainty in times of change
regarding resources that support change efforts (Clarke, et al., 1996). Further, numerous authors
have explored reasons why faculty are resistant to change, particularly veteran faculty whose
research interests may not align with new initiatives or innovations (Tagg, 2012).
65

Organizational factors also influence organizational change efforts. An environment of
constant change at the Prism School impacts faculty members’ abilities to consolidate their
learning before embarking on the next top-down initiative. The existence of distinct cultures
between the brick-and-mortar campus and the Prism Online Program has created an atmosphere
where some faculty members associate change with a lack of quality. In order to create
successful change environments, leadership has to manage the KMO challenges facing faculty to
help the organization establish a new culture. The following framework illustrates the complex
interplay of factors that impact this process.
FIGURE 3.1 Conceptual Framework: Managing Successful Organizational Change

66

Figure 3.1 shows the complex interplay described in the first part of this section. The
framework emerges from the left of the diagram where change overload is shown as a chaotic
process of overlapping innovations impacting faculty. For the purposes of this study, only full-
time faculty were included, although part-time faculty number more than three times that of full-
time faculty. Because their experiences are different and are outside the boundaries of this study,
they are not included in the framework.
From this state of constant change, initiatives, innovations, growth, and politics further
force change overload into the school culture in ways that absorb faculty into the turbulence. As
the diagram moves to the right, faculty who are already experiencing change overload are then
impacted by knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that prevent them from
embracing change efforts. The intervention consists of the facilitating guidance of leaders and
managers within the organization whose influences help shape the vision and communication
patterns designed to create successful change environments.
The diagram also allows for change overload to co-exist with successful change
environments. Leaders and managers are significant figures in enabling the conditions for
successful change environments, which may include overlapping initiatives. This perspective
reflects the work of Burke (2013) and Pascale, et al., (2000) who theorized that an environment
of constant change prepares organizations to be able to pivot in the face of changing realities.
Taking a wider lens to view the conceptual framework, one can see how the goal of this
diagram is to create successful change environments while acknowledging that constant change
will continue to be present. It allows for both the existence of challenges associated with change
and the acceptance of the need for change. Through this conceptual framework, this author has
67

conceptualized an innovation study on the impact of organizational change while faculty are
experiencing change overload.
Participating Stakeholders
The full-time PS faculty are the stakeholder population that were the focus of this study.
Within the ranks of the faculty are four primary types: (1) tenure line/tenure track; (2) clinical
teaching; (3) clinical field; and (4) faculty in smaller but specific categories (research faculty,
senior lecturers, professors of practice, etc.). Although 68% of our faculty are part-time, this
study will focus on the full-time faculty in both the brick-and-mortar and the Prism Online
Program. Faculty exist in these two different environments, which should lead to increased
complexity of responses and experiences. In addition to the division by faculty type and
program type, faculty are also in one of four different departments: (1) Aging; (2) Family
Stakeholders; (3) Management; and (4) Medicine. With challenges of categorization already
present, the departmental separation and forced membership added another layer of complexity
in determining which faculty groups were selected for the interview portion of the study.
Examining more specific criteria, faculty who are in the tenure line/tenure track strata
have an increased sense of job security that may impact their responses. However, in changing
circumstances, they may feel that their traditional status as the most powerful faculty group in
any school unit is being threatened. Conversely, clinical faculty may see opportunities for
advancement in the changing dynamics of the new PS organizational structure. Research
supports the notion that veteran faculty are most likely to be resistant to change than new or
junior faculty, who are beginning to build their careers and are more adept at responding to new
structures (Tagg, 2012; Clarke, et al., 1996).
68

Part-time faculty were not be part of the study for several reasons: (1) they are a growing
number of part-time faculty, which could potentially skew the survey results as they represent
68% of the total number of faculty in the school; (2) due to the school’s online presence, more
than 40% of the adjunct faculty reside outside of the school’s geographic area within the state
and throughout all 50 states, adding a geographic element that could influence the responses; (3)
adjunct faculty consist of a range of instructors, from those who are teaching for the first time to
those who have taught for 20+ years in the school, so their feedback would be hard to categorize;
and (4) adjunct faculty may not experience the impact of change overload within the school as
many of them have other jobs or responsibilities, they are prevented from participating in faculty
governance or administration, and they are not expected to contribute in the service category of
the annual performance reviews.
Survey Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. The faculty of the Prism School are identified as the stakeholder group
because they are experiencing change overload while being expected to implement numerous
overlapping initiatives. The faculty represent four different groupings that this author
hypothesizes will respond in distinctive ways based on their faculty role.
Criterion 2. The faculty are also the identified decision-makers for the school, at least in
concept. The Prism School is often referred to as a “faculty-run” school based on the core
decision-making bodies (Course Council, Stakeholder Council, and Tenured Council) that
faculty chair and comprise as members. Although the organizational structure of the school
reflects this faculty empowerment, the culture reflects a centralized power source coming from
the Dean’s office.
69

Criterion 3. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements identified in a gap
analysis point to the faculty group as the one that potentially has the most influence in adapting
to the changing circumstances and ensuring a successful transition to new structures, curriculum,
and power relationships within the school.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy for the survey portion of this study was a randomized, probability
sample, both by individuals and by group (Fink, 2015). All full-time faculty members were
surveyed with the intention that the various groupings of faculty, as indicated above, are
represented. That would include the four primary groups of faculty, as well as the four
departments present in the school, while also ensuring representation from our brick-and-mortar
campus and POP faculty.
The study was sent to all full-time faculty members with a target response rate of 75%.
Although this estimate was high, this researcher believed that the perceived dissatisfaction with
the pace of change at the Prism School would influence faculty members’ interest in this survey.
This number of potential responses resulted in representation from the various faculty divisions,
as stated above, and captured responses generalizable to the school as a whole and to other
faculty units in other schools and universities. The survey was disseminated at the beginning of
the data collection cycle, and was followed up with key stakeholder interviews.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Faculty in a variety of leadership, service, and teaching positions in the
school were interviewed. Some of the faculty leaders helped guide the school during the
inaugural year of transition to the new organizational structure, including oversight of the
curriculum transformation process. Although the Medicine department is a newer department
70

and did not have to make the transition from one curriculum and organizational structure to new
ones, its leaders did have to create the department and all its courses, recruit faculty, build
infrastructure, and launch the first online medicine program integrated into a school of social
science. This researcher anticipated that faculty members’ collective acknowledgement of
change overload combined with their desire for faculty to be ready to embrace new rounds of
initiatives would result in high interest in interview participation. Another group of leaders that
were interviewed for this study were some of the lead instructors for the new curriculum. These
faculty members have operated at the grass roots level by engaging fellow faculty members in
the creation and implementation of syllabi marking different content to be delivered to the
school’s student body.
Criterion 2. Faculty who have been observed by this researcher to be outspoken in
opposition to proposed changes in faculty meetings were interviewed to provide an opportunity
for their views, which often reflect other silent faculty members, to be heard and considered as
part of this study. Those individuals have often seen themselves as defenders of best practices
and cultural norms (Schein, 2004) that have formed over years of work within the institution.
They saw the constant changes as evidence of the erosion of quality within the program instead
of innovative examples of increased organizational health.
Criterion 3. The third group was key administrators responsible for the vision,
construction, oversight, and management of the overlapping change initiatives that have marked
the Prism School specifically in the last three years. These individuals have been primarily
responsible for the 500% increase in budget size and the recent financial investments in the
school. This researcher had regular meetings with members of this group, so accessing their
perspectives on the school’s constant change was a difficulty easily overcome.
71

Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
For the interview portion of the study, non-probability sampling with an emphasis on
maximum variation was the primary method used to gain insights from key faculty members and
school administrators who were asked to participate in individual interviews. The rationale
behind the selection of the faculty members listed above was to access a representative sample of
faculty and administrators that were experiencing, implementing, and reacting to the changes in
the school. Interviewing faculty leadership provided a blend of responses reflecting successes
and challenges in creation, inclusion, implementation, and corrections. Including those faculty
members who were (and may remain) opposed to the changes provided voice for the concerns
about changing culture, loss of values, feelings of instability, erosion of quality, and loss of
power.
This portion of the study included 12 total individuals consisting of ten faculty members
and two administrators. As this researcher worked with most members of this group or had
meetings with them on a monthly basis, the recruitment consisted of asking them to participate in
the interview. They all responded positively and agreed to be interviewed. This number
represents approximately 9% of the overall faculty and administration numbers, while
representing a much larger percentage of key faculty decision-makers, and ensures a
representative subset of the overall faculty and administrative teams. The qualitative portion of
the study was completed after the survey’s data collection so that the at-large faculty responses
were included in the question protocol for the key stakeholder interviews.
Observation Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Faculty members engaging in in-person activities was observed. Those
activities included faculty meetings, governance meetings (councils previously identified), and
72

school-wide events such as end-of-semester celebrations, new faculty colloquiums, and
professional development presentations. The professional development presentations were
selected by faculty line so that all four primary full-time faculty groups were observed in this
activity.
Criterion 2. Faculty engaged in online interactions were observed. Typical online
interactions include faculty meetings, sub-committee meetings, governance meetings, group
project development, and live webinars for students. The webinars were selected based on
different purposes so that faculty presenting for admissions, curriculum, scholarships, welcome
events, and field education were observed.
Criterion 3. Administrators engaged in communication in public settings and with
faculty members through both in-person and online means were observed. Interactions where
administrators delivered messaging that encouraged and challenged faculty members were
observed. These interactions included governance meetings, faculty meetings, and leadership
meetings. In these meetings, interactions as described above occurred on both extremes.
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
This study described faculty and administrator interactions through existing observable
events, including faculty meetings, governance meetings, administrative meetings, celebration
events, new faculty and administrator orientations, and a mix of online and brick-and-mortar
settings. As an administrator in the Prism School, this researcher had access to all of these
interactions, so the issue of access was a non-issue. However, the type of participation for this
researcher was different.
The challenge for this researcher’s participation in these meetings was in clearly
delineating his role so that participants had informed consent regarding their participation in the
73

study (Glense, 2011). Administrative approval, a general notice of the study’s intent, and the use
of observation as a research method was sufficient to pass the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval. However, IRB did not require individual consent from all parties being observed. The
observations occurred concurrently to the other research methods, taking place across time while
both the survey and stakeholder interviews were occurring. Special attention was paid to the
timing within the academic semester and over the course of the year, as the summer time was
avoided due to a reduction in course offerings and faculty participation during this time period.
Data Analysis
For all four methods (survey, interviews, document review and observations) this
researcher used frequencies calculations. Survey results were tabulated to ascertain the mode for
every item and, for specified items with ranked answers, the mean. The percentage of full-time
faculty stakeholders who agreed or somewhat agreed with survey items were presented in
relation to those who disagreed or somewhat disagreed. Where applicable, means and standard
deviations were presented to identify average levels of responses. Descriptive statistical analysis
was conducted once all survey results were submitted.
For interviews, document review, and observations, data analysis began during data
collection. This researcher wrote analytic memos after each interview and each observation. He
documented any thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in relation to the
conceptual framework and research questions. Once he left the field environment, he transcribed
and coded the interviews.
In the first phase of analysis of the interviews and observations, this researcher used open
coding, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual framework.
A second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and a priori codes were aggregated
74

into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis, this researcher identified pattern
codes and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions.
Finally, he analyzed documents and artifacts for evidence consistent with the concepts in the
conceptual framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Credibility and trustworthiness are concepts of qualitative research that mirror similar
constructs of reliability and validity for quantitative research. Qualitative researchers are subject
to review by other researchers based on these two concepts. Credibility is the belief by others
that a researcher knows what he or she is doing and is directly proportional to the ability and
effort of the researcher (Golafshani, 2003). Credibility also refers to a qualitative study’s
findings when multiple data sources, including qualitative and quantitative, support them
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Multiple data sources that support a study’s findings meet the
definition of triangulation, a concept that increases the credibility of a research study by showing
that findings can be confirmed in a number of ways (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In the study, this researcher enhanced credibility and trustworthiness by ensuring that
each step in the research process was scrutinized for accuracy and lack of bias, from design to
submission for IRB approval, subject engagement, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of
findings, and presentation of results. Researcher bias occurs when researchers desire to see
results that support what their study is seeking to prove, which can lead to interpreting data,
events and actions in ways that support one’s hypothesis (Creswell, 2008). One way to mitigate
the impact of bias and other areas impacting the quality of the research is to utilize the concept of
reflexivity.
75

Reflexivity was used at each point in this process to help this researcher limit his bias and
over-identification with results that support his belief about the problem being studied.
Reflexivity is the act of self-reflection as practiced by qualitative researchers whose power
imbalance with their subjects often skews their perceptions of the data (Finlay, 2002). During
reflexive exercises, such as keeping a reflexive journal, researchers have the opportunity to
further examine their biases or misinterpretations in order to enhance credibility and
trustworthiness of their study (Finlay, 2002).
Trustworthiness is related to several concepts, including how much personal information
participants are willing to reveal to the researcher because they trust it to be treated
confidentially, stored correctly, and not disseminated to others in a personally identifiable way.
Trustworthiness, also known as being dependable and consistent, is difficult in qualitative studies
since the answers are often open-ended, the purpose is exploratory, and the focus is on bringing
new knowledge into consideration (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). In this study, this researcher
sought to free his processes from bias, to the extent possible, with support from IRB approval so
that the findings reflect dependability and consistency.
Other credibility and trustworthiness areas to be cognizant of are reactivity and
generalization. Reactivity describes the influence of the researcher in the study’s findings
(Maxwell, 2013). Although the researcher’s influence can never be fully eliminated, it is
important to understand the influence and utilize it appropriately (Maxwell, 2013). For this
researcher, his dissertation chair served as a check and balance on any undue influences that
potentially affected the study’s findings. Generalization can be challenging in qualitative
studies, primarily because the answers are not pre-defined. In qualitative research, the context is
different for every respondent, and the open-ended nature makes it hard to accurately categorize
76

the responses in a coherent and cleanly divided fashion (Maxwell, 2013). This researcher
conducted data analysis with awareness of generalization, and did not attempt to over-interpret
findings to deduce more meaning from the study than what was actually revealed. He did this by
posing questions that were specific to the participants’ experiences (Maxwell, 2013), vetting key
findings with his chair, and using the literature review to determine the accuracy of his findings.
Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of the survey items in this study measured knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences regarding change overload experienced by faculty in a
school within an R1 institution. This study’s findings will increase in perceived value and
importance by the social science community if validity and reliability of the quantitative aspects
of the study are sound.
Validity refers to whether or not a survey measures what it is designed to measure
(Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). It consists of the quality of each step in the design process, from
informed consent procedures to random sampling to control and experimental group
comparisons. It involves all aspects of survey creation, IRB approval, informed consent
notification, ensured anonymity of the respondents, return rate, and survey completion rate. For
this study, the survey questions were created using existing valid measures as a guide. The
questions were also assessed based on guidelines for creating quality questions. Areas to
emphasize included making questions meaningful, using standard language, emphasizing clarity,
determining the balance of open-ended versus closed-ended questions, minimizing lengthy
questions, avoiding abbreviations and jargon, and attempting to mitigate the impact of hidden
biases (Fink, 2015).
77

In order to disseminate this survey at the Prism School, this researcher received approval
from the Dean of the school. Although this process of gaining administrative approval could
have impacted the validity of the survey, the survey process was approved, in part, because it
reflects the Dean’s views and desires to prepare faculty for more change. When the final survey
was presented to the Dean, she did not suggest any edits to the document, stating that she
supported the work and did not want to hinder the research. She also referred this researcher to
the Associate Dean of Research for final approval. Therefore, this researcher did not engage in
negotiations involving the Dean and his dissertation chair to determine the final survey items.
Several full-time faculty at the Prism School who agreed to be interviewed had questions
about the confidentiality of their responses, as this subject was a sensitive one. The research
team carefully explained and promoted confidentiality and, where possible, the anonymity of the
responses to the survey with the assurance that the results would not negatively impact their
position in the organization as a result of their individual responses. By clearly explaining the
survey safeguards regarding anonymity of the participants, this researcher helped faculty gain
confidence that the outcomes would not be used by current administration in any harmful way
against them. It was the research team’s intent that all faculty would feel a sense of confidence
in responding with accuracy to the questions. Another way to accomplish this goal was to ensure
that questions allowed respondents to select a range of responses between negative or positive
impact regarding the school’s desire for constant innovation. In these ways, efforts were made to
ensure confidence in the survey dissemination and administration.
The survey questions were validated against an independent but related criterion (Kurpius
& Stafford, 2006). This study proposed that the validity of the survey results be compared
against interview results in the qualitative portion of the study, employee attrition or stability in
78

work units, and dissatisfaction with the school’s direction as indicated in independent university-
run employee satisfaction surveys. It was expected that survey findings indicating a negative
impact of change overload should correspond to interview results that mirror the same
perception, higher attrition or intent on leaving the work unit, and lower employee satisfaction
scores. This researcher presented the final questions in the survey to his dissertation committee,
but only after thoroughly reviewing their validity in relation to the items mentioned above.
Reliability refers to the likelihood that the survey results are accurate, trustworthy and
repeatable (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). In other words, the survey questions should yield similar
responses across contexts and when duplicated by other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
For this study, this researcher will increase the likelihood of reliability by creating processes that
ensure respondent anonymity in survey answers and confidentiality in interview responses.
Given this researcher’s administrative position within the organization, this anonymity and
confidentiality was essential to gather data as unbiased as possible. The survey questions were
vetted by this researcher’s dissertation committee to remove as much bias as possible regarding
findings that support this researcher’s lived experience. In these ways, protecting anonymity,
ensuring confidentiality, and having third parties vet the survey questions, reliability was
increased in this single-study design.
One concern in quantitative studies is the bias that occurs with non-responses to surveys,
in general, and to specific questions within surveys. For the former, follow-up emails were sent
encouraging participation, and early results that were skewed to one particular response group
led to specific communication to other groups requesting participation. For example, responses
from faculty in one of the departments were lower than those of other departments. At the mid-
79

point of the survey window, this researcher emailed faculty in the identified department
requesting more participation.
For the latter, the survey was constructed online and each question had an option of not
choosing a response. Because the answers were Likert scale responses, participants had the
ability to choose from a range of answers that more accurately reflected their opinions. It is
believed that this range of responses limited the number of non-responses to each individual
survey item. In these ways, validity and reliability were addressed during the quantitative
portion of this study.
Ethics
This researcher is obligated to uphold the safety of and the confidentiality of information
provided by human subject participants in this study. He treated each participant with respect
and kept all promises made during the course of the study (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). No individual
was harmed by the study, which was implemented with fidelity to the IRB application. To
ensure that participants entered the study on a voluntary basis and with full understanding of the
study’s purpose and goals, a detailed informed consent section on page two of the online survey
was sent to all full-time faculty members at the Prism School.
For the 12 individual interviewees, participants received a detailed informed consent
document with the same language used in the electronic form to confirm their participation. This
researcher took special consideration to ensure that the responses were spontaneous and not pre-
planned by providing the questions at the time of the interview. The transcriptions were sent to
each participant after the interview with a request for them to highlight any section they felt was
too personal and, therefore, would not want it to be included in the final document. This
phenomenon is known to occur in interviews where participants express repressed feelings or
80

show negative emotions that could impact perceptions of their job performance, if revealed
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It was also important to ensure privacy for these participants, as this
is often a primary concern for interviewees engaging in a study that involves their work place
(Glesne, 2011). Privacy measures included meeting in online classrooms in faculty offices with
doors closed, keeping names of faculty members’ appointments off this researcher’s Outlook
calendar, and placing signs on the office doors stating “Do Not Disturb” because an online class
session or meeting was in progress. Interviewees were informed that they would not face any
recriminations for their willingness or unwillingness to fully participate in the interviews
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Whether taking the online survey or appearing in a virtual classroom or in-person for the
interviews, all participants were reminded that their participation was strictly voluntary and that
there was no penalty for choosing not to participate. The confidentiality of the data was insured
to the extent possible, given that much of the interactions with most of the participants were
online or in-person. Recordings of all individual interviews and/or other interactions between
this researcher and participants were done only after consent was obtained from the interviewee
or participant. Because participants often forgot that they were being recorded during
interviews, this researcher reminded the interviewees during the interview that they were being
recorded (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). During one interview, the participant asked for the recording
to be stopped in order to talk off-record. After reviewing how this important information could
be said without revealing her identity, this researcher started recording again as the faculty
member spoke on record. Recordings and survey results were kept under double-lock until the
study was concluded and the results published.
As an administrator and faculty member for the Prism School, the principal researcher
81

was aware that his relationship to the school may have influenced his development of the survey,
the creation of interview questions, and the answers from participants who work with him. This
researcher has a personal interest in the outcomes of this study, so his own biases were checked
through a review of the survey and interview questions by his dissertation chair and committee.
Despite these precautions, his name was connected to the study by some participants.
Because he was a supervisor, it is possible that those whom he supervised may not have felt safe
in divulging their true feelings about the organization, despite the assurance of anonymity and
confidentiality. Four things were communicated with potential participants to mitigate the
impact through email and in-person communication for both the study and the interviews: 1) a
study will be forthcoming; 2) all information will be held in confidence to the degree possible; 3)
all participants should answer honestly to the questions posed; and 4) all results will be used to
improve processes in the school and will not be linked back to any participant. The information
distributed to the participants via email reinforced this message and informed them that all
participation is voluntary and that there are no consequences for not participating.
The principal researcher did have assumptions about the rate of change within the Prism
School. In order to counter those assumptions, he used researcher memos to note beliefs about
the school as well as sought guidance from his dissertation advisor and committee members
regarding communication templates that were used for the study. He sought support from his
supervisor, who oversees a percentage of the faculty. Her assistance helped ensure that the
communication did not carry any overt bias. Because he understood that how people perceive
his trustworthiness had a direct impact on their views of the study’s integrity (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), he was open about the study’s intent and purpose to any individual who asked.
During data analyses, this researcher pledged to utilize bias-free analysis through systems
82

designed to interpret data without bias. Dissemination of the results will also be made in a
thorough and transparent fashion so that all information is presented that relates to the subject of
the study. By taking the precautions listed above and setting up processes that limit the inherent
bias of this researcher, the opportunities for study outcomes that truly reflect the subject area
studied were greatly increased.
Limitations and Delimitations
One limitation was the inability to verify the truthfulness of the survey responses.
Although some response bias was anticipated, this researcher intended to create valid, non-
leading questions, avoid the use of politically charged terminology, and vary the way questions
were asked throughout the surveys and interviews. In these ways, the general truthfulness of the
responses created a realistic picture of the study’s intended outcomes. Another limitation was
the non-response rates from full-time faculty who chose not to fully participate in the survey.
This absence meant that key perspectives were missing, perhaps from specific sub-groups or
from those who believe their perspective did not matter anyway. This latter group might believe
that no matter how they responded, the culture of constant change would not be impacted.
Another limitation was the lack of comparison groups to more accurately assess the
impact of change overload on the Prism School faculty. At the core of this limitation was the
approach used in this dissertation, which is an innovation model. An Innovation Model
dissertation is conducted when it is not absolutely evident that a problem exists and research that
the problem is wide-spread is lacking. In this dissertation, the innovation model approach
determined the extent of the problem of change overload, gave perspective on why the faculty
attrition rate was low at the school, and examined faculty readiness for continued innovation,
which the Dean has already said will continue to happen under her leadership.
83

Another limitation was the role that this researcher played within the organization. He
was an administrator who interacted regularly with the school leaders, middle managers, and
faculty. His role could have influenced responses to the survey and the interviews if proper
safeguards were not taken to minimize his influence (see Ethics section for more details on this
plan). A limitation existed because the Dean of the Prism School reviewed the survey prior to its
dissemination. She asked that the survey be presented not as a dissertation survey, but as a
management approach to prepare the way for continued innovation. This researcher met with
her and gained permission to survey the faculty and conduct individual interviews, but he was
also directed to the school’s Research Council for a final determination. She said she was
interested in getting an organizational assessment of her school in the midst of the constant
change environment that she had created. She stated that she believed this survey might help
faculty prepare for several new programs that may be introduced in the coming years. This
limitation had the potential to influence how much freedom this researcher had to create his own
survey questions more aligned with the study’s intent.
Delimiting choices for this study include focusing on full-time faculty instead of all
faculty (number would increase by three-fold), the inclusion of those in opposition to the
school’s change efforts, the use of a mixed methods (survey, interview, observation and
document review) approach, and the involvement of multiple faculty lines (tenured, clinical
teaching, etc.). Utilizing online survey technology provides all targeted faculty access to the
survey, so there are no limitations in terms of access. This researcher tracked responses to the
survey from the different faculty lines, as well as from each of the four departments, and sent
specific reminders to groups that were under-responding. Through the acknowledgement of the
84

limitations inherent in the study as well as the efforts at delimiting, this researcher believes that
the outcomes will more accurately reflect the study’s intentions.

85

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources for faculty experiencing organizational change
perceived as necessary to reach the PS’s organizational performance goal of becoming an
industry leader amongst schools of social science in the United States. Evidence of this goal will
be a return to a top 10 ranking by 2018 as determined by U.S. News and World Report’s annual
rankings. As described earlier, organizational change is needed to keep higher education
institutions competitive against shifting landscapes with increased opportunities for potential
students. Successful leaders in higher education settings need to balance the implementation of
new initiatives with faculty capacity for change in order to sustain faculty productivity and
increase student outcomes.
The analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and then moved to examining
these systematically to focus on validated needs. Those needs included focusing on helping
faculty manage the implementation of new initiatives in ways that prevented change overload or
the accumulation of fatigue and burnout caused by the simultaneous implementation of multiple
initiatives. While a complete needs analysis could have focused on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes, full-time faculty were chosen as the targeted stakeholder group.
Project Questions
The questions that guided this study were the following:
Research Question (RQ) 1: What knowledge about change overload, higher education
innovations, and specific school or department initiatives do full-time faculty members in a
school at a R1 university need in order to support continued growth opportunities (i.e., adopt a
86

new organizational structure, create and embrace a re-envisioned curriculum, and endorse new
program initiatives)?
RQ2: What motivational elements do full-time faculty experiencing school or
department-level change overload at a R1 university need to support continued growth
opportunities?
RQ3: What organizational factors create successful change environments for full-time
faculty in a school at a R1 university experiencing change overload?
Data collection efforts for this project included the following:
o A 58-question survey (see Appendix A) on the pace of change at the Prism School
that included 46 closed-ended questions, eight demographic questions, and four
open-ended questions.
o Interviews with 12 voluntary full-time faculty members using a 12-question
protocol (see Appendix B) with follow-up questions, as determined by this
researcher.
o Document review of student evaluations of PS faculty and courses for the 2015-
2017 academic semesters for both ground and online programs.
o Observation of an interview with the Dean of the PS regarding organizational
change and innovation.
Using these four mixed methods, this researcher gathered information relevant to
answering the research questions posed for this study. The following chapter examines the data
results gathered and the subsequent findings.

87

Participating Stakeholders
There are more than 100 full-time faculty members at the Prism School of Social Science
as of this writing (spring, 2018). For this study, 76 faculty members participated in the data
collection, as follows.
For the survey instrument, participants started 72 surveys and completed 62 for a
completion rate of 38.75% compared to the total number of full-time faculty. The demographics
of the full-time faculty participants are listed in the following tables:
TABLE 4.1: Full-time Faculty Line

TABLE 4.2: Primary Role or Responsibility

The 14 faculty who indicated “Other” included 11 who listed the following categories:
a) Research and teaching (four entries);
b) Research (one entry);
Clinical field 33.85% 22
Clinical teaching 24.62% 16
Research 6.15% 4
Practice 4.62% 3
Senior lecturer 13.85% 9
Tenure or tenure track 16.92% 11
Total 100% 65
Administration 4.76% 3
Teaching 41.27% 26
Teaching &
administration
31.75% 20
Other: 22.22% 14
Total 100% 63
88

c) Scholarship and teaching (one entry);
d) Lead instructor (one entry);
e) Research and administration (one entry);
f) Research, leadership, and administration (one entry);
g) Clinical practice/teaching (one entry); and
h) Research, scholarship, administration, and teaching (one entry).
TABLE 4.3: Primary Program Affiliation
Ground/campus-based program (includes
MSS & PhD)
53.13% 34
Prism Online Program (POP, including
MSS, MED & DSS)
46.88% 30
Total 100% 64

TABLE 4.4: Gender

TABLE 4.5: Age
25-34 years' old 1.59% 1
35-44 years' old 28.57% 18
45-54 years' old 38.10% 24
55-64 years' old 19.05% 12
65+ years' old 12.70% 8
Total 100% 63

Female 66.15% 43
Male 30.77% 20
Transgender 0.00% 0
Other: 0.00% 0
Prefer not to disclose 3.08% 2
Total 100% 65
89

TABLE 4.6: Ethnicity
African-American or Black 14.06% 9
Asian-American 6.25% 4
Caucasian or White 56.25% 36
Latino or Hispanic 9.38% 6
Pacific Islander 0.00% 0
Bi-racial or multi-racial 3.13% 2
Other: 4.69% 3
Prefer not to disclose 6.25% 4
Total 100% 64

The three faculty who indicated “Other” included one who entered “Filipina-American.”
TABLE 4.7: Years of Service
1-5 years 46.77% 29
6-10 years 40.32% 25
11-15 years 6.45% 4
16-20 years 3.23% 2
21+ years 3.23% 2
Total 100% 62

TABLE 4.8: Department
Aging 17.19% 11
Family Stakeholders 26.56% 17
Medicine 6.25% 4
Management 50.00% 32
Total 100% 64

90

For the interview portion of the study, 12 volunteer full-time faculty members
participated. The 12 faculty members answered all 12 questions as well as follow-ups, as
determined by this researcher. The demographic profile of the 12 voluntary interviewees in their
interview order is depicted in Table 4.9 below:
TABLE 4.9: Interview Demographics
Faculty Line
Teach/
Administration
POP/
OTG Gender Age Ethnicity
Years
of
Service Dept.
Tenure T/A OTG M 56-65 White
16 to
20 FS
Clinical
Field T OTG F 46-55 Latina 21+ AG
Clinical
Field A OTG F 56-65
Asian-
American
11 to
15 FS
Clinical
Field T/A OTG M 36-45 Latino 6 to 10 FS
Clinical
Teaching T OTG F 36-45
Asian-
American
11 to
15 MGMT
Tenure T/A POP F 65+ White 1 to 5 MED
Tenure T/A OTG F 46-55 White
11 to
15 AG
Clinical
Teaching T POP F 46-55 White 6 to 10 MGMT
Clinical
Teaching T POP F 26-35 White 1 to 5 MED
Senior
Lecturer T OTG F 65+
African-
American
11 to
15 MGMT
Tenure T/A OTG F 46-55 White
16 to
20 MGMT
Clinical
Teaching T POP M 36-45
African-
American 1 to 5 FS
(Some data intentionally blacked out for confidentiality purposes)
For the document review, one full-time faculty member assisted in obtaining the school-
wide student evaluations for the 2015-17 academic semesters and reviewed the results for
accuracy. For the observation portion, this researcher observed the PS Dean in an interview
during a local innovation conference.
91

Results and Findings
Knowledge Results
Quantitative Results. Full-time PS faculty received the study survey on Jan. 30, 2018
with a deadline of Feb. 19, 2018 to complete it. Survey questions were derived from reviews of
organizational change surveys, including change readiness surveys, and literature on
organizational change. Questions were divided between three primary categories with three sub-
categories in each larger category. The three larger categories were: 1). Change Culture; 2).
Change Impact; and 3). Change Readiness. Within each category, the sub-categories were
labeled: a). Organizational Culture; b). Leadership; and c). Full-time Faculty. This researcher
prepared the survey in this manner to create a natural progression for the participant from
examining the PS’s culture to the impact of change on that culture to the organization’s readiness
for change. In an effort to construct a survey that engaged the participant, this researcher created
questions utilizing multiple formats, both positively and negatively phrased prompts, and open
and closed-ended questions.
The survey contained specific questions throughout related to knowledge, motivation,
and organizational factors. This researcher further divided the questions into those related to one
of the three knowledge categories: declarative, including factual and conceptual; procedural; and
metacognitive. The knowledge research question asked what elements full-time faculty needed
to know in order to support continued growth opportunities. The survey results provided
information on faculty perceptions of their levels of knowledge pertaining to change initiatives.
These results will be described in more detail after Table 4.10 below. During analysis, this
researcher organized responses according to the KMO elements and presents the knowledge
results here.
92

TABLE 4.10: Knowledge Influences, Survey Results
Knowledge Influences, Survey Results
Q14. I understand the purpose of
School changes.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Knowledge Type: 26 26 8 3 0 63
Conceptual 41% 41% 13% 5% 0% 100%
Q16. I lack the knowledge needed
to successfully implement new
change initiatives.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Knowledge Type: 3 13 15 17 15 63
Procedural 5% 21% 24% 27% 24% 100%
Q18. I am able to implement the
new curriculum with fidelity to its
design.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Knowledge Type: 17 32 8 2 3 62
Procedural 27% 52% 13% 3% 5% 100%
Q28. I have opportunities to
obtain the knowledge necessary to
make change work.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Knowledge Type: 12 33 7 9 2 63
Conceptual 19% 52% 11% 14% 3% 100%
Q40. The organization usually
provides training to help
employees adapt to new changes.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Knowledge Type: 6 16 15 15 10 62
Factual & Procedural 10% 26% 24% 24% 16% 100%
Q42. I lack the knowledge
required to successfully manage
organizational changes.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Knowledge Type: 1 8 10 13 30 62
Procedural 2% 13% 16% 21% 48% 100%

The survey results in the area of knowledge are listed in Table 4.10. Two of the six
knowledge questions were asked from a negative perspective (lack of knowledge) while the
other four were written from a positive perspective (knowledge exists). Adjusting the two
negatively worded questions to the same scale as the others, the knowledge issue came into clear
perspective. Faculty responded to four of the six questions with “Agree” or “Somewhat agree”
93

ranging from 69% to 81%. Those areas included knowledge regarding the purpose of school
changes, implementing the new curriculum with confidence, obtaining knowledge to make
change work, and managing change. These results showed a generally positive outlook on the
knowledge that faculty members currently possess in order to function successfully during
implementation of new change initiatives.
However, there were responses to two questions that revealed deficits. Regarding the
procedural knowledge needed to successfully implement change initiatives, only 51% of faculty
felt that they had enough of this type of knowledge. This lack of confidence presented
a challenge for faculty members existing in a constant change environment. However, the real
knowledge deficit identified in this section was the lack of factual and procedural knowledge that
could be gained by training faculty to adapt to new change initiatives. For the question on
whether or not they had received sufficient training, 40% indicated “Somewhat disagree” or
“Disagree” compared to 36% “Agree” or “Somewhat agree.” Another 24% indicated “Neither
agree nor disagree.” Based on this section, a lack of training combined with reduced confidence
to implement and adapt to organizational change appeared to be deficits for PS faculty involved
in change efforts.
Qualitative Results: Interviews. In addition to the survey results described above, this
researcher conducted interviews as part of the mixed methods approach and categorized the
relevant questions and responses by knowledge type as well. Those results are presented in the
following section.
TABLE 4.11: Knowledge Influences, Interview Results
Knowledge Influences, Interview Results
Interview Questions Knowledge Type Codes
94

Q8. As one involved in our
School’s large-scale curriculum
change, talk about your comfort
level in implementing the new
curriculum as it was originally
designed.
Procedural
Expert faculty created syllabi, willingly
volunteered to change 85% of curriculum;
Aggressive deadlines for new syllabi led to
lack of quality, but faculty were "saving
grace";
Implementation was difficult as new materials
were developed last minute;
Interconnected quality of curriculum lost in
speed to develop, not feasible given timeline.
Q9. How do you view your own
growth and development in
relation to implementing change
initiatives?
Metacognitive
Some faculty grew, some detached;
Leadership skills built as departments grew;
Others lost career path, became disillusioned.
Q10. What area would you
identify as a gap for our faculty
in their efforts to implement
change initiatives: knowledge,
motivation, or organizational
factors?
Conceptual
Multiple deficits in change process;
Change overload impacting motivation;
Size of faculty and organization prevents
knowledge sharing;
Organization factors such as lack of resources
and administrative support influence change
fatigue.
Follow-up Q: Talk about the
impact on individuals who were
deeply impacted by the changes.
Metacognitive
Organizational and individual resilience have
to be considered.
Follow-up Q: Is new faculty
struggles due to change overload
or learning to teach on the
online platform, or some other
element?
Procedural
Learning online platform contributes to change
overload for new faculty.

The interviews with faculty included a number of questions connected to gaps in
knowledge that were conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive in nature. A conceptual
knowledge gap occurred as faculty took on new roles, departments separated colleagues into
siloes, and information sharing became constricted. This lack of connection across the
expanding number of faculty resulted in uncertainty about the extent of their colleagues’ work
and interests. Regarding the implementation of the new curriculum, the majority of interviewees
indicated that the deadlines for completion of syllabi and assignment guidelines were extremely
restrictive, leading to challenges for instructors teaching new multi-section core courses.
95

Instructors lacked procedural knowledge to implement the new curriculum as instructional
materials often were sent a few days before the class unit was to be taught, leading to unprepared
faculty and frustrated students.
Two areas with gaps in metacognitive knowledge concerned the impact on individual
faculty members’ growth, development and resilience. Working in a constant change
environment where innovations in higher education social science training are continuous, many
of the faculty members interviewed stated that they had grown in knowledge in innovation,
leadership, business acumen, and responding to the rapid pace of change. They reflected on their
emerging confidence as a product of having been pushed into change efforts, “jumping right in
with two feet,” and “building the plane as you are flying it.”
The final area of metacognitive knowledge gap concerned the lack of understanding at
the leadership level of the limits of individual and organizational resilience. While many faculty
members made it through the intense changes seemingly intact, several interviewees reflected on
the need to detach from the changes to preserve their own resilience. They commented that the
organization had shown resilience in surviving and thriving through the changes, but that they
could not sustain the pace after being undermined by leadership in various endeavors.
Administration’s lack of knowledge of the limits of resilience may have had an influence in the
non-stop change initiatives.
Qualitative Results: Document Review. The document review examined student
course and faculty evaluations during the time period of greatest change at PS that is being
studied here. The results of that data analysis are presented as evidence that student perceptions
of the quality of their experiences varied significantly in comparison to average ratings for the
old curriculum that was still being delivered in the fall, 2015 semester to incoming and
96

continuing part-time students. The percentage of students taking courses in the old curriculum
were reduced by approximately 25% each subsequent semester so that by fall, 2017, more than
90% of the students in the PS were engaged in the new curriculum. A small percentage of
students continued to take courses in the old curriculum as the online program delayed
implementation for one year after the ground program. This concurrent delivery of two different
curricula provided an opportunity to examine side-by-side student experiences as faculty taught
new courses filled with new material. The results of this data analysis are presented below.
FIGURE 4.1: Fall, 2015 Cohort Evaluations of New Courses, 2015-17

FIGURE 4.2: Fall, 2015 Cohort Evaluations of Faculty, 2015-17

4.52
4.55
4.50
4.54
4.36
4.44
4.16
4.38
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Fall15 Spg16 Fall16 Spg17
Fall, 2015 Cohort: 1st to Experience New Curriculum
(Instructors)
FAColdCURR FACnewCURR
4.31
4.36
4.29
4.32
3.93
4.02
3.76
3.99
3.50
3.70
3.90
4.10
4.30
4.50
Fall15 Spg16 Fall16 Spg17
Fall, 2015 Cohort: 1st to Experience New Curriculum
(Courses)
CRSoldCURR CRSnewCURR
97

Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 depict student evaluations from the first fall, 2015 cohort that
received the first versions of all four semester courses and compares them to the average ratings
of old curriculum courses. By comparison, these graphs provide an example of how students in
the first cohort experienced the change in the PS that was at its height in fall, 2015. Gaps
between course ratings ranged from .33 to .53 while differences in instructor ratings ranged from
.11 to .34. On a five-point scale, that translates to a 7-11% reduction in perceived quality of
courses and a 2-7% reduction in perceived quality of instructors compared to the old curriculum
courses and instructors. These results seem to be supported by Abrahamson’s (2004) theory on
repetitive change syndrome that too much change creates stress, anxiety, and poor work
performance.
Environmental influences, in addition to the newness of the curriculum, could have
contributed to these scores as well. For example, part-time students were forced to transition to
the new curriculum even though their catalog of record described the old curriculum. In the
process, they had to petition to get credit for classes they had already taken in the old curriculum.
Also, incoming students for fall, 2015 were initially recruited with sales pitches describing the
old curriculum. Since the new curriculum was not adopted officially until mid-spring, 2015,
those students may have perceived that they were the subject of experimentation. The majority
of faculty at the PS taught new courses and received material late, sometimes in the hours before
class units began, thus impacting their feelings of competence and their procedural knowledge
gaps. During times of intense organizational change, the stability of an organization can be
affected, potentially leading to dissatisfaction amongst stakeholders (Corley & Gioia, 2004).
While it is likely that those and other environmental factors contributed to the evaluation
results, the difference in ratings may mean that students perceived that they were receiving an
98

inferior product. Although 79% of survey respondents indicated “Agree” or “Somewhat agree”
when asked about their confidence in implementing the new curriculum with fidelity to its
original design, several interviewees noted that students often felt like “guinea pigs” when new
change was rolled out in the PS. They called for more thoughtful planning so that key
stakeholders, such as the first cohorts of students impacted by change, received the full benefit of
their educational experience.
FIGURE 4.3: Student Evaluations, Courses: Old vs. New Curriculum, 2015-17

FIGURE 4.4: Student Evaluations, Faculty, Old vs. New Curriculum, 2015-17

FIGURE 4.5: Student Evaluations, Faculty, Old vs. New Core Curriculum, 2015-17

4.50
4.52
4.53
4.51
4.63
4.45 4.36
4.42
4.34
4.39
4.59
4.50
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
Fall15 Spg16 Fall16 Spg17 Sum17 Fall17
Student Ratings, Faculty: Old vs. New Core Curriculum
OldCCFac NewccFac
4.31
4.36
4.29
4.32
4.40
4.34
3.93
4.05
3.87
4.15
4.32
4.24
3.50
4.00
4.50
Fall15 Spg16 Fall16 Spg17 Sum17 Fall17
Student Ratings, Courses: Old vs. New Curriculum
OldcurrCrs NewcurrCrs
4.52
4.55
4.50
4.54
4.58
4.55
4.36
4.44
4.36
4.44
4.54
4.53
4.20
4.30
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
Fall15 Spg16 Fall16 Spg17 Sum17 Fall17
Student Ratings, Faculty: Old vs. New Curriculum
OldcurrFac NewcurrFac
99

FIGURE 4.6: Student Evaluations, Faculty, Old vs. New Core Curriculum, 2015-17

The graphs in Figures 4.3 – 4.6 show how students evaluated the new curriculum and the
faculty who taught those courses compared to the old curriculum and the faculty who taught
those courses. The evidence shows that students perceived that new courses were not at the level
that the old curriculum courses were, despite the fact that the students completing the evaluations
had never taken an old curriculum course. Faculty ratings were lower, but not significantly so,
especially when viewed from a larger perspective in which faculty ratings are normally a few
decimal points above course ratings on a five-point Likert scale.
The graphs also depict how over time, the ratings of the new courses and the faculty
teaching them improved to be nearly equal to or, in one case, better than the ratings of the old
curriculum courses and faculty. During this time, the same faculty members were teaching both
new and old curriculum, so any difference in faculty ratings should be seen as directly relating to
student perceptions of the courses, the newness of the material for faculty, and the environmental
factors described above. Interpreting the graphs, one could argue that faculty ratings increased
over time as a result of improvement in both the content of the courses (many were adjusted after
the first offering) and the andragogical delivery of the material as faculty became more familiar
with the course design. Either way, the results show parity between the student ratings in spring,
4.23
4.26
4.31 4.31
4.41
4.23
3.93
4.00
3.85
4.02
4.34
4.19
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
Fall15 Spg16 Fall16 Spg17 Sum17 Fall17
Student Ratings, Core Courses: Old vs. New Curriculum
OldCCCrs NewccCrs
100

2017, which led one interviewee to remark that “all’s well that ends well” and “the end justifies
the means.”
The following section explores the findings and themes of this study through the filter of
the three research questions. Under each KMO findings section, the research question will be
stated, followed by themes that have been identified in each KMO category. For the Knowledge
Findings section, three themes were identified and discussed: 1) training; 2) implementing new
curriculum; and 3) understanding the duality of faculty existence in the school structure. For the
Motivation Findings section, two themes were identified and discussed: 1) improving workplace
environments and 2) organizational distrust. For the Organizational Findings, as expected, the
largest group of five themes were identified and discussed: 1) how change happens, including
better leadership guidance; 2) leading the field; 3) lack of resources and support to lead change;
4) faculty engagement in creating change and in talking about change; 5) and individual versus
group readiness for change. Each research question connected to these themes, which provided
insight into how to manage successful change environments with higher education faculty,
particularly when experiencing overload.
Knowledge Findings
This project’s knowledge research question is: What knowledge about change overload,
higher education innovations, and specific school or department initiatives do full-time faculty
members in a school at a R1 university need in order to support continued growth opportunities
(i.e., adopt a new organizational structure, create and embrace a re-envisioned curriculum, and
endorse new program initiatives)? The answer to this question is complex, but in essence,
faculty felt they needed to be trained better in new change initiatives, needed sufficient
preparation time and support to be able to effectively teach new material, and needed to better
101

understand the balance between the excitement of innovation and the physical realities of
constant change.
Knowledge Theme 1. Drawing from both the quantitative and qualitative processes,
faculty did not feel adequately trained to adapt to new changes. One faculty member commented
that “any given day, there are 10 balls up in the air, another one gets thrown into it, and you have
to figure out how to stop the balls from hitting the ground.” This analogy illustrates the
difficulty many faculty expressed in gaining full knowledge of current tasks and projects, and
then adding in new change initiatives. An overwhelming majority of faculty indicated in the
survey that they work more than 40 hours a week and often on weekends to complete current
assignments and tasks associated with new change initiatives.
A triangulation of the data makes it clear that faculty desire training delivered by
leadership on new change initiatives. The idea of training also connected with several faculty
members’ desire for changes to be evaluated before progressing or adopting new initiatives. By
not using a data-driven decision-making process to assess the outcomes of change initiatives,
administrators have limited faculty understanding of the reasons for change.
Knowledge Theme 2. When tasked to implement the PS’s new curriculum, faculty
members struggled with insufficient prep time, knowledge of resources for the course, and
access to presentation materials for students. They came to class often without full
understanding of the direction of the courses, the material they were lecturing or leading
discussions on, and the interconnectivity that the course should have had with other courses. A
faculty member described his feeling that “everything was done on the fly.” One example shared
by a faculty member concerned a specific training program designed to be implemented across
several different courses and semesters. The challenges of implementation with so many moving
102

parts “left a bad taste in my mouth,” according to the faculty member. In addition, faculty
teaching this program came from three different lines (tenure, clinical teaching, and clinical
field). A faculty member commented on the hierarchy that exists in the school as influencing the
implementation design. He described the process as a combination of “…excitement, a little bit
of confidence, but also a little bit of anxiety.” Two years later, issues of implementation,
knowledge, and integration of this evidence-based intervention still existed in the new
curriculum, according to several interviewees. Another faculty member acknowledged the
challenges of creating and implementing a new curriculum, but also focused on the excitement of
expanding her expertise. “It is one of the great privileges in academia that you can grow and
evolve with the knowledge base. It is one of the things that is exciting about being in academia.”
Knowledge Theme 3. A majority of faculty were “of two minds” when describing their
experiences in the PS’s constant change environment. From a knowledge perspective, they were
excited about learning, managing and implementing new change initiatives, expanding their
knowledge base, and understanding their organization and its resilience better. Some faculty
sensed an increased level of importance for their faculty line in the new school department
structure, while others were more accepting of the status quo. One faculty member described the
excitement of working at the PS. “For me, personally, it has been an incredible environment in
which to cultivate my research and scholarship. And I think we are all very, very fortunate to
benefit from the economic success of the school.” At the same time, they felt overwhelmed by
the number of new initiatives, unable to possess sufficient knowledge in any one area, and burnt
out, cynical, and willing to detach from the organization to preserve individual resilience. One
faculty member summarized it this way: “I still can feel that sense of competence, yet the
103

organizational change made it impossible to move forward. I didn’t feel inadequate, but I felt
inadequate to interface with the organizational change.”
Motivation Results
Quantitative Results. For the motivation section, this researcher divided the survey
questions into ones related to one of the four motivational theories described earlier in this text:
utility value, self-efficacy, attributions, and goal orientation. The motivation research question
asked which elements full-time faculty experiencing school or department-level change overload
need to support continued growth opportunities. The survey results give evidence to faculty
perceptions of their levels of motivation pertaining to change initiatives. These results are
described in more detail after Table 4.12 below. During analysis, this researcher organized
responses according to the KMO elements and presents the motivation results here.
TABLE 4.12: Motivation Influences, Survey Results
Motivation Influences, Survey Results
Q15. I thrive in a stable
environment with little or no
change.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Total
Theory: Utility Value 5 9 14 23 12 63
8% 14% 22% 37% 19% 100%
Q19. I am motivated to
implement new change
initiatives for our School.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Total
Theory: Self-efficacy 19 33 6 2 3 63

30% 52% 10% 3% 5% 100%
Q23. Organizational change at
our School results in a more
satisfying work environment.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Total
Theory: Attributions 4 14 24 12 7 61

7% 23% 39% 20% 11% 100%
Q24. Organizational change
adversely affects my health.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Total
Theory: Goal Orientation 6 10 13 15 18 62

10% 16% 21% 24% 29% 100%
104

Q41. I am willing and able to
embrace change.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Total
Theory: Utility Value 45 16 1 1 0 63
71% 25% 2% 2% 0% 100%
Q44. New initiatives give me
the opportunity to grow and
develop professionally.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Total
Theory: Goal Orientation 34 18 8 0 1 61
56% 30% 13% 0% 2% 100%
Q45. Which statement best
describes your attitude toward
change?
I
welcome
change.
I can
handle
change as
long as I
am
included.
I am
concerned
about too
much
workplace
change.
I dislike
change:
why fix
something
that is not
broken.
Total

Theory: Utility Value 27 27 7 0 61

44% 44% 11% 0% 100%

The motivation influences from the survey presented an emerging understanding of the
impact of constant change on faculty motivation in the PS. Reversing any negatively phrased
question to mimic other questions for the seven survey questions related to motivation, responses
to half of them created a profile of faculty who welcome change. Whether it is embracing
change or wanting to be included in creating change (attributions), recognizing their own growth
and development as a sign of self-efficacy, or being motivated to implement change (utility
value), more than 80% of respondents indicated they were willing to do so.
For the other three questions, interesting results included:
o Only 22% indicated that they thrived in stable environments, compared to 96% of
individuals who indicated that they are willing and able to embrace change.
o More respondents disagreed that change leads to a more satisfying work
environment (31% compared to 30%).
105

o A slight majority (53%) of respondents felt that they were not at health risk due to
organizational change while 26% indicated their health had been adversely
affected by organizational change.
Qualitative Results: Interviews. Additionally, this researcher conducted interviews as
part of the mixed methods approach and categorized the relevant questions and responses by
motivational theory as well. Those results are presented in the following section.
TABLE 4.13: Motivation Influences, Interview Results
Motivation Influences, Interview Results
Interview Questions
Motivational
Theory
Codes
Q4. Describe your experience in
implementing a new initiative
mentioned above and how it
influenced your feelings about the
school’s overall change efforts.
Utility Value
Mainly negative reactions to change:
exhilaration, vertigo, dizziness, confusion,
tired, difficult, challenging, overwhelming,
headaches, frustrations, bad taste in mouth;
Positive experiences developing curriculum.
Q6. As one who has experienced
and led change in our School,
describe how it feels to share in
the successes of the school
(reaffirmation process, school
naming, rankings, awards, etc.).
Please also share any experiences
with perceived failures.
Attributions
School-wide successes somewhat hollow for
faculty on overload;
For others, proud of accomplishments and
colleagues sharing in success;
Consensus is that School is missing
opportunity to examine failures in order to
improve future change initiatives.
Q9. How do you view your own
growth and development in
relation to implementing change
initiatives?
Goal
Orientation
Some faculty grew, some detached;
Leadership skills built as departments built;
Others lost career path, became
disillusioned.
Q10. What area would you
identify as a gap for our faculty
in their efforts to implement
change initiatives: knowledge,
motivation, or organizational
factors?
Self-efficacy
Multiple deficits in change process;
Change overload impacting motivation;
Size of faculty and organization prevents
knowledge sharing;
Organization factors such as lack of
resources and administrative support
influence change fatigue.
106

Q11. Describe the first thought
that comes to mind when I say
that the pace of change at our
school will continue at its current
level or increase. How receptive
are you to continuing to work in
this environment of constant
change?
Attributions
Change overload is felt in significant ways;
If pace continues, motivation and morale
will be impacted: “Ouch,” pang in stomach,
qualms, do not know if they could go
through it again, excitement fatigue, change
fatigue, and exhaustion.
Follow-up Q: How would you
define success in our school?
Attributions
Each faculty member finds their own success
for motivation.

Faculty described their own fluctuations in motivation using words like “dizziness,”
“vertigo,” and “confusion,” while other aspects of the fast-moving pace exhilarated them and
made them proud to be part of the school. This duality of excitement and fatigue is a theme
captured throughout this study and supported by Pascale, et al., (2000) and their theory of
organizational change. Pascale, et al., (2000) theorized that organizational leaders need to create
environments of constant change, despite any ensuing chaos, and keep moving the organization
away from equilibrium. The celebration of school-wide successes is one example in the PS:
interviewees were fulfilled and proud of their colleagues, but some also felt that administrative
celebrations of accomplishments were “empty and false” because of the difficulty of their lived
experiences. Another faculty member described his unwillingness to engage in the school’s
culture of email congratulations. “I don’t allow myself to feel the successes, I just don’t,” he
said. “If you get too involved in the congratulatory stuff, then I feel like I make myself too
vulnerable.” He cited an example of disengaging from email congratulations on an
accomplishment. “When acknowledgements were sent out and congratulations started coming in
on email, you know what I did? I just went, delete, delete, delete,” he said. “I didn’t respond, I
didn’t pat myself on the back. I didn’t.”
Faculty also defined success in their own way, finding motivation in seeing students
graduate or in educating the “next generation of leaders.” Failure in the school also provoked
107

interesting responses. Some believed failure was a necessary step to “make it work” and that as
long as the effort was toward innovation or improving the school, it was acceptable to fail. With
failure rates for organizational change running as high as 70% (Beer & Nohria, 2000),
leadership’s unwillingness to examine failures in more detail, an action referred to by one faculty
member as a “calm post-mortem,” left the organization unable to learn from past mistakes and
improve future change initiatives. One faculty member thought that leaders would take failures
“too personally” while another said that instead of standing around admiring the problem,
leadership wanted any perceived problems fixed, including failures.
The majority of faculty members interviewed acknowledged how their own growth and
development in regards to change gave them motivation to tackle the next challenge. “I have
grown a lot as a faculty member,” one faculty member said. “I would not be where I am today
without being pushed into change.” One described her growth as “leaps and bounds” while
another commented that she thinks and talks about things in ways that she never did before.
Some stated that they had overcome aversion to change and now act quickly to “get ahead” of
change efforts, while others described their struggle to survive the chaotic change environment
as the “worst experience (they) had ever been through” in which they detached from the
organization. Abrahamson (2004) found that during times of change, those impacted most may
move into a protective mode, sometimes inadvertently, as they try to hold onto their place within
the organization.
Faculty referred to the pace of change, or change overload, often in describing decreases
in motivation, referencing other faculty members’ increasing unwillingness to volunteer for
department-initiated projects. Corley & Goia (2004) found that employees are less likely to take
108

on additional tasks during times of intense change, feeling that they are being pulled in too many
different directions.
Several faculty members referred to a loss of trust or increased distrust as a result of
changes that affected them personally, received unprofessional or “disrespectful” communication
through side channels, and changes were made without an evidence or knowledge base to
support them. Some faculty members described administrative decisions as being political in
nature, meant to achieve financial or efficiency goals, or too impersonal to be delivered through
email or faculty peers. Lack of transparency and communication were often cited by faculty
members as impacting their motivation. The call for more openness and interaction may be
linked to a desire for leadership to acknowledge the people who have made the change work. As
one faculty member said: “Be more encouraging and more grateful to people who are doing it
every day to make things better. That is key, and it is fundamentally the right thing to do.”
Regarding future change efforts, faculty were nearly unanimous in stating that motivation
will be impacted negatively if the pace of change accelerates. The majority have found a way to
manage the current pace, although when asked about how they feel about continuous changes at
the same rate as current one, they responded with words like “ouch,” “I see a stop sign in my
head – Stop! Stop!,” “aaaagggghhhh,” “bring it on,” (sigh), “whew,” “mistake,” “exhaustion,”
(laughter), and “Ponzi scheme.” Regarding the latter, one faculty member stated that it appears
the school is starting new initiatives to pay for the loss of projected revenues of previous
initiatives, similar to a Ponzi scheme.
Motivation Findings
This project’s motivation research question is: What motivational elements do full-time
faculty experiencing school or department-level change overload at a R1 university need to
109

support continued growth opportunities? The answer to this question is for leadership to harness
the innate energy of a vibrant faculty workforce by investing in healthy workplace environments
and working to regain faculty trust in administrative decisions regarding change.
Motivation Theme 1. Overall, faculty at the PS presented with a specific profile: they
were willing and able to embrace change but they needed the organization to invest in healthy
workplace environments and express gratitude for their work. Engaged faculty brought renewed
mental effort, fresh enthusiasm, expertise, and a willingness to adjust and adapt to school
changes that fit the pioneering spirit of the school. As one faculty member stated “There is so
much that is going on, I am learning all the time. I can’t think of another place that I would rather
be, because I don’t think there is this level of dialogue in any other place, bar none, where a
social scientist can work.” Another spoke about how she proud she is to work for the school
despite challenges with change. “No matter how we bungle our way through change or how fast
we race through it, one thing you cannot dispute is that we have great people in our school to do
curriculum at every level from our staff to our field to our consultants to our faculty and I think
to our students.”
Faculty also stated that they were exhausted. Personal relationships mattered to faculty
members as they helped them persist in the continuous transitions, especially when some felt
undermined by leadership. Challenges in maintaining energy for change were impacted by lack
of acknowledgment, gratitude, and appreciation by administration.
Motivation Theme 2. Distrust in both leadership’s reasons for change and
considerations of the individual at the heart of the massive changes negatively impacted faculty
motivation to move forward into new changes. “One very important characteristic of leadership
is to instill a sense of confidence and encouragement in the people being overseen,” one faculty
110

member said. “There has to be this sense of trust in the people that leaders – he or she or peers –
have selected to perform a role. And that is a challenge as well, sometimes.” The school’s top-
down decision-making patterns reduced faculty members’ active choice in helping to determine
the school’s future. Some faculty stated that revenue and political influence seemed to be
reasons for change instead of improving the quality of the program. “Change is not necessarily
for what is just or right or needed,” a faculty member stated. Another faculty member described
a conversation with colleagues in which they thought administration was “trying to cover the
potential losses of a new initiative after it has outlived its life cycle by creating yet another
initiative.”
One could argue that creating and maintaining unhealthy change environments was
antithetical to the core social science mission of promoting the health and well-being of
individuals. This push and pull between the profit motive of business and the ethics of social
science in higher education reflected a struggle over potentially changing social norms. Schein
(2004) reframed the employee who is resistant to change or reluctant to embrace change as one
who may be safeguarding the cultural values, beliefs, rules, and norms of the institution. When
the PS made an investment in an online program and partnered with a business entity, social
norms in the institution began to change. These changing social norms were reflected in this
study’s interviews whereby faculty continued to wrestle with the POP’s importance and impact
in the PS and in the profession as a whole. These are conflicting social norms that reflect the
school’s emerging corporate identity. As the drive for efficiency that marks business processes
becomes more a part of higher education’s culture, faculty will face challenges to keep the values
and ethics of social science in focus.
111

Several faculty members reflected that the human element seemed to have been
forgotten, that faculty well-being “was not one of the priorities” as change processes occurred.
As a result, some disengaged and have only recently started to re-build trust. “The potential for
damage to the individuals, whether it was personal, emotional, physical, or career path, was
extremely high.” Some faculty felt distant from the school successes, that the proclamations of
success were attempts to keep morale up amidst eroding trust. Faculty responses provided
evidence that distrust was felt when more disagreed than agreed with the statement that
organizational change led to a more satisfying work environment.
Organization Results
Quantitative Results. For the organization section, this researcher divided the survey
questions into ones related to one of the four cultural models and cultural settings described
earlier in this text: cultural model 1: constant change; cultural model 2: change without needed
supports; cultural setting 1: Prism Online Program; and cultural setting 2: on-the-ground (OTG)
program. The organizational research question asks which organizational factors create
successful change environments for full-time faculty when experiencing change overload. The
survey results provide insight into faculty perceptions of organizational factors pertaining to
change initiatives. These results will be described in more detail after Table 4.14 below. During
analysis, this researcher organized responses according to the KMO elements and presents the
organization results here. Given the extensive nature of the data on organizational influences,
the relevant survey questions have been divided up into four primary parts (Change
Environment, Faculty Support, Faculty Engagement, and Change Readiness) for the multiple-
choice questions and one additional section for the open-ended responses.
112

Change Environment. The first organizational influence section focuses on the culture
of change in the school by examining responses to ten survey questions.
TABLE 4.14: Organizational Influences, Survey Results: Change Environment
Organizational Influences, Survey Results: Change Environment
Q1. Change is a
part of our
School’s
organizational
culture.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 1: 50 7 4 2 1
64

Constant change
78% 11% 6% 3% 2%
100%

Q2. Our School
has a history of
successful change
initiatives.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 1: 23 29 9 1 1
63

Constant change
37% 46% 14% 2% 2%
100%

Q8. Our School
leads change in an
effective way.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 2: 6 27 9 14 7
63

Change without
needed supports 10% 43% 14% 22% 11%
100%

Q9. Our School
manages change in
an effective way.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 2: 6 26 9 14 8
63

Change without
needed supports 10% 41% 14% 22% 13%
100%

Q22. Our School
is undertaking too
much change at
the moment.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 1: 17 19 18 6 3
63

Constant change
27% 30% 29% 10% 5%
100%

113

Q25. Our
School usually
begins new
initiatives when:
Previous
changes have
gone through
improvement
cycle, mature,
& achieve
goals.
Full-time
faculty are
competent in
implementing
the previous
changes.
Organizational
knowledge
from previous
changes has
consolidated;
long-term
impact
unknown.
Previous
changes
taking hold
but not
long
enough to
determine
viability.
Not
enough
info.
Total

Cultural Model 1: 1 0 11 32 19
63

Constant change
2% 0% 17% 51% 30% 100%
Q33. Constant
change should be a
part of our
organizational
culture.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 1: 10 27 12 8 6
63

Constant change
16% 43% 19% 13% 10%
100%

Q34. The
implementation of
new change
initiatives benefits
our School.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 1: 20 32 9 1 1
63

Constant change
32% 51% 14% 2% 2%
100%

Q35. Stability is
difficult to
maintain when
new change
initiatives are
being
implemented in
our School.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 1: 21 26 7 7 2
63

Constant change
33% 41% 11% 11% 3%
100%

Q36. New change
initiatives improve
the quality of our
School.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 1: 15 31 13 4 0
63

Constant change
24% 49% 21% 6% 0%
100%

114

Faculty at the PS gave a clear indication of how they view the school’s change
environment: 89% “Agree” or Somewhat agree” that change is part of the school’s culture, 83%
similarly acknowledge that the school has a history of successful change initiatives, and 82%
indicate that change benefits the school. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of faculty respondents
indicated “Agree” or “Somewhat agree” that new change initiatives improve the quality of the
school, while 74% acknowledged that stability is difficult during times of change. Interestingly,
59% of faculty “Agree” or “Somewhat agree” that constant change should be part of PS’s
organizational culture. These results seem to counter most literature on higher education and
change, which paints faculty members as some of the most resistant to change in professional
circles (Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Bunton, et al., 2012; Tagg, 2012). These results need to be
considered as part of the typical PS faculty profile that embraces change and is more open to
constant change.
At the same time, 32 out of 44 (73%) respondents who did not answer “Not enough
information” believe that PS leadership implements new change initiatives before previous ones
have solidified and proven their viability. Of the other 12 respondents, 11 chose the answer that
the school initiates new change before previous changes have consolidated and long-term
viability is unknown. These results may explain why a small majority indicated “Agree” and
“Somewhat agree” regarding the school’s effectiveness at leading (53%) and managing (51%)
change.
Regarding the level of change, only 15% of PS faculty indicated “Disagree” or
“Somewhat disagree” that the school is implementing too much change now. When examining
the differences between ground and POP faculty perceptions, however, a difference did emerge.
115

Ground faculty felt stronger that the school was taking on too much change as evidenced by 75%
indicating “Agree” or “Somewhat Agree” compared to 40% of POP faculty.
Other differences emerged when viewing responses from the traditional, campus-based
faculty versus the faculty who teach primarily on the POP. These differences tended toward
POP faculty being more open to and ready for change. For example, when asked how
organizational change impacts school culture, more ground faculty selected “somewhat
negatively impacts school culture” (13 out of 32) while more POP faculty selected “somewhat
improves school culture” (13 out of 30). Also, more POP faculty (53%) felt that change was
well-planned by administration (indicated “Agree” or “Somewhat Agree”) compared to ground
faculty (22%); conversely, more ground faculty (66%) indicated “Disagree” or “Somewhat
Disagree” compared to 27% of POP faculty that change was usually well-planned.
According to the literature, tenured faculty members have traditionally been most averse
to change. Since that group is prominently identified in higher education change research, this
researcher compared tenured faculty responses against the mean throughout the survey. For the
most part, the responses were consistent with those from the larger faculty cohort. In this section
focusing on the school’s change environment, however, there are some significant differences.
Tenured faculty differed from their peers in assessing the school’s ability to effectively lead
(60% “Disagree” or “Somewhat disagree” compared to 28% of other faculty) and manage
change (70% “Disagree” or “Somewhat disagree” compared to 28% of other faculty). Regarding
whether or not PS is implementing too much change right now, 90% of tenured faculty indicated
“Agree” or “Somewhat agree” compared to 51% of other faculty. These results seem to be
consistent with the literature review, although it should be noted that tenured faculty responses
are similar to other faculty groups throughout most of the survey.
116

Faculty Support. In the following section, the organizational influence area of faculty
support is examined through responses to three survey questions.
TABLE 4.15: Organizational Influences, Survey Results: Faculty Support
Organizational Influences, Survey Results: Faculty Support
Q10. Our School
supports change in
an effective way.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Cultural Model 2: 10 24 13 10 6
63
Change without
needed supports 16% 38% 21% 16% 10%
100%
Q12. Appropriate
resources are
usually allocated
to faculty to
implement change.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Cultural Model 2: 5 24 10 13 11
63
Change without
needed supports 8% 38% 16% 21% 17%
100%
Q39. School
administration
supports faculty
during times of
change.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Cultural Model 1:
4 26 13 12 7 62
Constant change 6% 42% 21% 19% 11% 100%

Faculty opinion is less clear about the effectiveness of the school’s overall support of
change efforts, how its leadership supports faculty as change is occurring, and the level of
resources provided to faculty during times of change. Overall, 54% of faculty respondents
selected “Agree” or “Somewhat agree” in response to the prompt that the school supports change
efforts. There is also no majority opinion for the other two questions: 1) does the school support
change with adequate resources (44% “Agree” or “Somewhat agree” while 38% “Disagree” or
“Somewhat disagree) and 2) does the administration support faculty during times of change
(48% “Agree” or “Somewhat agree” while 30% “Disagree” or “Somewhat disagree)? When
117

interview data is added to the analysis, however, the provision of adequate resources becomes a
larger theme in the study.
Faculty Engagement. In the following section, the organizational influence area of
faculty engagement is examined through responses to six survey questions.
TABLE 4.16: Organizational Influences, Survey Results: Faculty Engagement
Organizational Influences, Survey Results: Faculty Engagement
Q17. I do not feel
actively involved
in shaping our
School's desired
future.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 1: 12 19 12 12 8
63

Constant change
19% 30% 19% 19% 13%
100%

Q29. What
percentage of FT
faculty are
experiencing
organizational
cynicism?
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-40% 81-100%
Not
enough
info.
Total
Cultural Model 2: 6 17 15 7 8 10 63
Change without
needed supports 10% 27% 24% 11% 13% 16% 100%
Q30. What
percentage of FT
faculty are
experiencing
burnout?
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-40% 81-100%
Not
enough
info.
Total
Cultural Model 2: 12 16 13 6 5 11 63
Change without
needed supports 19% 25% 21% 10% 8% 17% 100%
Q31. How have
new change
initiatives
impacted your
ability to finish
your primary
tasks?
I am able to
complete my
primary job
and new
change tasks
in a 40-hour
work week.
I usually work
more than 40
hours M-F to
complete my
primary job
and new
change tasks.
I usually work
on weekends
to complete
my primary
job and new
change tasks.
I am not
able to
complete
my primary
job and
new change
tasks
during
most weeks
and
weekends.
Total

118

Cultural Model 2: 11 23 28 0
62

Change without
needed supports 18% 37% 45% 0% 100%

Q38. During
change, leaders
actively seek input
from faculty
concerning
challenges.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Cultural Model 1:
8 15 9 20 10 62
Constant change 13% 24% 15% 32% 16% 100%
Q43. I believe our
School needs more
consultation
between leadership
and faculty when
considering changes.
Agree Somewhat agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total

Cultural Model 1: 41 14 4 3 0 62

Constant change
66% 23% 6% 5% 0% 100%

These responses seem to reveal a faculty group that was not invited to dialogue with
leadership about challenges of change implementation and management, worked weekends, was
at risk for burnout, and was even more likely to express organizational cynicism. Organizational
cynicism is the belief that an organization lacks integrity, which, when coupled with a powerful
negative emotional reaction, leads to disparaging and critical behavior (Grama, 2013). In some
ways, organizational cynicism, although not a term as widely used as burnout, could present
more challenging barriers to the growth and development of the Prism School of Social Science
than burnout due to is higher perceived prevalence.
Faculty also indicated they do not feel included in the development of change initiatives
or in shaping the organization’s future. Researchers have documented that faculty who were not
included in decision-making processes were more likely to resist change efforts (Black &
Gregerson, 1997; Clarke, et al., 1996; Hargreaves, 2004; Lipshitz & Strauss, 1997). In response
to questions on engagement, faculty indicated “Agree” or “Somewhat agree” as follows:
119

o 89% called for more consultation between administration and faculty regarding
school changes;
o Less than half (49%) indicated that they feel actively involved in shaping the
school’s future.
o Only 37% indicated that administration actively seeks faculty input regarding
school changes; and
Respondents were asked to select the percentage of faculty in divisions of 20% whom
they thought experienced the change overload symptoms of organizational cynicism and burnout.
For organizational cynicism, faculty select all five categories in double-digit percentages from 0-
20% to 81-100%. In fact, looking at the results more closely, more faculty members selected 81-
100% (8) than did 0-20% (6) and more faculty selected 41-100% (30) than 0-40% (23). The
responses regarding burnout indicated less concern in this area. More faculty chose 0-20% (12)
than 81-100% (5) and 38 faculty members’ selected 0-40% versus 24 who selected 41-100%.
Ground and POP faculty differed in their assessments of the percentages of faculty that
they believed were experiencing symptoms of burnout and organizational cynicism. The mode
(9 and 8, respectively) for ground faculty for both questions 29 (organizational cynicism) and 30
(burnout) was “41-60%” while the mode (10) for POP faculty was “21-40%” for both. These
results seem to indicate that ground faculty, as a group, felt more symptoms of burnout and
organizational cynicism than their POP counterparts.
These results are concerning for either change overload symptom, especially when
compared to question 31 that asked faculty members to select the descriptions that most fit their
usual work week. An overwhelming majority (82%) of faculty members indicated that they
work more than 40 hours a week and often during weekends to complete tasks associated with
120

their primary role and any new change initiatives. Specifically, 45% of faculty indicated that
they work most weekends to complete their responsibilities while 37% work more than 40 hours
per week on average. The responses to these three questions could be concerning to school
leadership as they consider the introduction of more change initiatives.
These results are described by Abrahamson and Team’s (2013) repetitive change
syndrome theory, which predicts that faculty experiencing “initiative overload (and) change-
related chaos” due to excessive changes may also feel “cynicism and burnout” (p. 93). Further,
the literature shows that faculty who are not included in decision-making processes are more
likely to resist organizational change processes (Black & Gergerson, 1997; Clarke, et al., 1996;
Hargreaves, 2005; Lipshitz & Strauss, 1997). When asked what percentage of full-time faculty
they thought were resistant to change, 37 respondents selected 0-40% compared to only 16 who
selected the 41-100% categories. This result seems to indicate that the organizational culture
norm of constant change is part of PS’s constitution, overcoming traditional resistance and
internal norms of dissatisfaction at the pace of change (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008). In
summary, the responses to these questions depict a faculty group successfully battling through
resistance to change, but feeling pressure to perform, in danger of losing faith in the
organization, and whose role in shaping the school’s future is unclear and, perhaps, unwanted.
Rank Order Questions. Two survey questions required participants to rank order an
alphabetical list of 1) steps that leadership should take in planning and implementing change
initiatives and 2) supports that the organization should put in place for faculty during times of
change. Those results are presented in Table 4.17 and Table 4.18 below.

121

TABLE 4.17: Rank Order of Leadership Efforts, Survey Results
Q26. Rank the importance of the steps below in determining the success of change initiatives.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Clear vision
communicated
by leadership.
Co-creation
of vision
involving
key
stakeholders.
Form a
coalition of
key
stakeholders.
Empower
faculty to
embrace
change.
Establish a
sense of
urgency that
change must
happen now.
Establish
short-term
“wins”
brought
about by the
change.
Consolidate
and produce
more
change.
Institutionalize
new actions.

Respondents placed the steps listed above in order based on their perceptions of how to
successfully lead organizational change in the school. Previously, participants gave the school a
passing grade (53%) in evaluating how effective leadership has been at leading change. For this
question, the steps represent the collective views of faculty that are largely informed by their
experiences in the PS. Therefore, this researcher feels these results indicate how faculty wish the
PS could function. These steps are derived from Kotter’s theory on managing organizational
change (2007). However, the list in the survey was an alphabetical representation with no pre-
set bias as to the intended order. Presenting the order in that way ensured that faculty would not
perceive that the order had any separate meaning. In other words, they were free to construct the
list as they saw fit.
Kotter places particular emphasis on not skipping any steps, as it might create the
“illusion of speed and never produce a satisfying result” (2007, p. 97). He posits that an error in
any step will contribute equally to challenges with implementing change (2007). As a
comparative point, the faculty-created list matches Kotter’s eight steps in several ways, but
departs from it in others. It is similar in the final three stages in which both PS faculty responses
and Kotter’s conceptualization mirror each other: 6) short-term wins; 7) produce more change;
and 8) institutionalize actions. However, the first five steps are significantly different; the
122

collective PS faculty wisdom did not identify the theoretically correct progression of steps. This
researcher believes that faculty acted based on what they desired to occur, which translates into a
statement on the deficits of the current change approach strategies. Based on this assessment,
faculty want:
1) Leadership clearly communicating vision; (Kotter’s order for this step is #4)
2) Stakeholders engaged in developing vision; (#3)
3) A coalition formed to lead change; (#2)
4) Faculty empowered to embrace change; and (#5)
5) Leadership emphasizing urgency: change must happen now. (#1)
This assessment translates to deficits in faculty and leadership co-creation and
communication of vision, leadership engagement of faculty in leading change, faculty
empowerment, and faculty uncertainty about the need for change (lack of urgency). Survey and
interview responses support these interpretations through triangulation of data.
TABLE 4.18: Rank Order of Organizational Efforts, Survey Results
Q27. Rank the importance of the following organizational efforts in determining success of change
initiatives.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Knowledge
of how to
manage
change.
Thorough
implemen-
tation
plans.
Infrastructure support
(staff time, administrative
buyout, supplies,
technology support,
leadership endorsement).
Supervisor
support.
Supportive
colleagues
(teamwork).
Training on
new
initiative
implemen-
tation.
Engaging all
stakeholders

Similarly, faculty ranked the importance of organizational efforts to support change from
a similar viewpoint: those areas most often identified likely reflect deficits currently experienced.
From this lens, faculty are expressing a need for more knowledge on how to manage change,
more thorough implementation plans, and improved infrastructure and supervisor support. These
three areas relate to the cultural models of constant change and faculty being pushed into change
123

without adequate supports or knowledge. These models as well as cultural settings have been
described previously and are linked with other survey and interview questions throughout this
section on organizational factors.
One difference in this question is that an “Other” category was open for individual
faculty responses. Although only five faculty wrote an entry in this category, four of them
indicated it would have been their number one choice. Thematically, those entries emphasized
the important of engaging all stakeholders. Although stated in several parts of the previous
question, faculty still added it in question 27, which again speaks to their desire for early
engagement to become a stronger part of future change efforts. The desire for more interaction
between leadership and faculty is consistent with other study responses requesting more faculty
engagement and consultation, more integration of ideas generated from faculty and staff, and less
top-down administrative actions that seek engagement only to approve decisions that have
already been made.
Change Readiness. In the following section, the organizational influence area of change
readiness is examined through responses to five survey questions.
TABLE 4.19: Organizational Influences, Survey Results: Change Readiness
Organizational Influences, Survey Results: Change Readiness
Q46. I would like
our School to have
a year of
mastering
initiatives we
currently have.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Cultural Model 1:
36 12 8 2 5 63
Constant change 57% 19% 13% 3% 8% 100%
Q47a. I am
prepared for
change to occur at
the same pace as
previous ones.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
124

Cultural Model 1:
13 20 14 7 8 62
Constant change 21% 32% 23% 11% 13% 100%
Q47b. Our full-
time faculty are
prepared for
change to occur at
the same pace as
previous ones.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Cultural Model 1:
4 17 18 14 7 62
Constant change 6% 27% 29% 23% 11% 100%
Q47c. I feel our
School is prepared
for change to
occur at the same
pace as previous
ones.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Cultural Model 1:
5 14 16 10 15 60
Constant change 8% 23% 27% 17% 25% 100%
Q48. I would like
to experience a
year of stability
with little or no
change at our
School.
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree Total
Cultural Model 1:
28 16 8 5 5 62
Constant change 45% 26% 13% 8% 8% 100%

The Prism School’s leadership has created a culture of constant change. With this culture
have come accolades, financial strength, and prominence within its university, higher education
social science schools, and the profession of social science as a whole. The five questions in
Table 4.19 provide a snapshot of the readiness and willingness that PS full-time faculty have to
embrace more change. In responses to the prompt describing a year for faculty to master current
initiatives, 76% indicated “Agree” or “Somewhat agree.” Similarly, 71% of faculty gave the
same responses when asked if they wanted a year of stability with little or no change in our
school. This is an interesting result when compared to answers from a previous question
125

described in the motivation section: only 22% of faculty indicated that they are likely to thrive in
a stable environment.
Comparing ground faculty to POP faculty responses for question 48 revealed a
difference. While 56% of ground faculty indicated “Agree” to wanting a year of stability, only
33% of POP faculty responded in the same way. This theme of deeper concern about change
from ground faculty compared to POP faculty ran throughout the survey, although not enough to
draw the overall conclusion that POP faculty were more adept at change. The findings
mentioned here could be used for further research into how virtual faculty compare with
traditional campus-based faculty regarding readiness of change.
Question 47 asked faculty if they, the full-time faculty, and the school as a whole were
ready for the pace of change to continue at the same rate as previous changes. The responses
revealed less confidence as the group in question expanded: 53% thought they were individually
ready versus 24% who did not, 33% thought full-time faculty were ready versus 34% who did
not, and only 31% thought the school was ready for change to continue at its current pace versus
42% who did not. These results seem to show a level of individual receptivity to change that is
not shared when viewing the larger faculty cohort or the school. This perception is consistent
with the findings of Bercovitz and Feldman (2008) who reported that organizational norms
resisting change are often in opposition to individual norms of receptivity regarding
organizational change. According to their research, the power of individual norms is usually
diminished by the dominant organizational culture norms. The answers to these five questions
may provide insight into the receptivity of the PS to future change proposals.
Qualitative Results: Open-Ended Questions. At four different points in the survey,
open-ended questions provided opportunities for respondents to make comments on the school’s
126

change culture, the impact of change, change readiness, and overall impact on quality and
stability. The results are presented here.
TABLE 4.20: Open-ended Questions, Survey Results
Open-ended Questions, Survey Results
Comments Codes Themes
Q21:
Additional
comments
on Change
Culture
No time to evaluate before next change;
Fatigued, exhausted;
Issue not change, but how school handles it;
Faculty not involved in setting vision, mission,
strategic plan, or implementation plan;
Lack of resources and staffing;
Pride in school;
Change is necessary;
Quality has suffered as changes are too fast;
Wondering about efficacy of massive changes.
Although pride in school is evident
and change is welcomed, the
impact of how school handles top-
down, non-stop change has left
faculty exhausted and wondering
about decision-making.
Q32:
Additional
comments
on Change
Impact
More demands on faculty;
Changes mismanaged, destructive to person;
Change has reinforced siloes;
Detrimental to well-being of school;
More thoughtful planning could reduce
confusion and overload.
More thoughtful change planning
could have mitigated the
confusion, overload, increased
demands, destructive impact,
siloes, mismanagement, and
reduced individual and
organizational well-being of
faculty that occurred.
Q49:
Additional
comments
on Change
Readiness
Exciting and exhausting;
Need to evaluate change;
Change is strategic way to stay current;
Faculty not in leadership not included;
Arbitrary change, yet faculty clean it up;
Love change, just not how we do it;
Constant change required to be SW leaders;
Demand on staff and faculty creates cynicism
and fatigue;
For-profit partner influence impacts quality;
Dissatisfaction re: additional faculty demands;
Collectively not ready for more change;
Need stability;
Although strategic change is an
exciting way to lead the field and
stay current, stability is sought as
faculty are dissatisfied with their
levels of inclusion, increased
demands leading to cynicism and
fatigue, the absence of evaluation
of changes, and the undue
influence of the school's for-profit
partner.
127

Q50:
Additional
comments
on impact
on quality
Need change management team;
Changes excessive and harmful;
As leader, change must happen;
Quality suffers in enormous pace of change;
Not inclusive, too fast, random;
Need to examine structure and administrative
support;
Disturbed by decreasing quality;
Concerned about quality of graduates;
Plunge forward, faulty & knee-jerk reactions;
Not accounting for work-life or scholarship-
service balance.
Administrative supports and
organizational infrastructure need
to improve to prevent excessive,
harmful and random changes that
decrease quality in our too-fast
pace of change.

Although faculty express their pride in school and welcome change, the impact of how
school handles top-down, non-stop change has left them exhausted and wondering about
administrative decision-making. They ask for more thoughtful change planning to mitigate
confusion, overload, destructive impact, and reduced individual and organizational well-being
that has occurred. Although strategic change is an exciting way to lead the field and stay current,
faculty are seeking stability. They are dissatisfied with their levels of inclusion, increased
demands leading to cynicism and fatigue, absence of evaluation of changes, and the undue
influence of the school's for-profit partner. They write that administrative supports and
organizational infrastructure need to improve to prevent excessive, harmful and random changes
from occurring in the future that decrease the quality of the Prism School of Social Science.
Qualitative Results: Interviews. This researcher also conducted interviews as part of
the mixed methods approach and categorized the relevant questions and responses by cultural
model or setting. Those results are presented in the following Table 4.21.
TABLE 4.21: Organizational Influences, Interview Results
Research Question 3: Organizational Factors
Interview Questions
Cultural Model
or Setting
Codes
128

Q1. What is your opinion about
the pace of change in our school
as manifested by the number of
new initiatives implemented?
Cultural Model
1: Constant
change
Pace of change is too fast (9), just right (2), too
slow (1).
Change welcomed, but not satisfied with how
we do it at our School.
Q2. How important are these
change efforts to the overall
quality, stability, and
organizational health of our
school?
Cultural Model
1: Constant
change
Quality suffered, stability suffered, and
organizational health was an afterthought;
Change for change's sake;
Leading the profession, changing the field
Q3. How many and what types of
new initiatives have you been a
part of during the last 12 months,
three years, & seven years?
Overall, is this total too much, too
little, or just right for you? Please
explain.
Cultural Model
1: Constant
change
Exciting and exhausting;
Too much change, lost count, repressed
memories;
Overload occurring;
Students not considered;
Q7. How is your confidence
impacted by your feelings of
competence or inadequacy when
experiencing organizational
change in our School?
Cultural Model
2: Change
without needed
supports
Confidence difficult when lack of transparency
and communication exists;
Hard to jump on 1,000 mph train;
Leadership should instill confidence in faculty;
Faculty need to be informed and at table
during decision-making process.
Q10. What area would you
identify as a gap for our faculty
in their efforts to implement
change initiatives: knowledge,
motivation, or organizational
factors?
Cultural Model
2: Change
without needed
supports
Multiple deficits in change process;
Organization factors such as lack of resources
and administrative support influence change
fatigue.
Follow-up Q: Does our school
attract a certain type of faculty
member? Were you the right fit
for this school?
Cultural Model
1: Constant
change
School shapes faculty profile as ready for
change.
Follow-up Q: Do you think our
faculty were ready
(knowledgeable and equipped) to
implement the new curriculum
when it started?
Cultural Model
2: Change
without needed
supports
Aggressive deadlines should be looked at for
quality purposes.
Follow-up Q: How does the
school balance preparation vs.
having to push faculty into
change?
Cultural Model
1: Constant
change
Growth should be strategic.
129

Follow-up Q: In 2010, the POP
began new era of change and
creating change to solve
problems. Is there a link back to
that seminal start or had you seen
it coming all along?
Cultural Setting
2: Prism Online
Program
For-profit partner and unsustainable pace are
outcomes of POP creation.
Follow-up Q: Are students
casualties of the poorly planned
change? Are students treated as
valued stakeholders?
Cultural Model
1: Constant
change
First cohorts put through changes struggle;
Need to assess cost to them;
Students need to be treated as stakeholders.
Follow-up Q: Are we missing
learning opportunities by not
labeling failures as failures?
Cultural Model
2: Change
without needed
supports
Failure needs to be seen as learning
opportunity;
Calm post-mortem;
Leaders should not take failure personally
Follow-up Q: Talk about the
impact on individuals who were
deeply impacted by the changes.
Cultural Model
2: Change
without needed
supports
Organizational and individual resilience have
to be considered
Follow-up Q: What challenges
did you experience in role
transition?
Cultural Model
1: Constant
change
Disrespect through lack of communication has
occurred often in organization
Cutthroat, competitive environment – does not
have to be this way.

Regarding organizational factors, faculty who were interviewed discussed a variety of
topics related to this area. They acknowledge that the pace of change has been rapid, but that the
real issue is the way in which the school has gone about creating, implementing, managing, and
evaluating change. They feel that quality and stability have diminished and that the health of the
organization and its stakeholders was an afterthought. Some felt it was “change for change's
sake” or “move for move’s sake,” while others conceded that to lead the profession and change
the field, the school needs to keep moving. They described their experiences as exciting and
exhausting and have lost count – “or repressed the memories” – of the numerous change
initiatives that each of them have been involved in.
Some of the interviewees spoke about their concerns that students were not considered
key stakeholders. According to faculty, it has been common practice for administrators to talk to
130

students after decisions have been made when all the students could do was either rubber stamp
the initiatives or fight back in reactive mode. They pointed out that students will become alumni
and could become potential donors, so leadership should treat them as important stakeholders to
set an early trajectory for future engagement. In other words, it does not serve the Prism
School’s long-range goals to disregard student input and the impact that change has on them.
One interviewee described working at the PS as “holding on to the edges of a flying
carpet, trying not to fall off” while another described the challenge of having expertise, but not
being able to contribute. “You could be an expert, but if the train is going 1,000 miles an hour,
no one can jump on.” Several faculty members used the word “cutthroat” to describe the
competitive nature of the school, while another said she felt “disrespected” by administration’s
lack of communication and transparency during a role transition.
Many faculty members referred to organizational factors such as a lack of resources and
administrative support for change efforts that influenced their feelings of change fatigue. Several
faculty members stated their belief that the PS attracts a certain type of faculty member, one who
has an eye for innovation and is willing to embrace change. The existence of these types of
faculty members stresses the point further that they desire to sit at the table during decision-
making process and contribute their ideas, opportunities that many feel are not available to them.
Consistent concern was expressed over the aggressive deadlines for curriculum creation
during the transition from the old to the new curriculum, and several faculty members noted that
adjustments continue to be made to the syllabi to correct errors of content and interconnectivity
that were made during the rush to complete them in 2015-16. Some faculty members called for
more strategic growth processes instead of the unsustainable pace that is an outcome of the POP
and the school’s for-profit partner. They expressed concerns about the influence of a business
131

partner in higher education and called for a return to practices that reflect traditional social
science values.
Several faculty members discussed the struggles of the first cohorts of students to
experience a new change initiative, the cost to the human element, and the impact on the
individual faculty member trying to manage an unmanageable situation. Although several
faculty members acknowledged that the PS has shown incredible resilience and functional
competence throughout the large-scale changes of curriculum and department overhauls, they
also wanted to bring attention to the challenges of individual resilience amidst the chaos. The
collective impression this researcher had on the experiences of the faculty members who were
interviewed was one of admiration for their leadership, tenacity, and commitment to students
during very challenging change processes.
Qualitative Results: Observation. For the observation portion of this study related to
organizational change, this researcher observed the PS Dean in a one-hour conversation at a local
innovation conference on the subject of innovation, change, and leadership. A brief summary of
the interview is presented below.
TABLE 4.22: Organization Influences, Observation Results
PS Dean Interview, Innovation Conference
Questions Codes Themes
Why are you so change-driven?
If we don’t change, we don’t survive.
Unexpected change needed;
We must engage and problem-solve. Unexpected change at
speed of business
needed to survive.
How do you change the dynamic
of primary health care through
the convergence of social science
and medicine?
Higher education takes time;
Business is ready yesterday morning.
How did you bring different
views together to add in medicine
program?
Vision top-down, but process was
inclusive.
Overcame stigma.
Financial strength
creates opportunities to
132

Describe the early conversations
with faculty about identity as you
brought on medicine program.
Financial strength led to increased
influence and prominence;
Naming gift guaranteed identity in
perpetuity.
overcome stigma and
old ways of thinking.
How do students and faculty
feel?
Interdisciplinary work still in process,
but is goal.
How do faculty feel? Pushing change pushes buttons.
Change will continue:
adding Pharmacy,
exploring VR, and
reducing power of
campus.
What about governing bodies,
network of social science
managers? What is their opinion?
Changed field through strength of
program, quality of results.
White coat ceremony picture:
significance?
Rituals create connection.
Will you slow down?
Need to keep pushing into unchartered
areas like virtual reality for
development of professionals.
Started medicine without an on-
campus equivalent: how?
Campus-based thinking has to change;
Locus of influence is where student
lives.
Fear and risk go
together, but that is
how you change the
field.
Did online program impact OTG
enrollment? How did degree
from online program impact
graduates?
Online student now accepted as intern
and professional;
How did you overcome fear and
be bold?
Looked fear in the eye;
Why bother if you don’t make
something of the time you have?

The PS Dean answered questions and offered her own insights into leadership, change,
and innovation. She spoke about changing the field of social science, of conservative faculty
concerned about mission drift and partnerships with business entities, and how to face down fear
and make bold decisions. She acknowledged that faculty were angry with her even as she
attempted to describe processes as inclusive and collaborative. She mentioned “my vision” at
one time, then amended it by saying “my faculty’s and my school’s” vision. This small example
may be indicative of her perspective on who is driving change in the school and provide support
for faculty inclusion concerns. Her comment that “if you do not change, you do not survive”
could be viewed as her personal leadership mission. This interview provided insight in a public
setting as to her vision, innovative thinking, and ability to move past barriers to institute
133

innovations in social science education that had rarely been done or thought of before. The
interview also made it clear that more change is coming.
Organization Findings
This project’s organization research question is: What organizational factors create
successful change environments for full-time faculty in a school at a R1 university experiencing
change overload? This question is the most complex of the three research questions; therefore,
the answers retain that same quality. The organizational factors that answer this question are:
1) Create a better organized process of change, including forming a change management
team and hiring a communications officer;
2) Imbue faculty with the excitement and energy befitting the school’s aspirations to be
the leader in social science education;
3) Provide administrative and resource support that is aligned internally;
4) Include faculty in idea creation and regular conversations about the school’s constant
change environment; and
5) Value the strength and confidence of the individual faculty member to build faculty
coalitions that improve the collective will of faculty and the school to initiate
future changes.
Organization Theme 1. As expressed by faculty, change is not the issue; it is how PS
makes change happen that is the problem. Issues in the process include the speed of change, the
overlapping initiatives, the lack of co-created vision and clear outcomes for the changes, and the
aggressive deadlines for task completion, be it syllabi or program development. Faculty
understand that change will happen, that it is the school’s identity, but they want it done better.
As one faculty members stated: “It is incumbent on us to better prepare people for the change.
134

We need to do better in creating awareness, address the angst and anxiety.” One way to better
manage change would be to form a change management team that includes a communications
officer. “A lack of a good communication plan leaves people on the outskirts,” one faculty
member said. “So you really don’t know what is being implemented, or why it is being
implemented…It always feels like it is shoved on to you.”
Organization Theme 2. Leading the field of social science through innovation and
constant change fuels faculty excitement, promotes growth and development, labels faculty as
pioneers, and accomplishes what “no other school of social science is doing.” Faculty admire
leadership’s boldness and willingness to be number one, to stay current and embrace the role of
social science leader. The prominence brought by increased financial strength, the naming gift,
and the national influence provide a status for faculty that they wrestle with. One faculty
member said she no longer apologizes for our school’s push to be the “biggest, baddest school in
the world.” She said she feels fortunate to work at the school. “The person who is criticizing
our school, would they trade places with me in this school?” she asked. “In a heartbeat they
would. In a heartbeat.” The PS Dean stated in her interview that the PS is now the third-highest
revenue producing school at its university. This prowess has led to requests by university
leadership for her to start non-social science programs under her leadership. “We had enough of
a reserve to launch an entire new academic program without any assistance from the university,”
she said. “Because of this, the vision that you can bring to it is mine, my faculty’s, and my
school’s.”
Organization Theme 3. Faculty feel strongly that resources, administrative support, and
internal structures to support change need to be improved. They spoke about the lack of staff
support in the development and expansion of departments and internal processes that could have
135

achieve outcomes in more facilitated ways instead of the chaotic feeling that came from multiple
last-minute requests or redesigns. One faculty member described her experience in being asked
to develop a course, then being told to stop, then being asked again to create it in one week’s
time. “Of course it would not be as good, of course it would be half-ass. We have to catch up to
ourselves structurally.” Another faculty member described his experience with the school’s lack
of internal support in this way: “I also feel a sense of vertigo, of dizziness. Every time I think I
have a handle on how the school is set up or structured, new information is provided to me that
the things that I had proposed to do is just not possible at that time…I don’t think I truly
appreciated at the time the inability of the school to support those change efforts.”
Organization Theme 4. Many faculty were not included in developing change
initiatives, leading to increased dissatisfaction when future changes were announced. Faculty
stated that if they were included more in the beginning stages, there would be less dissension and
negative feelings about the school’s leadership and change efforts. “It is hard to support it if you
don’t know about it,” one faculty member said. “After you work it through with us and get all of
our questions answered, then we could help support this change…But we are asked to actually
deal with it because it is being rolled out.”
In the process of conducting the interviews, a theme emerged organically. Nearly all
interviewees expressed feelings of enjoyment and even catharsis at having the opportunity to talk
about the school’s pace of change. “It has really been nice to share my thoughts,” one faculty
member said. “There is almost a clinical aspect to this.” Another commented, “It is helpful to
see where I am in my head related to organizational change.” Having witnessed the sense of
freedom, understanding, and renewal that seemed to emerge from each interviewee as the
136

interviews progressed, this researcher believes that leadership should host these types of
conversations with faculty on a regular basis.
As revealed in the survey results and consistent with the literature review, some tenured
faculty were more critical of school changes compared to other faculty members. This
constituent group has prominence in the PS faculty hierarchy and governance of school councils.
Their lack of engagement in the change processes appeared to be less about the emerging
importance of other faculty than it was the increasing power and influence of the school’s for-
profit partner. Replacing faculty engagement in decision-making processes with a business
partner created legitimate concerns that the excessive work demands, feelings of burnout,
existence of organizational cynicism, and extended work into the weekends could result in
detached faculty unwilling to volunteer to lead change efforts that they have not helped create.
Organization Theme 5. Faculty reported that they were more prepared individually for
future change than the faculty group at large and the school as a whole. This theme may be an
increasingly important one to consider, as the PS Dean appeared to be preparing for
implementing additional changes, including new programs. Part of the faculty concern about
future changes rested in the lack of evaluations and assessments of change initiatives to
determine their viability before advancing forward, adjusting, or introducing new ones. Without
data to determine their value, several faculty stated that they believe administration introduced
“change for change itself.” One faculty member described the concern as follows: “We are
moving fast without actual evidence to prove that what you are doing is on task, on target…The
changes are moving for move’s sake versus reliability in the long-term.” If administration had
evaluated previous change initiatives, it appears that faculty would have had improved views on
the school’s ability to successfully negotiate future changes.
137

Synthesis
The quantitative results from this study’s survey and document review reveal a profile of
faculty more willing to accept and embrace change than what this researcher found during the
qualitative interviews and observation. One factor that could influence this observation is that
the interviews felt more personal, more inviting, and more welcoming for faculty members to
open up about their experiences than a 50-question survey. The interviews also took an average
of 54 minutes to complete, which gave ample time for faculty to trust the process and open up in
detail about their experiences.
The document review provided evidence to support one of the themes that emerged
differently from the interviews than the survey. Whereas faculty responses to the survey
indicated confidence in implementing the new curriculum with fidelity to its design, interviewees
spoke often about the challenges of implementation that remain. A similar difference emerged
regarding allocation of resources. Survey respondents were more favorable toward
administration’s efforts to support change with resources while faculty members who were
interviewed expressed consistent concerns about the level of support.
Numerous commonalities emerged also in the data analysis that have been included in the
KMO themes from the previous section. Similarities such as faculty desire to experience
stability before tackling new changes, respect and admiration for the PS Dean’s innovation, and
understanding that many faculty were experiencing change overload and need respite. In both
quantitative and qualitative processes, faculty respondents presented themselves as willing
organizational change agents who were looking for administrators to improve how they led,
managed, and supported change. Responses from both methods of research showed faculty
138

similarity in identifying the pace of change, the school’s constant change identity, and its history
of successful change initiatives.
Regarding change readiness, survey and interview results seemed to confirm that
individual faculty members saw themselves as more open to change than their peers, even
though they still had concerns about how ready the larger group of faculty and the school was to
embrace future changes. Although there were some differences between ground and POP faculty
discussed previously in this chapter, faculty as a whole defied the profile that literature described
for higher education faculty. They emerge as ready for change, willing to embrace a constant
change environment, and open to innovations that transform social science education.
This researcher found consistent congruence on most topics when analyzing data gained
through the mixed methods. The survey data created the foundation upon which the richness of
the interview data could populate. Even the PS Dean’s interview that made up the observation in
this study confirmed numerous perspectives from faculty. Although this study utilized a variety
of mixed methods that were created at different times with varying levels of interconnection, this
researcher saw increasing connections between the data points as he dug deeper into the material.
This result is a satisfying one and gives additional promise for the recommendations to come in
the next chapter.

139

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Introduction. This chapter examines literature related to types of knowledge that faculty
need to successfully negotiate concurrent change initiatives in the Prism School of Social
Science (PS). Specifically, this examination looks at ways to influence faculty adaptation to a
new curriculum and new department structure as symbolic of overlapping change initiatives with
the desired intent of maintaining the quality of instruction, which has been identified as a
stakeholder goal. By May 2018, the goal is for the faculty at the PS to successfully implement
new programs and the school’s new curriculum as evidenced by keeping the average course
evaluation rating by students at a 4.2 or higher (out of five) and maintaining student ratings of
instructor quality at 4.5 or higher, on average. As stated in Chapter Four, this researcher
analyzed student evaluations of courses and faculty from 2015-2017 as a means of assessing
differences between the new and old curriculum. Also detailed was an analysis of the ratings
from the fall, 2015 student cohort that received the first offerings of the new curriculum courses.
The knowledge influences in Table 5.1 represent the complete list of assumed knowledge
influences and whether or not they were validated during data collection. These results are based
on the data analysis completed in the previous chapter toward achieving the stakeholders’ goals.
They are also based on Clark and Estes’ (2008) suggestion that declarative knowledge is often
necessary to know before applying it to classify or identify. As indicated in Table 5.1, these
influences will either be validated (V) or not validated (N) as having a high priority for achieving
the stakeholders’ goal. Table 5.1 also shows the recommendations for these highly probable
influences based on theoretical principles.
140

TABLE 5.1 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need
knowledge about
how to overcome
resistance to
change in the
academy
(institutional
mentality) (P)
N N Training is Clark and
Estes’ (2008)
recommendation
when procedural
knowledge is needed.
Procedural
knowledge refers to
the repetition of
actions needed to
complete re-
occurring tasks.
Faculty will need
training on the stages
of transition in order
to acquire “how to”
knowledge and skills
to adapt to
organizational
change.
Faculty need
knowledge about
the increasing
frequency and
impact of new
initiatives at the
higher education
level (change
overload) (M)
V Y Education is Clark
and Estes’ (2008)
recommendation
when future
problems are
unknown and cannot
be prepared for
specifically.
Education and
training are needed to
help faculty
overcome the novel
or unknown
problems emerging
within the institution
for higher education.
Faculty need
knowledge on how
to manage the
rapid
implementation of
multiple change
initiatives
(professional
preparation) (M)
V Y Education is Clark
and Estes’ (2008)
recommendation
when employees are
facing uncertainty,
specifically to help
cultivate a mindset or
approach to problems
that normalizes the
process and removes
the anxiety that often
accompanies
uncertainty.
Education and
training are needed to
prepare faculty
psychologically for
overlapping change
initiatives.
141

Faculty need
knowledge of
models of change
and on-campus
writing and
psychological
resources (D).
N N Faculty need this
information in order
to accurately assess
student responses to
the new programs
and curriculum and
adapt their
interactions with
students accordingly
(Clarke, et al, 1996).
Information sharing
among faculty is
needed so that they
can become aware of
the resources on
campus to support
students.
Faculty need
knowledge of how
and when to seek
out appropriate
mentoring,
implementation
support, and
curriculum
guidance from lead
instructors to
implement the new
curriculum with
fidelity (P).
V Y When undergoing
change processes,
individuals need
leadership from
administrators, help
from staff, and
support from their
peer group to
implement changes
appropriately (Beer
& Nohria, 2000;
Brownell & Tanner,
2012; Hargreaves,
2005)
Leadership needs to
provide step-by-step
training for faculty to
access mentoring
opportunities and
support for new
curriculum
implementation.
Faculty need
knowledge of the
importance of
metacognitive
processes,
including
reflections, sharing
of best practices,
and exploration of
new approaches to
teaching and
learning (M).
V Y Faculty benefit from
reflective practices
that help them absorb
new material and
make quality
decisions based on
their reflections
(Immordino-Yang,
Christodoulou, &
Singh, 2012)
Faculty need
education on the
value of reflection to
address unforeseen
difficulties and
training to learn how
to implement
reflective practices in
their everyday
routines.

The assumed knowledge influences on faculty learning experiences in higher education
in Table 5.1 were derived from learning and motivation theory. These influences are important to
explore further because of their link to changing environmental factors that affect faculty
142

willingness to endorse change initiatives. Specific knowledge types listed below can be
addressed through information, job aids, training, and education and are considered part of
knowledge and skills (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Declarative knowledge solutions or description of needs or assets. As has been
described in Chapter Two, declarative knowledge consists of two categories: factual and
conceptual. Factual knowledge is best described as the ability to understand something in
specific detail and then be able to use that knowledge to solve problems (Krathwohl,
2002). Faculty needed this type of knowledge because they were teaching new courses with new
syllabi as part of the PS’s new curriculum. They have to be adaptable, resourceful, and able to
integrate the new material effectively in order to accurately assess the performance and
behavioral expectations of students (Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Cropsey, et al., 2008).
Conceptual knowledge differs from factual knowledge in that it looks at the broader
systems in play and categorizes those systems into classifications that interact with each other to
create specific outcomes (Krathwohl, 2002). Included in this type of knowledge are principles,
concepts, theories, and models. Conceptual knowledge can help faculty members better
understand their new identity in the PS’s department structures. Systems that place PS faculty in
divisions were renamed, authority lines descended from different people, courses were renamed
and renumbered, and virtual siloes were constructed. These challenges to identity likely brought
up feelings of loss for faculty as the school creates a new identity for itself. The symmetry of
individual change and organizational change mirroring each other was revealed in this process.
Corley and Gioia (2004) studied the impact of “identity ambiguity” in times of change and
discovered that work productivity might diminish as faculty sort out their new place in the
143

organizational structure. As faculty members understand their place in the new department
names, structures, and content, gaps in conceptual knowledge may close as well.
According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), research reveals the difficulty for
individuals to connect learning in a knowledge area or discipline to larger constructs that help
explain behavior and enable predictive assessments. Clark and Estes (2008) assign information
sharing as a critical intervention to help employees – in this case, faculty – gain important
knowledge about their work experiences and make those connections to conceptual
frameworks. Hargreaves (2008) found that faculty who were not part of change planning were
more likely to be frustrated with change processes than those who were included. Faculty felt
closer to decision-making and influence if they were included, but it also helped them see ideas
from generation to diffusion as programs for the school. This understanding will help create
more facilitative transfers of conceptual knowledge. At Prism, approximately two-thirds of the
full-time faculty participated in some way in the change efforts. Although levels of anxiety
remained in the first few years of implementation, conceptual knowledge mitigated those
symptoms to a manageable level.
Faculty functioning level is likely to taper off during times of work stress, according to
Vakola and Nikolaou (2005). Their research explored the impact of work stress on commitment
and found that employees were less likely to perform at previous levels of attainment when work
stress appeared. Prism faculty bore the burden of massive change implementation and werethe
faces of administration in classrooms every day. They struggled to describe the purpose and goal
of many of the changes, often wrestling with their own desire to protest their experience as well.
They had various levels of clarity around who to go to for student assistance and how to get
support to students to manage their new reality successfully. Faculty will benefit from
144

information sharing, or the dissemination of information that fills factual knowledge gaps, to
increase their awareness of the resources on campus to support students (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Procedural knowledge solutions or description of needs or assets. The second
knowledge influence to review is procedural knowledge. As previously described in Chapter
Two, procedural knowledge emulates a “how to” manual. It is the knowledge type that focuses
on understanding when to take specific steps, which skills to use, and which techniques will be
most effective (Krathwohl, 2002). It is important for faculty as they learn the steps needed to
negotiate the new curriculum and department structures. Interactions between different parties
have become the norm both with faculty and staff. New channels of approval and support were
established over time, making the acquisition of procedural knowledge essential for maintaining
self-efficacy.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), training is the most efficient strategy to impart
“how to” knowledge. Training also provides in vivo opportunities for structured practice with
guidance and critical feedback to aid employees in achieving specified work outcomes. As an
intervention, its efficacy rests on repetition and consistent adherence to stated goals. As a result,
skill development is clearly aligned with organizational mission so knowledge transfer exists
within overall concepts or structures. Kirkpatrick (2006) advocated for a training approach that
acknowledges results and not merely satisfaction as the ultimate indicator of training success.
Literature shows that the inability to accomplish a task due to changing structures leads to
frustration and loss of productivity. As described in Chapter Two, this outcome is more likely to
exist during times of change overload (Corley & Gioia, 2004). When studying why faculty left
higher education settings, Weiler (1985) and Cropsey, et al. (2008) discovered that junior faculty
left university settings in part because of a lack of mentoring by more seasoned faculty. Only
145

half of junior faculty who participated in the study reported actually being mentored despite the
institution stating in its literature that mentoring would be provided. Mentoring could have
helped these junior faculty members reduce their sense of isolation while obtaining career
guidance, both of which were factors in their decision to leave.
Based on this literature review, PS faculty need to know how to navigate an increasingly
confusing system to receive professional and curricular guidance, support for managing change,
and help to implement change programs. An effective way to address this gap would be to
provide training for faculty to access mentoring opportunities and support for new curriculum
implementation. Faculty also need training on the stages of transition in order to acquire “how
to” knowledge and skills (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Metacognitive
knowledge is a type of knowledge concerned with cognition, strategic knowledge, and self-
knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Faculty reflection was needed in order to process the changes
that were rapidly occurring in the PS and prevent change overload. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), education can help prepare faculty for novel or unexpected challenges in the future,
as existed in the constant change environment at the PS. Education gives employees general
conceptual and analytical knowledge and equips them handle unanticipated problems and
develop creative solutions. By increasing metacognitive knowledge, self-regulation, and
empowerment, faculty should see a rise in their motivation and persistency during classroom
instruction and student interaction (Zimmerman, 1998). Currently, course lead instructors lead
weekly and biweekly consultation groups where these metacognitive processes can occur. Plans
were underway for other metacognitive knowledge processes to occur, including cross-course
consultation and faculty retreats examining the interconnectivity of syllabi.
146

To address the challenges of non-stop change, faculty needed knowledge of the
importance of metacognitive processes, including reflections, sharing of best practices, and
exploration of new approaches to teaching and learning (Immordino-Yang, et al.,
2012). Recommendations to address this gap included reflective practices that should help
faculty absorb new material and make quality decisions based on their reflections. Those
processes could also include bi-weekly consultation groups focused on implementation of the
new programs and curriculum in order to engage in reflection, collaboration, and exploration.
Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Introduction. The motivation influences in Table 5.2 represented the complete list of
assumed motivation influences and whether or not they were validated based on this study’s
completed data collection and analysis. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that there are three
indicators of motivation in task performance – choice, persistence and mental effort. Choice is
going beyond intention to start something. Persistence is continuing to pursue a goal in the face
of distractions, and mental effort is seeking and applying new knowledge to solve a novel
program or perform a new task.
As almost all Prism School faculty have continued their employment with the school
despite the constant change, the assumed causes appeared to suggest that while persistence and
mental effort were in abundance, choice may be lacking for faculty members as they experience
ambivalence about leaving or staying at the school. Faculty are paid well at Prism, have prestige
in the community due to their status as faculty members, and are part of an innovative, resource-
rich, R1 school that impacts local, state and national communities. As indicated in Table 5.2, the
motivational influences have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 5.2 also
shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
147

TABLE 5.2 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Faculty need to
see the value in
adapting to
changing
circumstances.
V Y Motivation,
learning and
performance are
enhanced if an
individual values
the task. Of the four
types of task value
(intrinsic, extrinsic,
attainment, or cost),
intrinsic (interest)
and cost (benefit)
apply to this
motivational
influence (Pintrich,
2003)
Faculty need education
to understand that it is
in their best interest and
to the benefit of the
Prism School to change
in response to the needs
of new generations of
students who can
prepare for their careers
through different
mechanisms than
colleges and
universities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Faculty need to
believe that
school changes
are in the best
interest of the
student, the
program, and the
university as a
whole.
N N Motivation,
learning and
performance are
enhanced if an
individual values
the task. Of the four
types of task value
(intrinsic, extrinsic,
attainment, or cost),
intrinsic (interest)
and attainment
(importance) apply
to this motivational
influence (Pintrich,
2003)
Faculty need education
to learn how constant
change creates an
atmosphere of
innovation, which is
ultimately in the best
interest of the school
and its primary
stakeholders (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
148

Faculty need to
believe that they
are competent in
implementing the
new initiatives
from the school.
V Y Self-efficacy theory
states that
motivation, learning
and performance
are enhanced when
learners have
positive
expectations for
success (Pajares,
2006)
Faculty need training to
master common and
consistent aspects
associated with the
introduction of new
initiatives (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Faculty need goal
orientation to
view new
initiatives as
opportunities
for growth and
development
professionally
V Y Goal orientation
theory posits that
creating mastery
orientation
enhances learning,
motivation, and
performance
(Yough &
Anderman, 2006)
Faculty need training to
learn how to create
goals emphasizing
mastery of new
initiatives (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Faculty need to
believe their
challenges in
comprehending
and teaching the
school’s new
curriculum are
due to
environmental
changes and not
their own lack of
ability.
V Y According to
attributions theory,
individuals can see
challenges either as
variations in effort
or lack of ability
(Anderman &
Anderman, 2006).
If they view it as a
lack of ability, then
they are likely not
to persevere in
pursuit of mastery
of new information
(Anderman &
Anderman, 2006).
If they view it as
effort-based, then
they will be able to
surmise that as they
Faculty need training
on proper implemen-
tation of the new
curriculum and other
school initiatives and
education on the impact
these changes can have
on faculty evaluations
and feelings of
competence (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
149

gain understanding
of the changing
environment and
the new
information, they
will gain
competence
(Anderman &
Anderman, 2006).

The assumed motivation influences on faculty learning experiences in higher education in
Table 5.2 were derived from learning and motivation theory. These influences were examined as
they relate to changing environmental factors such as change overload that impacted faculty
acceptance of or resistance to change. Specific motivation influences are listed below with
written recommendations for implementation. These recommendations include information
sharing, job aids, training, and education (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Value. Faculty need to see the value in adapting to changing circumstances. Motivation,
learning and performance are enhanced if an individual values the task. Of the four types of task
value (intrinsic, extrinsic, attainment, or cost), intrinsic (interest) and cost (benefit) apply to this
motivational influence (Pintrich, 2003). Efforts to increase faculty interest in and the perceived
benefit of adaptation could improve performance in a constant change environment. Faculty
need education to understand that it is in the best interest of all stakeholders to change in
response to the needs of new generations of students who can prepare for their careers through
different mechanisms than colleges and universities (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Faculty are traditionally a group of individuals who resist change, react slowly to calls for
innovation, and take years to translate research into practice (Tagg, 2012). These traditions in
the academy have made it difficult for leaders determined to create constant change
150

environments to enact the type of transformations they desired. In order to build competitive
advantages, they need faculty who are adaptable, agile, and able to pivot in response to changing
realities quickly and efficiently (Burke, 2013; Pascale, et al, 2000). Faculty need to see the value
in working in constant change environments and why these types of work environments are
essential to sustainability in higher education. By understanding how changes in our society
have created environments where university work groups must adopt competitive processes,
faculty will be more likely to embrace the pace of change at the Prism School and adapt more
quickly to new initiatives.
Value. Faculty need to believe that the changes in the school are in the best interest of
the student, the program, and the university as a whole. Motivation, learning and performance
are enhanced if an individual values the task. Of the four types of task value, intrinsic (interest)
and attainment (importance) apply to this motivational influence (Pintrich, 2003). This would
imply that increasing faculty interest in and perception of the importance of change as a benefit
to the school could help them improve their motivation. As such, faculty need education to learn
how constant change creates an atmosphere of innovation, which is ultimately in the best interest
of all primary stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Faculty reacted to change initiatives with a variety of responses, each one contextually
and cognitively considered. In doing so, they should see the importance and the benefit of the
work to many stakeholders invested in the outcome (Pintrich, 2003). Pascale, et al (2000) state
in their theory on organizational change called “the edge of chaos” that employees often move to
the edge of chaos when change occurs, but instinctively begin to move back to equilibrium.
According to the theory, leaders of these organizations should move employees away from the
stagnated state of equilibrium and into constant change environments (Burke, 2013; Pascale, et
151

al, 2000). Burke (2013) also emphasized the importance of creating the momentum that propels
organizations away from homeostasis. These perspectives support the need for faculty to
embrace new organizational initiatives and adapt to change environments.
Self-Efficacy. Faculty need to feel that they are competent in implementing the new
initiatives from the school. Self-efficacy theory states that motivation, learning and performance
are enhanced when learners have positive expectations for success (Pajares, 2006). This would
suggest that faculty should develop beliefs about the benefits of changing environments that
influence the way they approach new initiatives. To accomplish this, faculty need training to
master common and consistent aspects associated with the introduction of new initiatives,
including budgeting, team-building, technology, student engagement, running effective
meetings, and the development of goals, objectives, and learning outcomes (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Faculty in higher education are constantly assessed for their abilities, productivity, and
competence. Whether through annual performance reviews, midterm student evaluations, end-
of-semester evaluations, or assessments by supervisors, their self-efficacy can be influenced by a
wide variety of factors. Self-efficacy theory states that individuals can increase their self-
efficacy by achieving positive outcomes and successes, thus increasing their belief in their ability
(Pajares, 2006). Once known, individuals can use their abilities to create positive outcomes and
avoid more damaging experiences (Bandura, 2000). This individual realization can be projected
onto an organization by the force of the collective efforts of the individuals, developing what
Pajares (2006) refers to as organizational efficacy. By establishing this continuum, Pajares
(2006) has taken individual accomplishment and transformed it into a theory of organizational
152

impact that, in this study, translates into faculty influencing the PS through their own self-
efficacy.
Goal Orientation. Faculty should view these new initiatives as opportunities to grow
and develop professionally. Goal orientation theorizes that creating mastery orientation
enhances learning, motivation, and performance (Yough & Anderman, 2006). This would imply
that faculty need to set goals directly related to the expected outcomes of new initiatives.
Therefore, faculty need training to learn how to create goals emphasizing mastery of new
initiatives (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Faculty could apply goal orientation theory to help find additional value as they
implement changes because it could influence improvements in teaching, knowledge, learning,
and skills (Yough & Anderman, 2006). While innovation is often thought to derive from those
tasked with developing it, Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector (1990) studied fringe work groups and
found that innovation often developed outside of the dominant work culture. By embracing new
experiences that may test their expertise and functioning, faculty members may actually be
creating opportunities to improve their andragogy.
Attribution. Faculty need to believe their challenges in comprehending and teaching the
school’s new curriculum are due to environmental changes and not their own lack of ability.
Attributions theory states that individuals can view challenges in one of two ways, either as a
result of variations in effort or lack of ability (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). If they view it as a
lack of ability, then they are likely not to continue pursuing mastery of new information
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006). If they view it as effort-based, then they will be able to surmise
that as they gain understanding of the changing environment and the new information, they will
gain competence (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). This would suggest that faculty performance
153

would improve with proper guidance and support that reinforces their belief in their own
instructional competency. Lead instructors are identified individuals in the PS who are expected
to provide this guidance and support. However, if they are also uncertain about their level of
competence in implementing the new curriculum, they may not be able to provide the proper
support for faculty. Therefore, faculty need training on proper implementation of the new
curriculum and other school initiatives and education on the impact that curriculum changes can
have on faculty evaluations and feelings of competence in times of turbulence (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Attribution theory is about assigning reasons for the outcome of event (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). These reasons usually derive from a person’s belief system about his or her
own sense of competency. If a person fails a test and has low self-esteem, it is probable that they
will assign the reason for that failure to their own lack of ability. A person’s experiences are
strong predictors of the subsequent beliefs, which may be based on failures from the past, and
can lead to motivation issues when presented with opportunities to influence future outcomes
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Conversely, a person with elevated self-confidence may
attribute a failure to changing factors such as issues with the environment or instructor factors
that they cannot control and so on. These factors are considered to be in the external locus of
control, or outside of individual influence, as opposed to the first example that emphasized stable
factors and an internal locus of control. Past successes influence this belief and result in
increased motivation to go back to the point of failure and change the outcome. By correcting
this failure, an individual becomes that much more likely to find success the next time he or she
encounters difficulty. The experiences of overcoming challenges serves as a motivational
incentive that can lead to future successes (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). In applying
154

attribution theory to promote instructional efficacy, faculty should believe that they will become
competent in their instruction and that the changes in the school are in the best interest of all key
stakeholders in the university ecosystem.
Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Introduction. The organization influences in Table 5.3 represent the complete list of
assumed organization influences and whether or not they have been validated through the data
collection and analysis in this study. These influences are supported by the literature review and
the review of organization and culture theory. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organization
and stakeholder goals are often not achieved due to a lack of resources – most often time and
money – and stakeholder goals that are not aligned with the organization’s mission and
goals. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) propose two constructs about culture – cultural models
or the observable beliefs and values shared by individuals in groups, and cultural settings, or the
settings and activities in which performance occurs. Thus, resources, processes, cultural models,
and cultural settings must align throughout the organization’s structure to achieve the mission
and goals. In Table 5.3, the organizational influences are marked as validated (V) or not
validated (N) with a corresponding priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 5.3 also
shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
TABLE 5.3 Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
155

The school
operates in
constant change,
beginning new
initiatives before
the previous
changes have had
time to go through
an improvement
cycle, before
faculty have
reached mastery in
the previous
changes, and
before
organizational
knowledge can be
built that
inculcates the
previous changes.
(Cultural Model
Influence 1:
Instability)
V Y Faculty experience
difficulty in change
environments due to
a lack of knowledge
about change
processes, the
information needed
to adapt to the
change, and the
skills required to
succeed in a new
environment
(Sastry, 1997; Tagg,
2012).
Faculty need
information sharing
from administration on
the processes of
change that are
occurring in their work
environment and
education on the need
for change, despite its
short-term difficulties
(Clark & Estes).
Information sharing
would include specific
details about how
supervision structures
will change, how the
school’s mission will
include new
perspectives, and how
new programs will be
implemented.
In an effort to be
in the top ten in
school rankings,
faculty are being
asked to add to
their workload,
experience another
learning curve
while absorbing
new knowledge,
and implement at
a rate quicker than
they can process
the change.
(Cultural Model
Influence 2:
Attrition)
N Y Organizations
experiencing change
overload are more
likely to have higher
employee turnover
than other
organizations
(Leana & Van
Buren, 1999;
Maertz, et al., 2007;
Tolbert, et al., 1995;
Weiler, 1985; Zhou
& Fredericks, 2004).
Research has shown
that faculty
experience
uncertainty in times
of change regarding
resources that
support change
efforts (Clarke, et
al., 1996).
Administrators need to
support change with
increased
infrastructure support,
such as admin time
and decentralized
decision-making
power. Faculty need
job aids on resources
that support adaptation
to change
environments in order
to reduce employee
turnover (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
156

Rapid
programmatic and
faculty growth on
the POP has been
interpreted by
traditional, on-the-
ground faculty as
an indication of a
lack of
quality. This
feeling has led to
resistance in
granting
governance rights
to POP faculty,
inadequate
inclusion in
faculty meetings,
and minimization
of their
representation in
faculty
governance
committees.
(Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Perceptions of
Online Faculty)
N Y Veteran faculty
members often view
new programs with
a skeptical eye,
withholding support
until the new
program has proven
itself (Redpath,
2012). Bias against
online faculty
impedes the growth
of online
programming and
classroom
andragogy
(Redpath, 2012).
According to the
Transtheoretical
Model of Change,
faculty members
who are resistant to
online programming
may be in pre-
contemplation,
where use of data
and exposure to the
advantages of
technology in
education can help
them move through
contemplation to
active change and in
support of online
education (Mitchell,
Parlamis, &
Claiborne, 2015).

Leadership needs to
create more intra-
professional
engagement between
faculty in the POP and
ground programs.
Faculty in our on-
ground program need
training and education
to advance their
appreciation and
acknowledgement of
the challenges and
benefits of teaching
online as well as the
virtual course offerings
that are available
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
157

The second
cultural setting is
the POP. The
central conflict in
the POP is
quantity versus
quality: the school
fell in national
rankings the year
the POP began
and has continued
to fall, enrollment
is twice the size of
the ground
program, and
concerns persist
about the quality
of students
entering the
program. (Cultural
Setting Influence
2: Prism Online
Program)
Y Y Online educators are
responsible as
representatives of
online education to
perform at the
highest level. This
pressure creates a
difficult balance
between growth and
rejuvenation
(Barbera, 2004).
Leadership needs to
create opportunities for
faculty to discuss the
balance between
embracing risk and
burnout. POP faculty
need education on and
how to manage
feelings about student
quality versus growth
considerations that are
influenced by the POP
partnership with a for-
profit company (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Faculty need to
monitor stress
level and identity
in organization to
reduce identity
ambiguity
(identity loss)
V Y As organizations
change, employees
may lose their sense
of organizational
identity, feel
disconnected at
work, and lose sight
of their job
performance goals
(Abrahamson, 2004;
Brownell & Tanner,
2012; Bunton, et al.,
2012; Corley &
Gioia, 2004;
Cropsey, et al.,
2008; Sastry, 1997).
Faculty need
information sharing
and training on
practical self-care
activities that they can
repeat as their schedule
permits to help with
reducing stress and
maintaining sense of
identity (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Leadership needs to
acknowledge the
constant change
environment and
assess its impact on
employee well-being.
158

Faculty need to be
part of decision-
making processes
when
organizations
change
(participatory
decision- making)
V Y Faculty who are not
included in
decision-making
processes are more
likely to resist
change
efforts (Black &
Gregerson, 1997;
Clarke, et al., 1996;
Hargreaves, 2004;
Lipshitz & Strauss,
1997)
Administrators need to
create job aids to assist
faculty in becoming
meaningful
participants in
administrative
decision-making
processes (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Faculty need to be
able to maintain
high levels of
work productivity
throughout change
efforts (change
overload).
V Y Faculty in excessive
change
environments
experience
decreased work
productivity (change
overload)
(Abrahamson, 2004;
Abrahamson &
Team, 2013;
Brownell & Tanner,
2012; Cohen, et al.,
2003; Corley &
Gioia, 2004;
Johnsrud & Rosser,
2002; Sastry, 1997;
Tagg, 2012)
Building the
capacity of an
organization through
relationship-
building is crucial in
improving the
institution and its
accountability
systems (Hentshe &
Wohstetter, 2004).
Faculty need
information sharing
and training on
practical self-care
activities that they can
repeat as their schedule
permits to help
maintain appropriate
levels of productivity
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Leadership needs to
create environments
where the health and
well-being of the
individual is valued
through relationship-
building even as the
organization changes.
159

Faculty need to
know about ways
to stay
emotionally and
cognitively
engaged in rapidly
changing work
environments
(mood).
V Y Faculty are more
likely to experience
cynicism and
burnout in
environments with
rapid, overlapping
change initiatives
(Repetitive Change
Syndrome)
(Abrahamson, 2000;
Abrahamson, 2004;
Abrahamson and
Team, 2013;
Hargreaves, 2005;
Lackritz, 2004)
Faculty need cognitive
and emotional training
addressing the change
process, and
organizational support
with human resources
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
They also need
opportunities to
process their
experiences with
constant change to be
better equipped for
future initiatives.

Cultural Model Influence One: Instability. The school operates in constant change,
beginning new initiatives before the previous changes have had time to go through an
improvement cycle, before faculty have reached mastery in the previous changes, and before
organizational knowledge can be built that inculcates the previous changes. Faculty experience
difficulty in change environments due to a lack of knowledge about change processes, the
information needed to adapt to the change, and the skills required to succeed in a new
environment (Sastry, 1997; Tagg, 2012). Faculty would benefit from information that eases the
transition during times of change. Therefore, faculty need information sharing on the processes
of change that are occurring in their work environment and education on the need for change,
despite its short-term difficulties (Clark & Estes). Information sharing would include specific
details about how supervision structures will change, the school’s mission will include new
perspectives, and new programs will be implemented.
Organizational change consists of a complex mix of actions, reactions, influences and
outcomes with its own unique direction (Kezar, 2001; Pascale, et al., 2000, and Burke,
2013). The “edge of chaos” theory developed by Pascale, et al. (2000), as cited in Burke (2013),
160

identifies several change criteria for organizational change leaders to consider in what they
describe as the “new science of complexity” (p. 266-267). Of the four criteria, the second one
refers to organizational stakeholders moving to the edge of chaos when threatened or moved to
do so by their own belief in the need for change (Pascale, et al., 2000). In this place of
uncertainty, both anxiety and creativity co-exist, but solutions are often developed that solve
larger organizational issues (Pascale, et al., 2000).
Kezar (2001) also writes of disorderly processes of change where management must be
agile and responsive to the environment. In this disorderly place, positive outcomes can and
often do occur. Leaders may take credit for successes, but individuals have often self-organized
and created their own processes for success. Research in higher education has found dialogue
with no clear strategic goal often leads what Kezar (2001) refers to as “fundamental campus
changes (p. 119).” In contrast, forced change with clear plans have often failed or not achieved
quality outcomes (Kezar, 2001). Burke (2013) has described this type of outcome as
unanticipated consequences; he suggests that organizational leaders understand that these
outcomes can happen as employees seek equilibrium. Rather than disregard solid organizational
planning strategies, Kezar (2001) recommends using it to understand the complexities of change
and seek alternative strategies to manage challenges when it occurs.
Cultural Model Influence Two: Attrition. In an effort to be in the top ten in school
rankings, faculty are being asked to add to their workload, experience another learning curve
while absorbing new knowledge, and implement at a rate quicker than they can process the
change. Organizations experiencing change overload are more likely to have higher employee
turnover than other organizations (Leana & Van Buren, 1999; Maertz, et al., 2007; Tolbert, et al.,
1995; Weiler, 1985; Zhou & Fredericks, 2004). Research has shown that faculty experience
161

uncertainty in times of change regarding resources that support change efforts (Clarke, et al.,
1996). This would suggest that if faculty received appropriate information, their anxiety and
desire to leave an organization would reduce. Administrators need to support change with
increased infrastructure support, such as clerical time and decentralized decision-making power.
Faculty also need job aids on resources that support adaptation to change environments in order
to reduce employee turnover (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Faculty may experience cynicism, burnout, and feelings of chaos while attempting to
implement overlapping change initiatives (Abrahamson, 2004). They may be reluctant to take
on new initiatives due to a reduced sense of self-efficacy. Abrahamson (2000) and Sastry (1997)
both call for alternative rates of change that create stability and progression, primarily because it
keeps the workforce pool emotionally and psychologically intact. By contrast, there are usually
few survivors in constant change environments in which cynicism, burnout, and chaos are felt
(Abrahamson, 2000). Faculty at the Prism School of Social Science need to feel competent in
moving through the chaos that can be a difficult ongoing reality in constant change
environments.
Cultural Setting Influence One: Perceptions of Online Faculty. Rapid programmatic
and faculty growth on the POP has been interpreted by traditional, on-the-ground faculty as an
indication of a lack of quality. This feeling has led to resistance in granting governance rights to
POP faculty, inadequate inclusion in faculty meetings, and minimization of their representation
in faculty governance committees. Veteran faculty members often view new programs with a
skeptical eye, withholding support until the new program has proven itself (Redpath, 2012).
Bias against online faculty impedes the growth of online programming and classroom andragogy
(Redpath, 2012). Overcoming bias, therefore, can lead to support, active involvement, and
162

inclusion of online faculty in school governance and other meaningful roles often reserved for
ground faculty. According to the Transtheoretical Model of Change, faculty members who are
resistant to online programming may be in pre-contemplation, where use of data and exposure to
the advantages of technology in education can help them move through contemplation to active
change and in support of distance education (Mitchell, Parlamis, & Claiborne, 2015).
Leadership needs to create more intra-professional engagement between faculty in the POP and
ground programs. Ground faculty need training and education to advance their appreciation and
acknowledgement of the challenges and benefits of teaching online as well as the virtual course
offerings that are available (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Research depicts higher education settings as slow-moving, methodical entities with
faculty governance processes that limit innovation and pace of change (Tagg, 2012). Schein
(2004), however, takes a different view of these processes and frames resistance as part of the
values, beliefs, rules and behavioral norms of an organization (Schein, 2004). Viewing higher
education cultures in this way might change how a leader views vocal dissenters. Instead of
seeing them as archaic admirers of past successes, they could be viewed as representing cultural
expectations of the larger faculty group. Taking broad steps into new cultural realities could
threaten primary beliefs within an organization that has well-established values, beliefs, norms
and rules (Schein, 2004).
Cultural Setting Influence Two: Prism Online Program. The second cultural setting
is the POP. The central conflict in the POP is quantity versus quality: the school fell in national
rankings the year the POP was implemented and continues to fall, enrollment is twice the size of
the ground program, and concerns persist about the quality of students entering the program.
Online educators are responsible as representatives of online education to perform at the highest
163

level. This pressure creates a difficult balance between growth and rejuvenation (Barbera, 2004).
This would suggest that efforts to help faculty achieve the proper balance would benefit the POP
as an institution. Therefore, leadership needs to create opportunities for faculty to discuss the
balance between embracing risk and burnout. POP faculty also need education on the balance
between embracing risk, experiencing burnout, and managing feelings about student quality
versus growth considerations that are influenced by the POP partnership with a for-profit
company (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Using Schein’s (2004) model of organizational culture as a framework, one can
understand how faculty set their minds against change as his framework normalizes resistance as
a champion of a silent majority and indicative of needed stability. As described earlier, living by
the values, beliefs, norms, and rules of an organization helps an organization develop in other
ways. Administrators should consider the lessons from Schein’s model in interpreting faculty
behavior as contributing to organizational health. By finding ways to link proposed changes
with existing cultural expectations, leaders improve the prospects of implementing successful
change initiatives (Schein, 2004).
Cultural Setting Influence Three: Identity Loss. Faculty need to monitor stress level
and identity in organization to reduce identity ambiguity. Faculty in excessive change
environments experience elevated stress and loss of identity (Abrahamson, 2004; Brownell &
Tanner, 2012; Bunton, et al., 2012; Corley & Gioia, 2004; Cropsey, et al., 2008; Sastry, 1997;
Tagg, 2012). This would suggest that efforts to reduce stress and solidify their identity as faculty
at the Prism School should be undertaken. As a result, leadership needs to acknowledge the
constant change environment and assess its impact on employee well-being. Faculty need
information sharing and training on practical self-care activities that they can repeat as their
164

schedule permits to help with reducing stress and maintaining sense of identity (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Professional identity, often linked to career paths and expected promotions, can be
influenced negatively as organizations go through significant changes (Brownell and Tanner,
2012). The possibility of having to alter their professional identity presents potential difficulties
to faculty members as their knowledge base and skills acquired over years is challenged.
According to their research, identity transformation continued to be problematic even after the
influence of time, training and incentives to ease the change process (Brownell & Tanner, 2012;
Cropsey, et al., 2008).
Cultural Setting Influence Four: Inclusion. Faculty need to be part of decision-making
processes when organizations change in a process known as participatory decision-
making. Faculty who are not included in decision-making processes are more likely to resist
change efforts (Black & Gregerson, 1997; Clarke, et al., 1996; Hargreaves, 2004; Lipshitz &
Strauss, 1997). This would imply that faculty acceptance of change efforts is directly linked to
their level of inclusion in the change process. To achieve this, administrators need to create job
aids to assist faculty in becoming meaningful participants in administrative decision-making
processes (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In a study of higher education faculty work units, Clarke, et al., (1996) found that faculty
who were not included in decision-making processes resisted change at a much higher level than
faculty who were included. This finding is reinforced by Hargreaves (2004) research that faculty
inclusion in change planning helped them resist any negative outcomes associated with new
initiatives whether or not the initiatives were from outside forces or not. Research on other R1
institutions have found that participatory design increased faculty engagement when the topic
165

area connected with their research or a trusted colleague becomes an early adopter (Clark, Ellet,
Bateman, & Rugutt, 1996; Hargreaves, 2004).
Cultural Setting Influence Five: Change Overload. Faculty need to be able to
maintain high levels of work productivity throughout change efforts. Faculty in excessive
change environments experience decreased work productivity (Abrahamson, 2004; Abrahamson
& Team, 2013; Brownell & Tanner, 2012; Bunton, et al., 2012; Cohen, et al., 2003; Corley &
Gioia, 2004; Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Sastry, 1997; Tagg, 2012; Vakola & Nikoloau,
2005). This would suggest that if faculty can maintain adequate self-care and work/life balance
during times of excessive change, their work productivity should maintain or improve versus
per-change levels. To achieve this, faculty need information sharing and training on practical
self-care activities that they can repeat as their schedule permits to help maintain appropriate
levels of productivity (Clark & Estes, 2008). Leadership also needs to create environments
where the health and well-being of the individual is valued through relationship-building even as
the organization changes.
Change efforts have the potential to negatively impact faculty work productivity
(Abrahamson, 2004; Hargreaves, 2004; Vakola & Nikoloau, 2005). Stress and organizational
change occurring concurrently may lead employees to resist change and lose motivation for work
assignments (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002). Workplace stress also has been found to reduce
employees’ commitment to organizations and increase resistance to change (Vakola and
Nikoloau, 2005).
Cultural Setting Influence Six: Mood. Faculty need to know about ways to stay
emotionally and cognitively engaged in rapidly changing work environments. Faculty are more
likely to experience cynicism and burnout in environments with rapid, overlapping change
166

initiatives (Repetitive Change Syndrome) (Abrahamson, 2000; Abrahamson, 2004; Abrahamson
and Team, 2013; Hargreaves, 2005; Lackritz, 2004). This would imply that providing faculty
with the tools to take care of themselves physically, emotionally, and cognitively could lead to a
reduction in cynicism and burnout. Therefore, faculty need information sharing and training on
practical self-care activities that they can repeat as their schedule permits to help reduce the
impact of repetitive changes (Clark & Estes, 2008). They also need opportunities to process
their experiences with constant change to be better equipped for future initiatives.
Organizational change theorists argue for leadership styles that move organizations away
from homeostatic states (Burke, 2013 & Pascale, et al., 2000). Tooby, Cosmides & Barrett,
(2003) posit that organizations may move as easily toward disorder as order, depending on how
different variables interact. Leaders should be aware of this dynamic movement within
organizations and leverage that knowledge effectively. Once a new state of equilibrium is
achieved due to change efforts, the organization is in danger of organizational death, according
to Pascale, et al., (2000). They refer to it as reduced responsiveness to environmental factors, an
organizational status that threatens growth and innovation (Pascale, et al., 2000). Burke (2013)
urges organizational change leaders to push their organization away from that state of lethargy,
toward the edge of chaos, and the creation of new homeostatic states (Pascale, et al., 2000). This
constant process of change contributes to organizational learning, if managed correctly, and
could lead to increased innovations and productivity (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that informed this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four
167

Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model suggests that
evaluation plans start with the goals of the organization and work backwards and that, by doing
so, the leading indicators that bridge recommended solutions to the organization’s goals are both
easier to identify and more closely aligned with organizational goals. Further, this “reverse
order” of the New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for a sequence of three other actions:
a) The development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors;
b) The identification of indicators that learning occurred during implementation; and
c) The emergence of indicators that organizational members are satisfied with
implementation strategies.
Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in this manner forces connections
between the immediate solutions and the larger goal and solicits proximal buy-in to ensure
success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The organizational mission of the Prism School of Social Science is to promote social
justice and well-being at every social level through advanced education, community engagement,
interdisciplinary scientific activity, advocacy, and professional leadership. One of the PS’s goals
is to become an industry leader among schools of social science in the United States as measured
by a top ten ranking from U.S. News and World Report. The PS’s problem of practice has
occurred during its effort to improve its rankings by implementing new programs, initiatives, and
pedagogies. The faculty, who have been asked to lead many of these efforts, have increased
their cognitive load as they seek to gain competence in new areas. This increase has led to
evidence of burnout, fatigue, and change overload symptoms.
168

By May 2018, a stakeholder goal is for PS faculty to successfully implement new
programs and the school’s new curriculum as evidenced by keeping the average course
evaluation rating by students at a 4.2 or higher (out of five), and maintaining student ratings of
instructor quality at 4.5 or higher, on average. This goal was selected because it reflects the core
mission of the institution to effectively educate students in the profession of social science. It
focuses on maintaining quality andragogy so that students are not negatively impacted by the
load that faculty are carrying to implement new programs. Since faculty are steeped in
implementation of new initiatives, maintaining quality student experiences amid constant change
is a notable goal that helps keep the true mission of the institution in focus. By achieving its
outcomes, this study can help higher education administrators plan and execute effective change
processes that ensure continuation of quality programming even as the culture is undergoing re-
calibration. Specifically, this study reveals how higher education work units can create
successful change environments for their faculty, staff, and students in order to compete with an
emerging array of different educational options for potential students.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 5.4 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for the Prism School’s
stakeholder group of full-time faculty. If the internal outcomes are met as expected through
training and organizational support for faculty adapting to new learning environments, then the
external outcomes should also be realized. Based on short-term observations, the measurements
that show evidence that the stakeholders are achieving the desired outcomes and results are
consistent student ratings of classes above 4.2 and of instructors above 4.5, on average.

169

TABLE 5.4 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome(s) Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Continued influx of social
scientists into the economy trained by
the Prism School
1. Maintain or improve the
school’s graduation rate
1. Quality improvement of faculty
andragogy and incorporation of new
curriculum and new programming into
explicit and implicit learning
environments.
2. Improve the perception of the
Prism School compared to other
schools of social science
2. Return Prism School’s
ranking to a top ten status as
reported by U.S. News &
World Report.
2. Annual report by U.S. News & World
Report, which chronicles the top
universities around the United States.
Internal Outcomes
3. Assure quality student experience
in the classroom
3. Achieve student ratings
of professors at 4.5 on
average and of classes at 4.2
on average
3. Faculty training, lead instructor
consultation groups, and one-on-one
sessions to gain mastery.
4. Establish successful change
environment to encourage and
support continual organizational
growth.
4. Successfully implement
two or more new programs
or initiatives per year

4. Introduce incentives to reward faculty
for creating revenue-producing programs
5. Increased faculty
confidence/satisfaction
5. Study survey results on
key questions.
5. Compare annual survey results.
6. Improved workplace satisfaction
and more supportive working
conditions
6. Study survey results on
key questions.
6. Compare annual survey results.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the full-time faculty at the Prism
School of Social Science. The first critical behavior is that administrators need to provide
appropriate resources to support change. The second critical behavior is that full-time faculty
need to seek out appropriate resources and supports for students struggling to understand the
structures, expectations, and protocols in the PS’s new learning environment. The third critical
behavior is that they need to seek assistance from lead instructors when encountering challenges
in teaching the PS’s new curriculum. The fourth critical behavior is that administrators need to
create supportive environments for constant change by engaging faculty often in dialogue
regarding their experiences and commitment to new change initiatives. The fifth critical
170

behavior is that faculty need to embrace change and then act in ways that encourage others to
accept the changes. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome
behaviors appears in Table 5.5.
TABLE 5.5 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers

Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Administrators need to provide
appropriate resources to support
change
1. The number of human
capital resources
provided to faculty
running new initiatives

1. Review FTE’s assigned
to new change initiatives
2. Every six
months
2. Full-time faculty must seek out
appropriate resources and
supports for students struggling
to understand the structures,
expectations, and protocols in the
PS’s new learning environment
2. The number of
resources accessed for
students to receive
assistance

2a. Review notes in
School’s database to create
report on the number of
students seeking assistance
related to new programs,
processes, and protocols.
2a. Monthly
throughout first
two semesters of
a student’s
program.

2b. Self-report by faculty
on the number of resources
accessed in an academic
year to support students
2b. Monthly
report by faculty
to lead
researcher.
3. Full-time faculty must reach
out for assistance to lead
instructors when encountering
challenges in teaching the PS’s
new curriculum
3. The number of times a
faculty member assesses
own need and reaches out
to lead instructor to
receive appropriate
internal assistance.
3a. Study team shall track
number of times assistance
is requested by utilizing
notes function in
Salesforce and then
running reports.
3a. Monthly
throughout first
two semesters of
faculty teaching
new curriculum.

3b. Self-report by faculty
on the number of times
they sought assistance in
teaching new curriculum.
3b. Monthly
throughout first
two semesters of
faculty teaching
new curriculum
4. Administrators need to create
supportive environments for
constant change by engaging
faculty often in dialogue
regarding their experiences and
commitment to new change
initiatives
4. The number of times
full-time faculty engage
in change talk with
administration
4. Administrators will
schedule regular debriefing
sessions on the school’s
constant change
environment

4. Monthly
throughout first
two semesters of
faculty teaching
new curriculum.
5. Faculty need to embrace
change, express support for
change, and act in ways that
5. The number of times
full-time faculty engage
in change talk
5. Faculty shall actively
work to minimize their
verbal expressions of
5. Monthly
throughout first
two semesters of
171

encourage others to accept the
changes
frustration at the pace of
change in the organization

faculty teaching
new curriculum.

Required drivers. Full-time faculty at the PS will require the support of their direct
supervisors and the organization to reinforce what they learn in the training and to encourage
them to apply what they have learned to help create successful change environments. Rewards
should be established for achievement of performance goals to enhance the organizational
support of full-time faculty. Table 5.6 shows the recommended drivers to support critical
behaviors of full-time faculty engaged in adaptation to continuous change.
TABLE 5.6 Required Drivers to Support Full-Time Faculty Adaptation to Constant Change
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Faculty need education to understand that it is in their best interest
and to the benefit of the Prism School to change in response to the
needs of new generations of students who can prepare for their
careers through different mechanisms than colleges and
universities.
Ongoing 4, 5
Faculty need education to learn how constant change creates an
atmosphere of innovation, which is ultimately in the best interest
of the three primary stakeholders mentioned in this motivational
influence.
Ongoing 4, 5
Faculty need training to master common and consistent aspects
associated with the introduction of new initiatives, including
budgeting, team-building, technology, student engagement,
running effective meetings, and the development of goals,
objectives, and learning outcomes.
Monthly 2, 3, 4, 5
Faculty need training to learn how to create goals emphasizing
mastery of new initiatives.
Ongoing 3, 4, 5
Faculty need training on proper implementation of the new
curriculum and other school initiatives and education on the
impact that curriculum changes can have on faculty evaluations
and feelings of competence in times of turbulence.
Ongoing 3, 4, 5
Encouraging

172

Faculty need information sharing on the processes of change that
are occurring in their work environment and education on the need
for change, despite its short-term difficulties.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Faculty need job aids on resources that support adaptation to
change environments in order to reduce employee turnover.
Quarterly 3, 4, 5
Rewarding

Faculty in our on-ground program need training and education to
advance their appreciation and acknowledgement of the
challenges and benefits of teaching online as well as the virtual
course offerings that are available.
Quarterly 2, 3, 4, 5
POP faculty need education on the balance between embracing
risk and burnout and how to manage feelings about student quality
versus growth considerations that are influenced by the POP
partnership with a for-profit company.
Quarterly 3, 4, 5

Monitoring

Faculty need information sharing and training on practical self-
care activities that they can repeat as their schedule permits to
help with reducing stress and maintaining sense of identity.
Monthly 2, 3, 4, 5
Faculty need cognitive and emotional training addressing the
change process, and organizational support with human resources.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Organizational support. The organization will support the recommendations by first
understanding that its responsibility to its employees must start with caring for them as its own.
All supports put in place must start with this perspective, thus enabling those within the
organization who are new to this process to contribute immediately. The organization will
continually provide resources for students in their efforts to adapt to changing realities. It will
also invest in the efforts by faculty to improve their andragogy by supporting high quality lead
instructors with an annual stipend, consultation groups for collaborative learning, and regular
trainings designed to educate students in specific skill sets. The organization must find the right
balance between intense change efforts and recognition of its accomplishments.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, most notably the
trainings, job aids, and educational sessions, the stakeholders will be able to:
173

1. Identify resources to support student adaptation to changing environments. (D)
2. Learn how to appropriately reach out for pedagogical assistance (lead instructors, etc.).
(D)
3. Embrace constant change efforts to keep the university offerings competitive with
other emerging ways in which prospective students find career pathways. (P)
4. Seek organizational support with human resources. (P)
5. Practice practical self-care activities designed to provide brief respites from the
challenges of constant change environments. (C - confidence)
6. Understand the components of the change effort plan of the organization. (C -
confidence)
7. Articulate components of the change effort plan of the organization. (C - commitment)
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a
proposed training program that focuses on emphasizing self-care among full-time faculty while
also readying them for continual change. The Prism School faculty will learn about available
resources to guide and improve their andragogy in the new curriculum, the value of constant
change to encourage innovation and stay competitive, and the importance of practicing self-care
for sustainability and wellness purposes. The training will be delivered in three hybrid in-
person/online sessions by a collaboration of course lead instructors and department chairs and
vice chairs (PS has four curricular departments) and one self-directed online module that
addresses the organizational goals, mission, vision, and student learning outcomes.
The first job aid for the hybrid sessions will contain key information on resources
available to improve andragogy and student engagement as well as department goals and
objectives that will help faculty align their andragogy with organizational structures. Another
174

job aid will contain the relevant theories and their applications of organizational change
practiced by the Prism School, with a focus on the work of Burke (2013) and Pascale, et al.
(2000) that support the importance of constant change to encourage innovation and prevent
stagnation. During the asynchronous e-learning module, faculty will be provided a job aid of the
key organizational values and beliefs embodied in the goals, mission, vision, and student
learning outcomes. The job aids will be demonstrated in flow charts and other handouts that
depict the necessary information, as well as through recorded demonstrations and explanations
by key faculty and department leadership. Key terms will be defined with examples of correct
application an incorrect usage and interpretation. The training will be structured so that
instructors can model expectations, check for understanding, provide opportunities for faculty to
practice ways of engaging with students, have time for peer review, and give feedback to
participants. The approach that models demonstration, practice, and feedback will also be used
throughout the training sessions and should serve as a model for all training across the school.
During the synchronous hybrid sessions, the focus will be on introducing the faculty to
key organizational structures and practice habits that will also reinforce the lessons learned in the
asynchronous sessions. Key faculty leaders will utilize their expertise to guide faculty in
understanding the PS’s approach to change and innovation. This key time of sharing,
collaborating, and learning from more experienced faculty has the potential to consolidate
learning and coalesce relationships across the school, setting up new foundations of support and
collegiality that could mark a new way that collaboration is practiced in the school. As the Prism
School Dean prepares for more change, this foundation could be an important way to set the
stage for all faculty to not only react effectively to the new initiatives, but also lead the way.
175

Components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge is often necessary as a
precursor to applying the knowledge to solve problems. Thus, it is important to evaluate
learning for both declarative and procedural knowledge being taught. It is also important that
faculty value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned knowledge and skills on
the job. However, they must also be confident that they can succeed in applying their knowledge
and skills and be committed to using them on the job. As such, Table 5.7 lists the evaluation
methods and timing for these components of learning.
TABLE 5.7 Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge: “I know it.”

Knowledge checks using multiple choice. In the asynchronous portions of the
course during and after video
demonstrations.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair, think,
share” and other individual/group activities.
Periodically during the hybrid
workshops and documented via
observation notes.

Procedural Skills: “I can do it right now.”

During the asynchronous portions of the course
using scenarios with multiple-choice items.
In the asynchronous portions of the
course at the end of each
module/lesson/unit
Demonstration in groups and individually using the
job aids to successfully perform the skills.
During the workshops.
Quality of the feedback from peers during group
sharing
During the workshops.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment survey
asking participants about their level of proficiency
before and after the training. .
At the end of the workshop.
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Instructors’ observations of participants’ statements
and actions demonstrating that they see the benefit
of what they are being asked to do on the job.
During the workshop.
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do on the job.
During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.
Understanding of the importance of environments of
constant change and innovation
During and after the course.
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”

176

Survey items using scaled items Following each module/lesson/unit in
the asynchronous and synchronous
portions of the course.
Discussions following practice and feedback.

During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”

Discussions following practice and feedback.

During the workshop.
Create an individual action plan.

During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.

Level 1: Reaction
TABLE 5.8 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Time spent in each unit of the online learning modules
and scores on end-of-unit knowledge checks
Ongoing during asynchronous
portion of the course.
Completion of online modules/lessons/units Ongoing during asynchronous
portion of the course.
Observation by instructor/facilitator During the workshop
Observation by Prism School administration during
hybrid trainings
During the workshop
Attendance During the workshop
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Relevance

Brief check-ins with participants via survey (online) and
discussion (ongoing)
After every module/lesson/unit
and the workshop

Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Customer Satisfaction

Brief check-ins with participants via survey (online) and
discussion (ongoing)
After every module/lesson/unit
and the workshop

Course evaluation Two weeks after the course.

Evaluation Tools
During and immediately following program implementation. During the
asynchronous portion of the course, participants will be asked about the material presented at the
completion of each module on the online learning management system (LMS). The LMS will
177

administer brief surveys requesting the participant to indicate the relevance of the material to
their job performance and their overall satisfaction with the quality of the material presented.
During the hybrid workshop, the instructor will conduct periodic brief assessments on
participation at level 1 by assessing participants’ levels of engagement in the course on three
measures: 1) eye contact with the instructors, 2) asking appropriate questions, and 3) keeping cell
phones turned off throughout the course. The instructor will also issue brief surveys asking
participants about the relevance of the material to their work and organizational goals
periodically during the delivery of the material.
Level 2 will include checks for understanding, procedural skill, attitude, confidence, and
commitment using brief surveys at the end of asynchronous modules and instructor-directed
paper evaluations during hybrid trainings. These check-ins will be used to determine the levels
of each category as reported by participants in both methods of training delivery.
Assessment at two points in time after training program implementation.
Approximately one month after the training completion and then again at six months,
leadership will administer a survey containing primarily scaled items to measure, from the
participant’s perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the training (Level 1), knowledge,
procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment in applying their training (Level 2). The
survey will also measure participants’ applications of the training to the constant change
environment in their work (Level 3), and the extent to which their performance of their work
duties has improved through the implementation of the training components.

178

Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of improved performance by full-time faculty at the Prism School of Social
Science will be measured by increases in confidence and satisfaction in their work in constant
change environments.
FIGURE 5.1 Level 4 Training Report

These indices will be measured one month after training implementation followed by a six-
month measurement. They will be reported at the end of each of the semesters of the academic
year using bar graphs comparing each training report to overall six-month averages over time.
FIGURE 5.2 Trainees Implementing Work Improvement Plans: 1-Mth and 6-Mth

21
18 16
22
% of Trainees by Dept. Implementing
Work Improvement Plan: 1-Mth
Aging
Family Stakeholders
Medicine
Management
16
14
13
18
% of Trainees by Dept.
Implementing Work Improvement
Plan: 6-Mth
Aging
Family Stakeholders
Medicine
Management
179

The Level 3 goal of full-time faculty applying their training to the constant change
environments in which they work will be measured at the one and six-month intervals as
indicated above. These data will be reported using pie graphs (see above Figure 5.3) comparing
faculty performance by department for each of the four PS departments.
The Level 2 goal of increasing full-time faculty knowledge, procedural skills, attitude,
confidence, and commitment in applying their training will be measured at the conclusion of the
training and then followed up on at the six-month interval. This data will be reported by full-time
faculty level (tenure track, clinical teaching, clinical field, and research faculty) using line graphs
showing fluctuations in each of the five areas listed above.
FIGURE 5.3 Post-Training Percentage of Level 2 Criteria Attainment at 0-Mth

The Level 1 goal of increasing the satisfaction and relevance of the training for the
participants will be measured throughout the training and at the conclusion of the training (see
Figure 5.4 above). These data will be reported using bar graphs (see Figure 5.5 below)
depicting overall levels of satisfaction and perceived relevance of the training divided into
asynchronous and hybrid training depictions.
180

FIGURE 5.4 Post-Training Percentage of Level 2 Criteria Attainment at 6-Mth

FIGURE 5.5 Overall Level 1 Training Satisfaction and Perceived Relevance

Summary
This researcher used the New World Kirkpatrick Model to guide the planning of the
training by always keeping in mind the end goal of increased performance at the work unit level.
As the training development moved into implementation, the model aligned the structure of the
181

trainings to meet the expectations for each level. During the evaluation portion, the model
helped this researcher align evaluation questions with the purpose of each level in order to yield
the appropriate responses aligned with overall training goals. Throughout this entire process, the
overall organizational goal of increasing its ranking through improved faculty performance
amidst constant change environments proved to be effective. The creation of the training plan
always kept the faculty goal of maintaining student matriculation rates and student ratings of
courses and instructors while undergoing significant change processes a constant target. Because
the training plan jointly considered both the stakeholder and organizational goal in its creation,
the training should optimize the opportunities to achieve those goals.
The model provided the right construct to build a training program designed to move
faculty into new areas of understanding about their work in constant change environments. The
model allowed a breakdown of a complex enterprise into workable parts that could be built week
by week while remaining loyal to the original premises. By using a reverse order to construct the
training interventions at each level, the overall goals of the training to improve effectiveness at
the individual and work unit level were not secondary to the temporal increase in satisfaction or
perceived relevance from a training experience. By constructing the training components
backwards, the most important part was addressed first (Level 4), with the lowest level in terms
of long-term impact (Level 1) addressed at the end. It made the final sections easier to write
since the overall goals were already addressed through the early constructs of the training
experiences.
By combining implementation and evaluation, the model helped align what would be
taught with what would be asked after the trainings. Aligning these two elements helped keep
the focus on overall goals and ensured that the training would effectively address the reasons for
182

it in the first place. This researcher’s expectations were exceeded in this process of discovery
and creation as the model helped guide his work without having full knowledge of the end result.
By reversing the order, the structure ensured that this researcher always remained focused on the
key organizational and stakeholder goals. Since Level 4 deals with improved work performance,
starting at that level helped ensure that the levels beneath it supported improved work
performance. In summary, the training structure that this researcher created should yield the
desired results because of the systematic way in which the plan was constructed in accordance
with the New Work Kirkpatrick Training Model.

183

References
Abrahamson, E. (2000). Change without pain. Harvard business review, 78(4), 75-81.
Abrahamson, E. (2004). Avoiding repetitive change syndrome. MIT Sloan Management
Review, Winter, 2004, 45(2), p. 92-95.
Abrahamson, E., & Team, L. Y. (2013). Avoiding repetitive change syndrome. Image.
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction
and repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917-931.
Alagaraja, M., & Shuck, B. (2015). Exploring Organizational Alignment-Employee
Engagement Linkages and Impact on Individual Performance A Conceptual
Model. Human Resource Development Review, 14(1), 17-37.
Altbach, P. (2015). The dilemmas of ranking. International Higher Education, (42).
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Longman
Austin, A. E. (2002). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face
changing expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education,
26(2), 119-144.
Austin, M. J., Ahearn, F. L. & English, R. A. (1997). Guiding Organizational Change.
New Directions for Higher Education, 1997(98): 31–56. doi: 10.1002/he.9803
Austin, M. J., Ahearn, F. L., & English, R. A. (Eds.). (1997). The Professional School
Dean: Meeting the Leadership Challenges: New Directions for Higher Education
184

(Vol. 58). Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Barbera, E. (2004). Quality in virtual education environments. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 35(1), 13-20.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000, May & June). Cracking the code of change. Harvard
Business Review, 78(3), 133–141.
Bercovitz, J. & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at
the Individual Level. Organization Science 19(1), 69-89.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0295
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Participative decision-making: An integration of
multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878.
Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of
training, time, incentives, and… tensions with professional identity? CBE-Life
Sciences Education, 11(4), 339-346.
Bunton, S. A., Corrice, A. M., Pollart, S. M., Novielli, K. D., Williams, V. N., Morrison,
L. A., & Fox, S. (2012). Predictors of workplace satisfaction for US medical
school faculty in an era of change and challenge. Academic medicine, 87(5), 574-581.
Burke, W. W. (2013). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Creasey, T. (2017). When should you use a change management readiness assessment?
Retrieved on 11-13-17 from:
http://blog.prosci.com/when-should-you-use-a-change-management-readiness-assessment
185

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. IAP.
Clarke, J. S.; Ellett, C. D.; Batemen, J. M.; & Rugutt, J. K. (1996). Faculty
receptivity/resistance to change, personal and organizational efficacy, decision
deprivation and effectiveness in research I universities. Association for the Study
of Higher Education Annual Meeting Paper, Oct. 31 – Nov. 3, 1996.
Clarke, M. (2007). The impact of higher education rankings on student access, choice,
and opportunity. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 59-70.
Cohen, A. R., Glavin, W. F., Moore, T. E., Allen, S. A., & Zolner, J. P. (2003).
Transformational change at Babson College: Notes from the firing line. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 2(2), 155-180.
Cohen, B. J., & Austin, M. J. (1997). Transforming human services organizations through
empowerment of staff. Journal of Community Practice, 4(2), 35-50.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a
corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173-208.
Cropsey, K. L., Masho, S. W., Shiang, R., Sikka, V., Kornstein, S. G., & Hampton, C. L.
(2008). Why do faculty leave? Reasons for attrition of women and minority
faculty from a medical school: Four-year results. Journal of women's health,
17(7), 1111-1118.
Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2006). The challenges facing academic decision making:
Contemporary issues and steadfast structures. The shifting frontiers of academic
186

decision making: Responding to new priorities, following new pathways, 1-14.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the
public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.
Fink, A. (2015). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Sage Publications.
Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in
research practice. Qualitative research, 2(2), 209-230.
Gaff, J. G. (1978). Overcoming faculty resistance. New Directions for Higher Education,
1978(24), 43-57.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Getstrategy.com. (2017). Change readiness survey. Retrieved on 10-27-17 from:
http://www.getstrategy.com/uploads/1447091060_change%20readiness%20assessment.p
df
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (p. 6). White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.
Grama, B. (2013). Cynicism in organizational change. Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 3,
29.
Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: organizational change and institutional
imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67-91. URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447907
187

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American
sociological review, 149-164.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational
factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and
teacher Education, 21(8), 967-983.
Hazelkorn, E. (2007a). The impact of league tables and ranking systems on higher
education decision making. Higher education management and policy, 19(2), 1-
24.
Hazelkorn, E. (2007b). How do rankings impact on higher education? imhe INFO, 1-2.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., Christodoulou, J. A., & Singh, V. (2012). Rest is not idleness:
implications of the brain’s default mode for human development and education.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 352-364.
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research (2016). Carnegie Classifications 2015
public data file, http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/downloads/CCIHE2015-
PublicDataFile.xlsx 3-16-17.
Interpnet. (2017). DSWD Performance Measurement IA Tool. Retrieved on 11-8-17 from:
https://www.interpnet.com/docs/2013-Handouts/STRATEGIC-PLANNING-Parmer-
Morrison2.pdf
Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2002). Faculty members' morale and their intention to
leave: A multilevel explanation. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 518-
542.
Kazlow, C. (1977). Faculty receptivity to organizational change: A test of two
explanations of resistance to innovation in higher education. Journal of Research
188

& Development in Education.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st
century. ASHE-ERIC higher education report, 28(4), 147.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460.
Kezar, A. (2009). Change in higher education: Not enough, or too much? Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(6), 18-23.
Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change.
Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (2006). Seven Keys to Unlock the Four Levels of Evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 45(7), p. 5-8.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Koch, K. (March 5, 2012). Educating Harvard, MIT – and the world.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/05/edx_press_conference/
Kotkin, J. (2015, August 9). Progressive policies drive more into poverty. Orange County
Register. Retrieved on 9-17-15 from http://www.ocregister.com/articles/percent-676592-
california-state.html
Kotter, J. P. (2007, January). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 85(1), 96–103.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Leana, C.R. & Van Buren, H.J. (1999). Organizational Social Capital and Employment
189

Practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538-555.
LenCD: Learning Network on Capacity Development. (2017). How to assess change readiness.
Retrieved on 10-23-17 from: http://www.strategies-for-managing-change.com/change-
management-implementation.html
Maertz, C. P., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen, D. G. (2007). The effects of
perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee
turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1059-1075.
Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of
global rankings in higher education. Journal of studies in international education,
11(3-4), 306-329.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Mitchell, L. D., Parlamis, J. D., & Claiborne, S. A. (2015). Overcoming faculty avoidance of
online education: From resistance to support to active participation. Journal of
Management Education, 39(3), 350-371.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved on 3-15-16 from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pascale, R. T., Millemann, M., & Gioja, L. (2000). Surfing the edge of chaos: The laws of
nature and the new laws of business. Crown business.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications. Chapter 7, pp. 339-348
190

Performanceprograms.com. (2017). Managing organizational change: change readiness surveys.
Retrieved on 11-19-17 from: http://www.performanceprograms.com/organizational-
development/organizational-surveys/change-readiness-surveys/
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(4), 667–686.
Prism School. (2018). Our mission. Prism School: Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved on 3-26-18
from https://prismschool.edu/about/mission
Prism School. (2017) School of Social Science, Staff Directory. Retrieved on 3/17/2017 at
http://prismschoolsocialscience.force.com/FacultySocialScienceContacts
Prism School. (2017) School of Social Science, Staff Directory. Retrieved on 3/17/2017 at
http://prismschoolsocialscience.force.com/StaffSocialScienceContacts
Prism School. (2016). Social Science programs. Retrieved on 4/10/2016 from
https://prismschool.edu/master-of-social-science
Redpath, L. (2012). Confronting the bias against on-line learning in management education.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 125-140.
Rossi, A. (2014). Ivory tower. Paramount.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.
Sastry, M.A. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 237-275.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley &
Sons.
Schwandt, D. R., & Marquardt, M. J. (2000). Organizational learning: From world-class
191

theories to global best practices. St. Lucie Press.
Shanafelt, T. D., West, C. P., Sloan, J. A., Novotny, P. J., Poland, G. A., Menaker, R., &
Dyrbye, L. N. (2009). Career fit and burnout among academic faculty. Archives of
Internal Medicine, 169(10), 990-995.
Strategies for Managing Change. (2017). Change management implementation. Retrieved on 11-
5-17 from: http://www.strategies-for-managing-change.com/change-management-
implementation.html
Study.com. (2017). Organizational culture defined. Retrieved on 11-17-17 from:
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-organizational-culture-definition-
characteristics.html
Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 44(1), 6-15.
Thakur, M. (2007). The impact of ranking systems on higher education and its
stakeholders. Journal of Institutional Research, 13(1), 83-96.
Tolbert, P. S., Simons, T., Andrews, A., & Rhee, J. (1995). The effects of gender
composition in academic departments on faculty turnover. Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, 48(3), 562-579.
Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., & Barrett, H. C. (2003). The second law of thermodynamics is the first
law of psychology: evolutionary developmental psychology and the theory of tandem,
coordinated inheritances: comment on Lickliter and Honeycutt (2003).
Tosti, D., & Jackson, S. (2000). Organization alignment. Retrieved on Dec. 30, 2016,
from http://www.vangaurdc.com/org_align.html
Prism News. (2011). Prism Excels in Annual ‘Great Colleges’ Survey. Retrieved on 10-3-17
192

from http://news.prism.edu/26454/Prism-Excels-in-Annual-Great-Colleges-Survey/.
U.S. News and World Report. (2017). Best grad school rankings: Social science. Retrieved on
3-16-17 from: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/health-
schools-methodology
Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the
role of employees' stress and commitment? Employee relations, 27(2), 160-174.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual
review of psychology, 50(1), 361-386.
Weiler, W. C. (1985). Why do faculty members leave a university? Research in Higher
Education, 23(3), 270-278.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
Zhou, Y. & Fredericks, J. (2004). Examining the influences on faculty departure
intentions: A comparison of tenured versus non-tenured faculty at research
universities. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 139-176. URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40197342
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A
self-regulatory perspective. Educational psychologist, 33(2-3), 73-86.

193

APPENDICES
194

APPENDIX A
Organizational Change Readiness Survey

Prism School of Social Science

Spring, 2018

195

Dear Prism School of Social Science Full-Time Faculty Member:

As a current full-time faculty member in the Prism School of Social Science, you are invited to
participate in an anonymous survey (Organizational Change Readiness Survey) for the study
entitled Managing Successful Organizational Change For Faculty in Higher Education: An
Innovation Study.

This study has been approved by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB) and my faculty advisor as part of my dissertation for USC’s Rossier School of
Education EdD program on Organizational Change and Leadership. This survey has been
approved for distribution to our School’s full-time faculty by members of our School’s
leadership team and the Associate Dean of Research in accordance with the recently published
standards for conducting surveys of our School’s constituent groups. The 20-minute survey will
be active from Jan. 29 to Feb. 15, 2018.

The findings of this mixed methods study, which will also include faculty interviews, will be
used for my dissertation and to provide feedback to our School’s leadership on our full-time
faculty’s perceptions of our School’s organizational change environment.

Please note that participation is voluntary and can be discontinued at any time. Responses will
not be linked to names, email addresses or ID numbers. There is no compensation for
participation. Benefits to participation include contributing to the advancement of ideas about
organizational change in our School and in higher education in general. There are no anticipated
risks in participating, and your employment will not be affected in any way whether you choose
to participate or not.

If you would like to participate in this study, please access the survey through the link
below and complete it by Feb. 16, 2018.

Link: Organizational Change Readiness Survey

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://prismsocialscience.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_02lECSPBl2T4H0F

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at torycox@prism.edu or my Faculty
Advisor Anthony Maddox, EdD at amaddox@rossier.usc.edu.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

Tory Cox
EdD Candidate, 2018
USC Rossier School of Education

196

Full-time faculty members at the Prism School of Social Science have experienced numerous
organizational changes since 2010 with a number of significant changes occurring since July 1,
2014. Since that date, our School has implemented a new curriculum, changed from a
concentration to a department model, and introduced our medicine and doctor of social science
(DSS) programs on the Prism Online Program. Research indicates that higher education units
may need to operate at the speed of business instead of traditional, slow-moving university
decision-making processes in order to compete in a new educational landscape (Gumport, 2000;
Tagg, 2012; Kak, 2018). Managing a healthy work/life balance while working in a constant
change environment may present sustainability challenges (Abrahamson, 2000).

In this mixed methods study, I will utilize an anonymous survey followed by key stakeholder
interviews to assess full-time faculty readiness for future change initiatives and to further
research on how to manage successful organizational change in higher education settings.
Participation in the survey or the key stakeholder interview is completely voluntary. Your
identity will be kept confidential as responses will not be linked to names, email addresses or ID
numbers. There are no consequences for stopping your participation in this study at any time.
There will be no compensation for participating in this study.

The 20-minutes survey will be administered to all Prism School of Social Science full-time
faculty via Qualtrics while the 60-minute interviews for key stakeholders will be held on the
Adobe Connect platform. The interviews will be scheduled at convenient times for participants,
audio recorded, and transcribed with identifying information removed. Interviewees will be able
to review the transcripts of their interview for accuracy prior to this researcher utilizing the
content for the purposes outlined in this study.

Findings will be reported in a doctoral dissertation for conference presentations and to inform
recommendations to the School.

If you would like to participate in this study, please access the survey through the link
below and complete it by Feb. 16, 2018:

Link: Organizational Change Readiness Survey

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://prismsocialscience.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_02lECSPBl2T4H0F

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at torycox@prism.edu or my Faculty
Advisor Anthony Maddox, EdD at amaddox@rossier.usc.edu.

Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely,

Tory Cox
EdD Candidate, 2018
USC Rossier School of Education

197

Managing Successful Organizational Change for Faculty in Higher Education:
An Innovation Study
If you would like to continue, please press the “next” button below. Thank you.

The following terms are defined for the purpose of this survey:
 Burnout – a state of extreme physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion characterized
by a decrease in motivation and performance.
 Change overload – a state in which faculty (in this survey) have too many
responsibilities and are in danger of organizational cynicism and burnout.
 Health – faculty member’s overall physical and mental health
 Initiative – program or process introduced by administration designed to increase the
capacity and improve the quality of our School
 July 1, 2014 – this date is important as it signifies the beginning of our School
restructuring into departments and the creation of our School’s new curriculum.
 Organizational change (also referred to as “change”) – a process in which an
organization alters its structure, working methods, aims, or environment, often to address
emerging realities, in ways that impact how work is performed.
 Organizational culture – a system of shared assumptions, values, and beliefs, which
governs how people behave in organizations.
 Organizational cynicism – The belief that an organization lacks integrity, which, when
coupled with a powerful negative emotional reaction, leads to disparaging and critical
behavior.
 Overlapping change initiatives – the presence of two or more initiatives as defined
above being implemented simultaneously
 Primary job responsibilities – core responsibilities defined by a job description and
assessed by the Annual Performance Review process by which salary and promotion are
determined
 Quality – the School’s commitment to its mission, ability to provide a healthy work
environment for its employees, and deliver high-caliber education to students
 Stability – slow, methodical growth that maintains the status quo while taking few risks

198

Demographic Questions
i. Please indicate your full-time faculty line:
a. Clinical Field
b. Clinical Teaching
c. Research
d. Practice
e. Senior Lecturer
f. Tenure or tenure track

ii. Please select the choice that most accurately reflects your primary responsibility in your full-
time faculty role:
a. Teaching
b. Administration
c. Teaching & Administration
d. Other: ___________________

iii. Please select your primary affiliation in your full-time faculty role:
a. Ground/campus-based program (includes MSS & Ph.D.)
b. Prism Online Program (POP, including MSS, MED, & DSS)

iv. Please indicate your gender:
a. Male
b. Female
c. Transgender
d. Other: ____________
e. Prefer not to disclose

v. Please select your age range:
a. 25 – 34 years’ old
b. 35 – 44 years’ old
c. 45 – 54 years’ old
d. 55 – 64 years’ old
e. 65+ years’ old

vi. Please select the category that most accurately reflects your ethnicity/cultural
identification/race
a. African-American
b. Asian-American
c. Caucasian or White
d. Latino or Hispanic
e. Pacific Islander
f. Bi-racial or multi-racial
g. Other:___________
h. Prefer not to disclose

199

vii. Please indicate your years of service as full-time faculty for the Prism School of Social
Science
a. 1-5 years
b. 6-10 years
c. 11-15 years
d. 16 – 20 years
e. 21+ years

viii. Please indicate your primary department affiliation:
a. Aging
b. Family Stakeholders
c. Medicine
d. Management

Change Culture
Please respond to the following questions using the scale listed below:
1=Strongly Agree; 2=Agree; 3=Disagree; 4=Strongly Disagree

Organizational Culture
1. Change is a part of our School’s organizational culture. 1 2 3 4

2. Please indicate which of the following statements you feel is most accurate.
Organizations can promote stable, healthy work environments:
a. By alternating periods of change implementation with times of stability and
consolidation of gains.
b. By responding to challenges as they occur, regardless of the pace of change.
c. By introducing overlapping change initiatives based on forecasted challenges to ensure
future viability.
d. By sticking with what is working and not rushing in to change based on a temporary
educational, administrative, or societal shift.

3. Based on my experiences, our School has a history of successful change initiatives. 1
2 3 4

4. Please indicate which of the following statements you feel is most accurate.
Organizational change:
a. Improves our School’s organizational culture.
b. Somewhat improves our School’s organizational culture.
c. Has no impact on our School’s organizational culture.
d. Somewhat negatively impacts our School’s organizational culture.
e. Negatively impacts our School’s organizational culture.

5. Our School adapts to change quickly. 1 2 3 4

6. I believe our organizational culture related to change is:
a. Backward looking (focused on past successes and failures)
200

b. Resistant (reluctant to embrace change)
c. Reactive (non-strategic response to changing circumstances)
d. Forward thinking (strategic, innovative and planned response to anticipated changes)

Leadership
7. Change is usually well-planned at our School. 1 2 3 4

8. Overall, our School leads change in an effective way. 1 2 3 4

9. Overall, our School manages change in an effective way. 1 2 3 4

10. Overall, our School supports change in an effective way. 1 2 3 4

11. Change typically occurs at our School with a clear vision of the intended future. 1 2 3
4

12. Appropriate resources are usually allocated to implement new change initiatives. 1 2 3
4

13. Leadership does an effective job managing faculty resistance to change. 1 2 3 4

Full-time Faculty
14. I understand the purpose of School changes. 1 2 3 4

15. I thrive in a constant change environment. 1 2 3 4

16. I lack the knowledge needed to successfully implement new change initiatives. 1 2 3
4

17. I am actively involved in shaping our School’s desired future. 1 2 3 4

18. I am able to implement the new curriculum with fidelity to its design. 1 2 3 4

19. I am motivated to implement new change initiatives for our School. 1 2 3 4

20. Based on your experiences, what percentage of our School’s full-time faculty do you
think are resistant to organizational change?
a. 0 – 20%
b. 21 – 40%
c. 41 – 60%
d. 61 – 80%
e. 81 – 100%

21. Please provide any additional comments regarding our School’s change culture:
________________________________________________________________________

201

Change Impact

Organizational Culture
22. Our School is undertaking too much change at the moment. 1 2 3 4

23. Organizational change at our School results in a more satisfying work environment. 1 2
3 4

24. Organizational change at our School adversely affects my health. 1 2 3 4

Leadership
25. Our School usually begins new initiatives when:
a. Previous changes have had time to go through an improvement cycle, mature, and
achieve their intended goals. 1 2 3 4
b. Full-time faculty have reached functional competence in implementing the previous
changes. 1 2 3 4
c. Organizational knowledge gained from previous changes has been consolidated even if
the long-term impact of the change is not yet known. 1 2 3 4
d. Previous changes have started to take hold but are not far enough along to determine
their viability. 1 2 3 4

26. Please rank the importance of each action below in determining the success of change
initiatives in our School from most important (1) to least important (8).
a. Clear vision communicated by leadership
b. Co-creation of vision involving key stakeholders
c. Consolidating and producing more change
d. Empowering faculty to embrace change
e. Establishing a sense of urgency that change must happen now
f. Establishing short-term “wins” brought about by the change
g. Forming a coalition of key stakeholders
h. Institutionalizing new actions

27. Please rank the importance of the following organizational efforts in determining the
success of change initiatives in our School from most important (1) to least important (7).
a. Infrastructure support (staff time, administrative buyout, supplies, technology
support, leadership endorsement)
b. Knowledge of how to manage change
c. Supervisor support
d. Supportive colleagues (teamwork)
e. Thorough implementation plans
f. Training on new initiative implementation
g. Other: _________________________

Full-time Faculty
28. As a full-time faculty member, I am provided opportunities to obtain the knowledge
necessary to make change work. 1 2 3 4
202

29. Based on your experiences, what percentage of full-time faculty do you feel are
experiencing the change overload symptom of organizational cynicism due to the pace of
change in our School?
a. 0-20%
b. 21-40%
c. 41-60%
d. 61- 80%
e. 81-100%

30. Based on your experiences, what percentage of full-time faculty do you feel are
experiencing the change overload symptom of burnout due to the pace of change at our
School?
a. 0-20%
b. 21-40%
c. 41-60%
d. 61- 80%
e. 81-100%

31. How has your participation in new change initiatives at our School impacted your ability
to accomplish your primary job responsibilities? Please select the answer that most
accurately describes your response to this question.
a. I am usually able to complete my primary job responsibilities and any tasks associated
with new change initiatives in a 40-hour work week.
b. I usually work more than 40 hours Monday through Friday to complete my primary job
responsibilities and any tasks associated with new change initiatives.
c. I usually work on weekends to complete my primary job responsibilities and any tasks
related to new change initiatives.
d. I am usually not able to complete my primary job responsibilities nor all of the tasks
associated with new change initiatives during most weeks and weekends.

32. Please provide any additional comments regarding the impact of change in our School:
________________________________________________________________________

Change Readiness

Organizational Culture
33. Our School needs to change. 1 2 3 4

34. Change benefits our School. 1 2 3 4

35. Stability is difficult when new change initiatives are being implemented in our School. 1
2 3 4

36. New change initiatives improve the quality of our School. 1 2 3 4

203

Leadership
37. Administrative leaders make themselves easily accessible for answering questions and
information-sharing during times of change. 1 2 3 4

38. During times of change, designated leaders actively seek input from faculty concerning
challenges. 1 2 3 4

39. School administration supports faculty during times of change. 1 2 3 4

40. The organization usually provides appropriate training to help employees adapt to new
change initiatives. 1 2 3 4

Full-time Faculty
41. I am willing and able to embrace change. 1 2 3 4

42. I have the knowledge required to successfully manage organizational changes. 1 2 3 4

43. I believe there is enough consultation with faculty on the changes. 1 2 3 4

44. New initiatives give me the opportunity to grow and develop professionally. 1 2 3 4

45. Which statement best describes your attitude toward change?
a. I welcome change
b. I can handle organizational change as long as I am included in developing the change
c. I am concerned about too much change in the workplace
d. I dislike change and would prefer to keep doing what is working: why fix something
that is not broke

Future Changes
46. I would like our School to experience a year in which we seek to master initiatives we
currently implement instead of introducing new ones. 1 2 3 4

47. Regarding the future introduction of new change initiatives:
a. I am prepared for them to occur at the same pace as previous ones. 1 2 3 4
b. In my estimation, our full-time faculty are prepared for them to occur at the same pace
as previous ones. 1 2 3 4
c. Overall, I feel our School is prepared for them to occur at the same pace as previous
ones. 1 2 3 4

48. I would like to experience a year of stability instead of constant change in
our School. 1 2 3 4

49. Please provide any additional comments regarding our collective readiness for change in
our School.
______________________________________________________________________

204

50. Please provide any additional comments regarding the overall pace of change in our
School and its impact on quality:
______________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully answer these questions. Your input is very
much appreciated. Thank you!

205

APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol
Tory Cox
Dear Prism School of Social Science Full-Time Faculty Member:

As a current full-time faculty member in the Prism School of Social Science, you are invited to
participate in an anonymous survey for the study entitled Managing Successful Organizational
Change For Faculty in Higher Education: An Innovation Study.

Full-time faculty members at the Prism School of Social Science have experienced numerous
organizational changes since 2010 with a number of significant changes occurring since July 1,
2014. Since that date, our School has implemented a new curriculum, changed from a
concentration to a department model, and introduced our medicine and doctor of social science
(DSS) programs on the Prism Online Program. Research indicates that higher education units
may need to operate at the speed of business instead of traditional, slow-moving university
decision-making processes in order to compete in a new educational landscape (Gumport, 2000;
Tagg, 2012; Kak, 2018). Managing a healthy work/life balance while working in a constant
change environment may present sustainability challenges (Abrahamson, 2000).

In this mixed methods study, I will utilize an anonymous survey followed by key stakeholder
interviews to assess full-time faculty readiness for future change initiatives and to further
research on how to manage successful organizational change in higher education settings.
Participation in the survey or the key stakeholder interview is completely voluntary. Your
identity will be kept confidential as responses will not be linked to names, email addresses or ID
numbers. There are no consequences for stopping your participation in this study at any time.
There will be no compensation for participating in this study.

The survey will be administered to all Prism School of Social Science full-time faculty via
Qualtrics while the 60-minute interviews for key stakeholders will be held on the Adobe Connect
platform. The interviews will be scheduled at convenient times for participants, audio recorded,
and transcribed with identifying information removed. Interviewees will be able to review the
transcripts of their interview for accuracy prior to this researcher utilizing the content for the
purposes outlined in this study.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at torycox@prism.edu or my Faculty
Advisor Anthony Maddox, EdD at amaddox@rossier.usc.edu.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

Tory Cox
206

EdD Candidate, 2018
USC Rossier School of Education

207

Managing Successful Organizational Change for Faculty in Higher Education:
An Innovation Study
Scripted introduction: “Thank you for your willingness to speak with me regarding the
pace of change within our School and the impact of organizational change in higher
education work units. This interview is a follow-up to the Qualtrics survey that was
recently disseminated on the same subject. The 12 questions listed below are being asked to
12 voluntary faculty members representing a variety of roles within our school.

Please note the following parameters for the interview:
 Participation is strictly voluntary.
 There are no consequences for not participating.
 You may skip any question without the need to provide an explanation.
 Your answers will be kept confidential.
 No identifying information will be linked to the final transcript of the interview.
 You will be able to review the transcript for accuracy before it is used in the
research.
 The interview will last no more than 60 minutes.

Do you have any questions before we proceed? (audible response required)

With your permission, I would like to record the interview. Is that okay with you? (audible
response required). Thank you. We will get started now.”

As a reminder, several key terms are defined and posted on the note pod on screen. These
key definitions are also listed below in my interview protocol.

The following terms are defined for the purpose of this survey:
 Burnout – a state of extreme physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion characterized
by a decrease in motivation and performance.
 Change overload – a state in which faculty (in this survey) have too many
responsibilities and are in danger of organizational cynicism and burnout.
 Health – faculty member’s overall physical and mental health
 Initiative – program or process introduced by administration designed to increase the
capacity and improve the quality of our School
 July 1, 2014 – this date is important as it signifies the beginning of our School
restructuring into departments and the creation of our School’s new curriculum.
 Organizational change (also referred to as “change”) – a process in which an
organization alters its structure, working methods, aims, or environment, often to address
emerging realities, in ways that impact how work is performed.
 Organizational culture – a system of shared assumptions, values, and beliefs, which
governs how people behave in organizations.
208

 Organizational cynicism – The belief that an organization lacks integrity, which, when
coupled with a powerful negative emotional reaction, leads to disparaging and critical
behavior.
 Overlapping change initiatives – the presence of two or more initiatives as defined
above being implemented simultaneously
 Primary job responsibilities – core responsibilities defined by a job description and
assessed by the Annual Performance Review process by which salary and promotion are
determined
 Quality – the School’s commitment to its mission, ability to provide a healthy work
environment for its employees, and deliver high-caliber education to students
 Stability – slow, methodical growth that maintains the status quo while taking few risks

“Please state your name, faculty line, department affiliation, title, and your primary role
and responsibility at our School.”

1. What is your opinion about the pace of change in our school as manifested by the number of
new initiatives implemented?

2. How important are these change efforts to the overall quality, stability, and organizational
health of our school?

3. How many and what types of new initiatives have you been a part of during the last 12
months? …two years? …seven years? Overall, is this total too much, too little, or just right for
you? Please explain.

4. Describe your experience in implementing a new initiative mentioned above and how it
influenced your feelings about the school’s overall change efforts.

5. How have your previous experiences helped you in your work with the constant change
environment at our School?

6. As one who has experienced change and led change in our School, describe how it feels to
share in the successes of the school (reaffirmation process, school naming, rankings, awards,
etc.). Please also share any experiences with perceived failures.

7. How is your confidence impacted by your feelings of competence or inadequacy when
experiencing organizational change in our School?

8. As one involved in our School’s large-scale curriculum change, talk about your comfort level
in implementing the new curriculum as it was originally designed.

9. How do you view your own growth and development in relation to implementing change
initiatives?

209

10. What area would you identify as a gap for our faculty in their efforts to implement change
initiatives: knowledge, motivation, or organizational factors?

11. Describe the first thought that comes to mind when I say that the pace of change at our
school will continue at its current level or increase. How receptive are you to continuing to work
in this environment of constant change?

12. Do you have any other comment you would like to add before we end this interview?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for taking the time to answer these interview questions openly and honestly.
Your answers will help inform recommendations to the School regarding our pace of
change. Thank you again for your time!

210

APPENDIX C
Observation Protocol
Tory Cox, Researcher
An observation protocol is an outline of expectations presented in an organized way to
collect the information relevant to the study. In this study, the observation protocol will consist
of this researcher informing the audience of his will and his presence in situations where he is
not normally present. In meetings or gatherings where he is normally present, he will not
divulge his intention of observing the faculty interactions. He will attempt to be in a complete
observer stance, except where doing so jeopardizes the actions of others, in which case a partial
observer/participant stance will be taken. In this way, this researcher will be able to see faculty
interactions with and without knowledge of being observed.
The observations will be recorded as a mix of verbatim and summary due to the difficulty
of writing down every comment or interaction as it occurs. Verbatim comments should reflect
the importance of these remarks, while summary comments should provide an overview of
interactions related to a specific topic or process. Five-minute time markers will be notated
signaling the transition to another five-minute time period. This recording method will help this
researcher find observation data gathered during the 60-minute observation period.
Where possible, quotation marks should be used to identify direct quotes. Observational
commentary (OC) should be used occasionally to describe the process being observed instead of
just the visible actions that are being taken. This researcher will attempt to assess as much detail
as possible to ensure rich information and future research. This observer will use a recording
device to back up the written verbatim notes and summaries. This researcher will accurately
track and find the field notes in the larger 60-minute recording using the minute tracker.
211

The observation will include descriptions of the physical setting, the participants,
activities and interactions, conversation, subtle factors, and this researcher’s own behavior
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The observations will be completed and stored in a locked cabinet
so that confidentiality, and where possible, anonymity, can be protected. This protocol should
help in the gathering of observation information relevant to the purposes of this study.
Observation Protocol

1. Researcher: ____________________________

2. Date/Time/Place: _________________________________________________________

3. Type of Prism School meeting (please check):
____ Curriculum Council ____ Faculty Council ____ Research Council
____ End-of-Semester Celebration ____ Field Faculty Meeting ____ Department Meeting
____ Online Meeting ____ Department Leadership Meeting

4. Notification of participants of observational presence: ____

5. Diagram of attendees:

6. Begin recording and start verbatim/summary process of note-taking:
0 minute: _____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Observation commentary: ________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

5 minutes: _____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Observation commentary: ________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

212

10 minute: ____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Observation commentary: ________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

(continues to do so for 60 minutes)

7. Conclusion
Summary of experience of observing: _______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

213

Appendix D
Evaluation Instrument: Level 1 and Level 2
Level 1
Engagement
1. (Observed by the instructor) The student showed consistent engagement with the material
presented in the workshop as evidenced by having consistent eye contact with the instructor.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

2. (Observed by the instructor) The student showed consistent engagement with the material
presented in the workshop as evidenced by him/her asking appropriate questions on topic
without monopolizing the conversation.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

3. (Observed by the instructor) The student showed consistent engagement with the material
presented in the workshop as evidenced by keeping his/her cell phone turned off.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

Relevance
4. (Brief check-in) My level of satisfaction with the relevance of the online (asynchronous)
material presented so far in the course is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied

5. (Brief check-in) My level of satisfaction with the relevance of the material presented so far in
the hybrid workshops (synchronous) is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied
with participants via survey (online) and discussion (ongoing)

6. (Course evaluation) My level of satisfaction with the relevance of the online (asynchronous)
material presented in this course is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied

7. (Course evaluation) My level of satisfaction with the relevance of the material presented in the
hybrid workshops (synchronous) is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied

Customer Satisfaction
8. (Brief check-in) My level of satisfaction with the quality of the online (asynchronous) material
presented so far in the course is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied
214

9. (Brief check-in) My level of satisfaction with the quality of the material presented so far in the
hybrid workshops (synchronous) is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied

10. (Course evaluation) My level of satisfaction with the quality of the online (asynchronous)
material presented in this course is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied

11. (Course evaluation) My level of satisfaction with the quality of the material presented in the
hybrid workshops (synchronous) is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied

Level 2
Declarative
12. My understanding of the material presented in the asynchronous module just completed is
best described as follows:
A. Completely understood B. Partially understood C. Barely understood D. Not understood

Procedural
13. My understanding of the feedback from peers during group sharing time is best described as
follows:
A. Completely understood B. Partially understood C. Barely understood D. Not understood

Attitude
14. My attitude about the importance of understanding environments of constant change and
innovation is best described as follows:
A. Positive attitude B. Moderately positive attitude C. Moderately negative attitude D.
Negative attitude

Confidence
15. My level of confidence after the peer/instructor discussions held following practice and
feedback is best described as follows:
A. Highly confident B. Moderately confident C. Low level of confidence D. Not confident

Commitment
16. The likelihood that I will create an individual action plan to implement the lessons learned
from the hybrid and asynchronous training components is best described as:
A. Highly likely B. Moderately likely C. Low level of likelihood D. Not likely

215

Appendix E
Evaluation Instrument: Levels 1, 2, 3, & 4
Level 1
Engagement
1. (Observed by the instructor) The student showed consistent engagement with the material
presented in the workshop as determined by the instructor.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

Relevance
2. (Course evaluation) My level of satisfaction with the relevance of the material presented in
both online and hybrid trainings is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied

Customer Satisfaction
3. (Course evaluation) My level of satisfaction with the quality of both the online (asynchronous)
and hybrid trainings is best described as follows:
A. Highly satisfied B. Moderately satisfied C. Moderately unsatisfied D. Highly
unsatisfied

Level 2
Declarative
4. My understanding of the material presented in both the asynchronous and hybrid trainings is
best described as follows:
A. Completely understood B. Partially understood C. Barely understood D. Not understood

Procedural
5. My understanding of the feedback from peers during group sharing time is best described as
follows:
A. Completely understood B. Partially understood C. Barely understood D. Not understood

Attitude
6. My attitude about the importance of understanding environments of constant change and
innovation is best described as follows:
A. Positive attitude B. Moderately positive attitude C. Moderately negative attitude D.
Negative attitude

Confidence
7. My level of confidence in my ability to implement the feedback from peers/instructors
received throughout the training is best described as follows:
A. Highly confident B. Moderately confident C. Low level of confidence D. Not confident

Commitment
216

8. The likelihood that I will create an individual action plan to implement the lessons learned
from the hybrid and asynchronous training components is best described as:
A. Highly likely B. Moderately likely C. Low level of likelihood D. Not likely

Level 3
9. The training provided helped me master common and consistent aspects associated with the
introduction of new initiatives, including budgeting, team-building, technology, student
engagement, running effective meetings, and the development of goals, objectives, and learning
outcomes
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

10. I received appropriate information on the processes of change occurring in my work
environment and the need for change, despite its short-term difficulties.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

11. I received appropriate information on practical self-care activities that I can repeat as my
schedule permits to help reduce my stress and maintain my sense of identity.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

12. I received training and education to advance my appreciation and acknowledgement of the
challenges and benefits of teaching on-ground and online.
Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

Level 4
13. The training program increased faculty members’ levels of confidence and satisfaction in
their work.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

14. Introducing incentives to reward faculty members for creating revenue-producing programs
proved to be an effective way to increase innovation.
A. Strongly agree B. Moderately agree C. Moderately disagree D. Strongly disagree

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This mixed methods study examined the pace of change at the Prism School of Social Science to help future leaders create successful change environments for faculty that value innovation and seek to establish healthy workplace environments. The research questions for this study explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influenced the success of Prism organizational change efforts. The research methods included a 50-question survey for all full-time faculty members, 12 interviews with volunteer faculty from a variety of roles, a document review, and an observation. This researcher gained approval through school leadership, the school’s research council, and the university’s Institutional Review Board. ❧ The data analysis produced 10 themes: three addressing knowledge gaps, two addressing motivation gaps, and five addressing organizational gaps. The themes were: 1) training faculty on change

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

The dearth of learner-centered teaching methods in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Implementing organizational change in a medical school

PDF

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Higher education faculty and reflective practice

PDF

Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition

PDF

Supporting teachers' mental health: an evaluation study

PDF

Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Mentorship challenges for occupational therapy clinicians transitioning into academia: an innovation study

PDF

Using digital marketing to reach students in graduate school admissions: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Cox, Tory Lynn (author)

Core Title Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/11/2018

Defense Date 03/21/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag change overload,change readiness,constant change,edge of chaos,equilibrium,faculty,growth opportunities,healthy workplace environments,Higher education,homeostasis,innovation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,overlapping change,pace of change,repetitive change syndrome,Research 1 institution,resistance to change,successful change

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maddox, Anthony Bernard (committee chair), Alvarez, Michelle (committee member), Islam, Nadia (committee member)

Creator Email deetor@prodigy.net,torycox@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-12089

Unique identifier UC11671611

Identifier etd-CoxToryLyn-6217.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-12089 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CoxToryLyn-6217.pdf

Dmrecord 12089

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cox, Tory Lynn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA